Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2021.02.02 Agenda Packet - Regular Meeting City Council Agenda Tuesday, February 2, 2021 Study Session 5:30 PM Regular Meeting 6:30 PM PUBLIC ADVISORY: Consistent with the Governor’s latest Executive Order to Stay at Home, avoid gatherings and maintain social distancing, the regular meeting portion of the agenda will be conducted telephonically and Members of the City Council and staff will be participating via Teleconference. There will be no physical meeting location for the regular meeting. How to Observe the Meeting: To maximize public safety while still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can observe the meeting by calling +1 (415) 655-0052, Attendee Access Code: 316- 676-135 or by visiting https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/658959721394450444. How to Submit Public Comment: Members of the public may provide public comment by sending written comments to the City Clerk by email at cityclerk@DiamondBarCA.gov by 5:30 p.m. on the day of the meeting. Please indicate in the Subject Line “FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.” Written comments will be distributed to the Council Members and read into the record at the meeting, up to a maximum of five minutes. Alternatively, public comment may be submitted by logging onto the meeting through this link: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/658959721394450444. Members of the public will be called upon one at a time during the Public Comment portion of the agenda, and will be asked to state their name and agenda item they wish to comment on. Speakers are limited to five minutes per agenda item, unless the Mayor determines otherwise. American Disability Act Accommodations: Pursuant to the Executive Order, and in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in the Council Meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office (909) 839-7010 within 72 hours of the meeting. City Council video recordings with transcription will be available upon request the day following the Council Meeting. The City of Diamond Bar thanks you in advance for taking all precautions to prevent spreading the COVID-19 virus. ANDREW CHOU Council Member STAN LIU Council Member STEVE TYE Council Member NANCY A. LYONS Mayor RUTH M. LOW Mayor Pro Tem City Manager Dan Fox • City Attorney David DeBerry • City Clerk Kristina Santana DIAMOND BAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING RULES Welcome to the meeting of the Diamond Bar City Council. Meetings are open to the public and are broadcast on Spectrum Cable Channel 3 and Frontier FiOS television Channel 47. You are invited to attend and participate. Copies of staff reports or other written documentation relating to agenda items are on file and available for public inspection by contacting the Office of the City Clerk. If requested, the agenda will be made available in an alternative format to a person with disability as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. If you have questions regarding an agenda item, please contact the City Clerk at (909) 839-7010 during regular business hours. PUBLIC INPUT Members of the public may address the Council on any item of business on the agenda during the time the item is taken up by the Council. In addition, members of the public may, during the Public Comment period address the Council on any Consent Calendar item or any matter not on the agenda and within the Council’s subject matter jurisdiction. Any material to be submitted to the City Council at the meeting should be submitted through the City Clerk. Speakers are limited to five minutes per agenda item, unless the Mayor determines otherwise. The Mayor may adjust this time limit depending on the number of people wishing to speak, the complexity of the matter, the length of the agenda, the hour and any other relevant consideration. Speakers may address the Council only once on an agenda item, except during public hearings, when the applicant/appellant may be afforded a rebuttal. Public comments must be directed to the City Council. Behavior that disrupts the orderly conduct of the meeting may result in the speaker being removed from the meeting. INFORMATION RELATING TO AGENDAS AND ACTIONS OF THE COUNCIL Agendas for regular City Council meetings are available 72 hours prior to the meeting and are posted in the City’s regular posting locations, on DBTV Channel 3, Spectrum Cable Channel 3, Frontier FiOS television Channel 47 and on the City’s website at www.diamondbarca.gov. The City Council may take action on any item listed on the agenda. HELPFUL PHONE NUMBERS Copies of agendas, rules of the Council, Video of meetings: (909) 839-7010 Computer access to agendas: www.diamondbarca.gov General information: (909) 839-7000 Written materials distributed to the City Council within 72 hours of the City Council meeting are available for public inspection immediately upon distribution in the City Clerk’s Office at 2 1810 Copley Dr., Diamond Bar, California, during normal business hours. THIS MEETING IS BEING VIDEO RECORDED AND BY PARTICIPATING VIA TELECONFERENCE, YOU ARE GIVING YOUR PERMISSION TO BE TELEVISED. THIS MEETING WILL BE RE-BROADCAST EVERY SATURDAY AND SUNDAY AT 9:00 A.M. AND ALTERNATE TUESDAYS AT 8:00 P.M. AND IS ALSO AVAILABLE FOR LIVE VIEWING AT HTTPS://ATTENDEE.GOTOWEBINAR.COM/REGISTER/658959721394450444 AND ARCHIVED VIEWING ON THE CITY’S WEB SITE AT WWW.DIAMONDBARCA.GOV. CITY OF DIAMOND BAR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA February 02, 2021 STUDY SESSION: 5:30 p.m. CONSIDERATION OF TEMPORARY CAP ON COMMISSION FEES CHARGED BY THIRD-PARTY DELIVERY SERVICES PUBLIC COMMENTS CALL TO ORDER: 6:30 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor ROLL CALL: Chou, Liu, Tye, Mayor Pro Tem Low, Mayor Lyons APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Mayor 1. CITY MANAGER REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS: "Public Comments" is the time reserved on each regular meeting agenda to provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the Council on Consent Calendar items or other m atters of interest not on the agenda that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Council. Although the City Council values your comments, pursuant to the Brown Act, members of the City Council or Staff may briefly respond to public comments if necessary, but no extended discussion and no action on such matters may take place. There is a five-minute maximum time limit when addressing the City Council. At this time, the teleconference moderator will ask callers one at a time to give their name and if there is an agenda item number they wish to speak on before providing their FEBRUARY 2, 2021 PAGE 2 comment. If you wish to speak on a public hearing item or council consideration item, you will then be called upon to speak at that point in the agenda. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR: All items listed on the Consent Calendar are considered by the City Council to be routine and will be acted on by a single motion unless a Council Member or member of the public request otherwise, in which case, the item will be removed for separate consideration. 3.1 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 19, 2021 MEETING. 3.1.a January 19, 2021 City Council Minutes Recommended Action: Approve the January 19, 2021 Regular City Council meeting minutes. Requested by: City Clerk 3.2 CITY COUNCIL RECEIPT OF COMMISSION MINUTES. 3.2.a Planning Commission Minutes of December 8, 2020 Recommended Action: Receive and file the Planning Commission meetin g minutes of December 8, 2020. Requested by: City Clerk 3.3 RATIFICATION OF CHECK REGISTER DATED JANUARY 14, 2021 THROUGH JANUARY 27, 2021 TOTALING $ 1,503,147.72. Recommended Action: Ratify the Check Register. Requested by: Finance Department 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS: NONE. 5. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: 5.1 PRESENTATION OF DIGITAL BILLBOARD PROPOSAL BY WALNUT VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT. Recommended Action: Hear presentation and provide direction as deemed appropriate. Requested by: City Manager FEBRUARY 2, 2021 PAGE 3 5.2 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Recommended Action: 1. Adopt Resolution 2021-04 approving and adopting the final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project, and direct City staff to file a Notice of Determination. 2. Approve the Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project. Requested by: Parks & Recreation Department 6. COUNCIL SUB-COMMITTEE REPORTS AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS/COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS: 7. ADJOURNMENT: Agenda #: 1 Meeting Date: February 2, 2021 CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council VIA: Daniel Fox, City Manager FROM: Alfa Lopez, Senior Management Analyst TITLE: CONSIDERATION OF TEMPORARY CAP ON COMMISSION FEES CHARGED BY THIRD-PARTY DELIVERY SERVICES At the January 5, 2021 Regular Meeting of the Diamond Bar City Council, Councilmember Chou provided background information about potential actions to cap third-party food delivery service fees. The City Council unanimously concurred to bring back this item for consideration at a future City Council meeting, and discuss the adoption of a temporary limit on the fees charged to restaurants by third -party food delivery services. BACKGROUND: On March 4, 2020, Governor Newsom proclaimed a state of emergency within the State of California due to the threat posed by Novel Coronavirus (Covid -19). The Los Angeles County Health Officer issued a Declaration of Local Health Emergency due to the introduction of Covid-19 cases to Los Angeles County. Since that time there have been numerous Federal, State and County orders pertaining to restrictions and limitations on businesses, services and activities in an attempt to limit and control the spread of COVID-19. The most recent State order has resulted in the limiting of restaurant food sales to takeout and delivery only. On January 25, 2021, Governor Newsom canceled the Regional Stay Home Order allowing Counties to go back to the State’s Blueprint for a Safer Economy, which includes a four Tier system related to community spread. LA County has, and continues to be, in the Purple Tier 1 (Widespread) which is the most restrictive Tier. Under the State’s Tier 1, restaurants may be allowed to operate outdoors in addition to the previously allowed delivery, take-out and pick-up options. LA County has indicated that they will be following the State’s Tier 1 guidance and will be modifying their health orders to allow restaurant to operate outdoors effective January 29, 2021. 1 Packet Pg. 6 To reduce the spread of COVID-19 and protect public health, Diamond Bar restaurants have been prohibited from offering dine-in service. Restricting restaurants from operating indoor dining has placed a sudden and severe financial strain on many restaurants already operating on thin margins. During these times, local restaurants have relied heavily on third party delivery services to continue their operations and pay as much as thirty percent (30%) or more per order. Small businesses are a source of employment and neighborhood vitality, and maximizing the revenue from takeout and delivery orders, currently the sole source of revenue, would contribute to assisting restaurants to survive this crisis. This report provides information regarding potential actions that the City may implement to support local restaurants severely impacted by the pandemic. ANALYSIS Food delivery platforms were first established in 2014, on the heels of the popular transportation apps, Uber and Lyft, allowing delivery partners to use their own vehicles to pick up food from participating restaurants and deliver it to customers. Customers can use the food delivery applications to find the food they want, order and track the delivery status. Once the order has been paid for, a food delivery worker picks up the order from the restaurant and delivers it to the customer. The customer’s on-file credit card is charged for the order, so there never has to be a financial transaction between the driver and customer. The platform establishes agreements with restaurants to become partners and use their delivery apps to bring in customers and deliver food. The typical fees charged to restaurants may include a menu, commission, marketing, service, and delivery fees, gratuity and taxes. A restaurant typically pays a combination of fees ranging from 30-40% directly to the third-party delivery service. Several Southern California counties and cities have established a temporary limit on the charges imposed by third-party delivery services as a way to support struggling restaurants. The County of Los Angeles approved an ordinance establishing a cap on fees that a food delivery platform may charge to restaurants and requiring fees disclosures be made to customers. Similar ordinances have been adopted by surrounding communities including the cities of Alhambra, Los Angeles, Pasadena and South Pasadena. Outside of Los Angeles County, Hayward became the sixth city since early July to enact legislation limiting third-party delivery services fees, joining Berkley, Freemont, Livermore Oakland and San Leandro. Given the variety of options available, the common approach by public agencies has been to place a 15% cap on delivery fees, and a 20% cap on all other fees inclusive of the delivery fee. This approach appears to be the most consistent with the County of Los Angeles ordinance, and provides the most efficient way of monitoring once implemented. The following are examples of actions taken by Southern California area governments: JURISDICTION TERMS City of Alhambra Fee Limit Prohibitions • Any combination of fees, commissions or costs that total more 1 Packet Pg. 7 than 20% of the purchase price of each online order. Fees, commissions or costs includes a delivery fee. • A delivery fee that totals more than 15% of the purchase price. Reporting of Fees • The third-party food delivery service shall disclose to the customer an accurate, clearly identified, and itemized cost breakdown of each transaction. City of Los Angeles Fee Limit Prohibitions • Delivery fees that total more than 15% of the Purchase price of each online order. • Third-party fees, commissions or other costs greater than 5% for fees, these costs do not include delivery fees. • Food Delivery services provider may not charge a customer any purchase price for a food or beverage item that is higher than the prices set by the retail food establishment on the third-party food delivery service, if no price is set the price listed of the retail food establishment’s own menu shall be used. Tips Unlawful for a third-party food delivery service to retain any portion of amounts designated as a tip or gratuity. City of Pasadena Fee Limit Prohibitions • Delivery fees that total more than 15% of the Purchase price of each online order. • Any combination of fees, commissions or costs that total more than 20% of the purchase price of each online order. Fees, commissions or costs includes a delivery fee. Tips • Unlawful for a third-party food delivery service to retain any portion of amounts designated as a tip or gratuity. Grace Period Allows third-party food delivery services a grace period of 7 days after the ordinance becomes effective. Enforcement Allows for food establishment to seek civil action against third -party delivery services for any violations of the urgency ordinance. Effective Ordinance terminates 90 days after the Pasadena Health Officer allows restaurants to offer dine-in service, without limitations, or upon the terminations of the COVID-19 local emergency, whichever comes first. City of South Pasadena Adopted by reference: County of Los Angeles Ordinance. County of Los Angeles (unincorporated areas) • Any combination of fees, commissions or costs that total more than 20% of the purchase price of each online order. Fees, commissions or costs includes a delivery fee. • Delivery fees that total more than 15% of the Purchase price of each online order. • It shall be unlawful for a food delivery platform to charge a restaurant a deliver fee for an online order that does not involve the delivery of food. Tips • Unlawful for a third-party food delivery service to reduce the 1 Packet Pg. 8 compensation, including any tip or gratuity paid to any worker as a result of the prohibitions. Reporting of Fees A food delivery platform shall disclose to the customer an accurate, clearly defined, and itemized cost breakdown for each and every online order. SURVEYS The agreements entered by restaurants and delivery services are considered confidential by nature. Mainly due to this fact, the City of Diamond Bar conducted an anonymous survey to collect feedback on restaurant use of third-party delivery services. The survey was emailed to 52 food establishments with email addresses on file with the City, with a total of 14 respondents. The individual survey responses are attached for reference and summarized as follows: • 86% of respondents utilize a third-party delivery service. • Services utilized include DoorDash, GrubHub, Postmates, Seamless, and UberEats. • Commission fees paid by the restaurant to the service provider ranged from 30- 40%. • 71% of respondents support a temporary cap on commissions paid to third party service providers. The survey allowed restaurants to provide any additional feedback for consideration, the following comments were shared in the survey: • “We appreciate the help. Times are rough. Restaurant profit margins are anywhere from 0-15%. Its not a viable business model to be paying 30% commissions.” • “Thank you for keeping us in mind.” • “Customer pick up 3% Delivery 10% Plz”. • “Thanks for your input and concern about local business.” • “It is the great support from the city to collect the hardship from the disaster.” • “My fees have been a combination of commission, marketing, and delivery. Initially, there was and one-time start-up fee.” • “Hope you can get this up and running as quickly as la county and sf county did. We are in la county. This should have already taken place.” A similar survey was conducted by the City of Pasadena in July 2020 with similar results generally in favor of placing a cap of food delivery fees. The survey was emailed out to all food establishments in Pasadena, with 66 respondents summarized as follows: • 89% of respondents utilize a third-party delivery service. • Services utilized include DoorDash, GrubHub, and Postmates. • Majority of respondents pay commission fees between 25-30%. • 92% of respondents support a temporary cap on commissions paid to third party 1 Packet Pg. 9 service providers. RECENT LEGISLATION On January 21, 2021, California State Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez announced new legislation, Assembly Bill 286 (AB286), to create statewide rules that “protect struggling businesses against food delivery companies”. AB 286 follows the recent local ordinances passed in Los Angeles, San Francisco and other cities in California by capping fees charged to restaurants at 15 percent. This item has not progressed since introduction in the Assembly. NEXT STEPS The following options are available for Council consideration and direction to staff : A. Provide direction for staff to prepare an Ordinance for Council consideration at the next Council meeting on February 16, 2021 based on the LA Cou nty Ordinance; or B. Take no further action on this matter at this time. Attachments: 1. 1.a City of Los Angeles Ordinance 2. 1.b O2M20-4781-Third Party Delivery Services-Alhambra 3. 1.c Third Party Food Delivery Services Survey 4. 1.d PPT Study Session-Third Party Delivery Services 1 Packet Pg. 10 1 Posted: 12-21-20 Effective: 12-17-20 ORDINANCE NO. O2M20-4781 AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALHAMBRA TO ESTABLISH A TEMPORARY LIMIT ON THE CHARGES IMPOSED BY THIRD-PARTY DELIVERY SERVICES ON RETAIL FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS DURING THE COVID-19 EPIDEMIC AND FOR 90 DAYS AFTER THE COUNTY/STATE ORDER PROHIBITING ON- PREMISES DINING IS LIFTED WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom proclaimed a state of emergency within the State of California ("State") due to the threat posed by Novel Coronavirus ("COVID-19"); WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, the Los Angeles County Health Officer issued a Declaration of Local Health Emergency due to the introduction of COVID-19 cases to Los Angeles County; WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors ("Board") concurred and issued a Proclamation ("Proclamation") declaring a local emergency within the County of Los Angeles regarding the imminent spread of COVID-19; WHEREAS, on March 19, 2020 Governor Newsom issued an Executive Order that requires all persons to remain at home to the extent possible and requires all non-essential businesses to be closed; WHEREAS, on March 21, 2020 the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health issued a clarifying Safer at Home order, requiring all persons to remain at home to the extent possible, unless engaged in essential businesses; WHEREAS, the Governor issued an order establishing tiers that allowed counties to gradually re-open businesses, services and venues over time through a reduction in transmission rates; WHEREAS, in light of worsening numbers, the Governor issued a subsequent order dividing the State into five regions, and dramatically limited businesses, services and activities based upon available intensive care hospital space; WHEREAS, restaurants have been limited to only providing takeout and delivery service through at least the end of December and possibly longer under the State order. Restricting restaurants to takeout and delivery offerings only has placed a sudden and severe financial strain on many restaurants, particularly those that are small businesses that already operate on thin margins, adding to financial pressures. Further, the cost of acquiring ingredients and supplies has also increased because of the COVID-19 crisis; WHEREAS, many consumers and retail food establishments use third-party food delivery services and due to the high fees imposed by third-party food delivery services (ranging from 12 1.a Packet Pg. 11 2 to 30 percent), must increase food prices to stay in business. Residents who rely on food delivery may not be able to absorb increased food prices. Also, some retail food establishments being charged high fees struggle to remain financially viable. Restaurants, particularly restaurants that are small businesses with few locations, have limited bargaining power to negotiate lower fees with third-party food delivery services given the high market saturation of third-party food delivery services and the dire financial straits small business restaurants are facing in the COVID-19 crisis. If these retail food establishments close, their workers will lose employment, which affects their ability to feed and shelter their families; WHEREAS, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health has issued an order prohibiting dine-in and outdoor dining at restaurants, which order was overturned, but is still subject to appeal by Los Angeles County. If successfully appealed, that order would again prohibit any dining at restaurants once the State order is lifted; WHEREAS, California Government Code section 8630 et seq. authorize the City to declare a local emergency, which the City Council did at an emergency meeting on March 16, 2020; WHEREAS, California Government Code sections 8634, 36934 and 36937 authorize the City Council to take action by ordinance to take effect immediately for the preservation of the public peace, health or safety when adopted by a four-fifths vote of the City Council; WHEREAS, during this period when dining is restricted, for the reasons set forth above it is in the interest of protecting the public health and safety to limit third-party food delivery services and to do so immediately, given the strains on restaurants and customers, as well as the likelihood that dining limitations are likely to extend beyond the time that many restaurants can remain in business. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALHAMBRA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Definitions: a. “Covered establishment” means a retail food establishment that offers, in a single commercial transaction over the internet, whether directly or through third-party food delivery services, the sale and same-day delivery of food to customers from one or more retail locations within the City. b. "Customer" means any person, firm, or association who makes use of a third-party food delivery service for the purpose of obtaining food from a retail food establishment. c. "Delivery fee" means a fee charged by a third-party food delivery service for providing a retail food establishment with a service that delivers food from such establishment to customers. The term does not include any other fee that may be charged by a third-party food delivery service to a food service establishment, such as fees for listing or advertising the food service establishment on the third-party food delivery service platform or fees related to processing the online order, including but not limited to, service fees, fees for facilitating customer pick-up, and credit card processing fees. 1.a Packet Pg. 12 3 d. "Food" means all articles and substances used for food and drink, confectionary or condiment whether simple or compound, and all ingredients and components used in the preparation thereof. e. "Online order" means any order placed by a customer through or with the assistance of a platform provided by a third-party food delivery service, including a telephone order. f. "Purchase price" means the total price of the items contained in an online order that are listed on the menu of the retail food establishment where such order is placed. Such term does not include taxes, gratuities and any other fees that may make up the total cost to the customer of an online order. g. "Retail food establishment" means and includes any restaurant, delicatessen, bakery, coffee shop, or other eat-in or carry-out service of processed or prepared raw and ready-to-eat food or beverages. h. "Third-party food delivery service" means any website, mobile application or other internet service that offers or arranges for the sale of food and beverages prepared by, and the same-day delivery or sameday pickup of food and beverages from, no fewer than 20 food service establishments located in the city that are owned and operated by different persons. i. "Worker" means any person working for a third-party food delivery service. SECTION 2. Fee Limits. It shall be unlawful for a third-party food delivery service to charge a covered establishment: a. Any combination of fees, commissions or costs that total more than 20 percent of the purchase price of each online order. Fees, commissions or costs includes a delivery fee. b. A delivery fee that totals more than 15 percent of the purchase price of an online order; c. Any fee, commission, or cost other than as permitted in subdivisions (a) and (b), above. SECTION 3. Reporting of Fees. The third-party food delivery service shall disclose to the customer an accurate, clearly identified, and itemized cost breakdown of each transaction, including, but not limited to, the following: a. The purchase price of the food and beverages at the cost listed on the covered establishment's menu; b. Each and every fee, commission, or cost charged to the covered establishment, including any delivery fee. c. Each and every fee, commission, or cost charged to the customer by the third-party food delivery service; and d. Any tip or gratuity that will be paid to the person delivering the food or beverages. 1.a Packet Pg. 13 4 e. None of the fees, commissions, or costs in subdivisions (a) through (d) above, may be combined together. SECTION 4. Protection of Gratuities. It shall be unlawful for a third-party food delivery service to reduce the compensation, including any tip or gratuity, paid to any workers as a result of the prohibitions in this Ordinance. Any tip or gratuity shall be paid by the third-party food delivery service, in its entirety, to the person delivering the food or beverages. SECTION 5. Grace Period. A third-party food delivery service shall not be found in violation of this Ordinance for the first seven days after its effective date, if it imposes a fee in excess of the fee limit in Section 2, provided it refunds the excess fee to the covered establishment no later than 14 days after the effective date of this Ordinance. SECTION 6. Penalties and Enforcement. a. In addition to any existing legal remedies, if a third-party food delivery service charges a covered establishment fees that violate this Ordinance, the covered establishment shall provide written notice to the third-party food delivery service requesting a refund within seven days. If the third- party food delivery service does not provide the refund requested after seven days or the third- party food delivery service continues to charge fees in violation of this Ordinance after the initial notice and seven-day cure period, a covered establishment may enforce this Ordinance by means of a civil action seeking damages and injunctive relief. The prevailing party in any such action shall be entitled to an award of reasonable attorney fees. b. Violations under this Ordinance shall accrue on a daily basis for each day and for each covered establishment charged a fee in violation of this Sixth Supplement. c. Notwithstanding any provision of this Ordinance, or any other ordinance to the contrary, no criminal penalties shall attach for violation of this Ordinance. SECTION 7. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately, and shall terminate 90 days after the County and State allow restaurants to offer dine-in service, without limitation, or upon the termination of the COVID-19 local emergency, whichever comes first. If the restrictions are lifted, but then reimposed within such 90 day period, this Ordinance shall remain in effect until a full 90 days without restrictions have transpired. SECTION 8. If any provision of this Ordinance is found to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, that invalidity shall not affect the remaining provisions of this Ordinance which can be implemented without the invalid provisions, and to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are declared to be severable. This Ordinance would have been adopted and each provision thereof irrespective of whether any one or more provisions are found invalid, unconstitutional or otherwise unenforceable. SECTION 9. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this ordinance and shall cause this ordinance to be published by title and summary in the manner required by law. 1.a Packet Pg. 14 5 SECTION 10. For the reasons set forth above in the recitals, this Ordinance is an urgency ordinance and shall take effect immediately upon adoption by a 4/5 vote of the City Council, due to the immediate need to protect the public health, safety and welfare. Signed and approved this 17th day of December, 2020. _/s/ Sasha Renée Pérez ________________ Sasha Renée Pérez, Mayor Attest: _/s/ Lauren Myles___________________ Lauren Myles, City Clerk I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing ordinance was adopted by the City Council of the City of Alhambra at its meeting held on the 17th day of December, 2020 by the following vote: AYES: LEE, MAZA, MALONEY, ANDRADE-STADLER, PÉREZ NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE __/s/ Lauren Myles_______________ Lauren Myles, City Clerk LA #4810-5420-9236 v1 1.a Packet Pg. 15 1 Posted: 12-21-20 Effective: 12-17-20 ORDINANCE NO. O2M20-4781 AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALHAMBRA TO ESTABLISH A TEMPORARY LIMIT ON THE CHARGES IMPOSED BY THIRD-PARTY DELIVERY SERVICES ON RETAIL FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS DURING THE COVID-19 EPIDEMIC AND FOR 90 DAYS AFTER THE COUNTY/STATE ORDER PROHIBITING ON- PREMISES DINING IS LIFTED WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom proclaimed a state of emergency within the State of California ("State") due to the threat posed by Novel Coronavirus ("COVID-19"); WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, the Los Angeles County Health Officer issued a Declaration of Local Health Emergency due to the introduction of COVID-19 cases to Los Angeles County; WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors ("Board") concurred and issued a Proclamation ("Proclamation") declaring a local emergency within the County of Los Angeles regarding the imminent spread of COVID-19; WHEREAS, on March 19, 2020 Governor Newsom issued an Executive Order that requires all persons to remain at home to the extent possible and requires all non-essential businesses to be closed; WHEREAS, on March 21, 2020 the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health issued a clarifying Safer at Home order, requiring all persons to remain at home to the extent possible, unless engaged in essential businesses; WHEREAS, the Governor issued an order establishing tiers that allowed counties to gradually re-open businesses, services and venues over time through a reduction in transmission rates; WHEREAS, in light of worsening numbers, the Governor issued a subsequent order dividing the State into five regions, and dramatically limited businesses, services and activities based upon available intensive care hospital space; WHEREAS, restaurants have been limited to only providing takeout and delivery service through at least the end of December and possibly longer under the State order. Restricting restaurants to takeout and delivery offerings only has placed a sudden and severe financial strain on many restaurants, particularly those that are small businesses that already operate on thin margins, adding to financial pressures. Further, the cost of acquiring ingredients and supplies has also increased because of the COVID-19 crisis; WHEREAS, many consumers and retail food establishments use third-party food delivery services and due to the high fees imposed by third-party food delivery services (ranging from 12 1.b Packet Pg. 16 2 to 30 percent), must increase food prices to stay in business. Residents who rely on food delivery may not be able to absorb increased food prices. Also, some retail food establishments being charged high fees struggle to remain financially viable. Restaurants, particularly restaurants that are small businesses with few locations, have limited bargaining power to negotiate lower fees with third-party food delivery services given the high market saturation of third-party food delivery services and the dire financial straits small business restaurants are facing in the COVID-19 crisis. If these retail food establishments close, their workers will lose employment, which affects their ability to feed and shelter their families; WHEREAS, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health has issued an order prohibiting dine-in and outdoor dining at restaurants, which order was overturned, but is still subject to appeal by Los Angeles County. If successfully appealed, that order would again prohibit any dining at restaurants once the State order is lifted; WHEREAS, California Government Code section 8630 et seq. authorize the City to declare a local emergency, which the City Council did at an emergency meeting on March 16, 2020; WHEREAS, California Government Code sections 8634, 36934 and 36937 authorize the City Council to take action by ordinance to take effect immediately for the preservation of the public peace, health or safety when adopted by a four-fifths vote of the City Council; WHEREAS, during this period when dining is restricted, for the reasons set forth above it is in the interest of protecting the public health and safety to limit third-party food delivery services and to do so immediately, given the strains on restaurants and customers, as well as the likelihood that dining limitations are likely to extend beyond the time that many restaurants can remain in business. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALHAMBRA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Definitions: a. “Covered establishment” means a retail food establishment that offers, in a single commercial transaction over the internet, whether directly or through third-party food delivery services, the sale and same-day delivery of food to customers from one or more retail locations within the City. b. "Customer" means any person, firm, or association who makes use of a third-party food delivery service for the purpose of obtaining food from a retail food establishment. c. "Delivery fee" means a fee charged by a third-party food delivery service for providing a retail food establishment with a service that delivers food from such establishment to customers. The term does not include any other fee that may be charged by a third-party food delivery service to a food service establishment, such as fees for listing or advertising the food service establishment on the third-party food delivery service platform or fees related to processing the online order, including but not limited to, service fees, fees for facilitating customer pick-up, and credit card processing fees. 1.b Packet Pg. 17 3 d. "Food" means all articles and substances used for food and drink, confectionary or condiment whether simple or compound, and all ingredients and components used in the preparation thereof. e. "Online order" means any order placed by a customer through or with the assistance of a platform provided by a third-party food delivery service, including a telephone order. f. "Purchase price" means the total price of the items contained in an online order that are listed on the menu of the retail food establishment where such order is placed. Such term does not include taxes, gratuities and any other fees that may make up the total cost to the customer of an online order. g. "Retail food establishment" means and includes any restaurant, delicatessen, bakery, coffee shop, or other eat-in or carry-out service of processed or prepared raw and ready-to-eat food or beverages. h. "Third-party food delivery service" means any website, mobile application or other internet service that offers or arranges for the sale of food and beverages prepared by, and the same-day delivery or sameday pickup of food and beverages from, no fewer than 20 food service establishments located in the city that are owned and operated by different persons. i. "Worker" means any person working for a third-party food delivery service. SECTION 2. Fee Limits. It shall be unlawful for a third-party food delivery service to charge a covered establishment: a. Any combination of fees, commissions or costs that total more than 20 percent of the purchase price of each online order. Fees, commissions or costs includes a delivery fee. b. A delivery fee that totals more than 15 percent of the purchase price of an online order; c. Any fee, commission, or cost other than as permitted in subdivisions (a) and (b), above. SECTION 3. Reporting of Fees. The third-party food delivery service shall disclose to the customer an accurate, clearly identified, and itemized cost breakdown of each transaction, including, but not limited to, the following: a. The purchase price of the food and beverages at the cost listed on the covered establishment's menu; b. Each and every fee, commission, or cost charged to the covered establishment, including any delivery fee. c. Each and every fee, commission, or cost charged to the customer by the third-party food delivery service; and d. Any tip or gratuity that will be paid to the person delivering the food or beverages. 1.b Packet Pg. 18 4 e. None of the fees, commissions, or costs in subdivisions (a) through (d) above, may be combined together. SECTION 4. Protection of Gratuities. It shall be unlawful for a third-party food delivery service to reduce the compensation, including any tip or gratuity, paid to any workers as a result of the prohibitions in this Ordinance. Any tip or gratuity shall be paid by the third-party food delivery service, in its entirety, to the person delivering the food or beverages. SECTION 5. Grace Period. A third-party food delivery service shall not be found in violation of this Ordinance for the first seven days after its effective date, if it imposes a fee in excess of the fee limit in Section 2, provided it refunds the excess fee to the covered establishment no later than 14 days after the effective date of this Ordinance. SECTION 6. Penalties and Enforcement. a. In addition to any existing legal remedies, if a third-party food delivery service charges a covered establishment fees that violate this Ordinance, the covered establishment shall provide written notice to the third-party food delivery service requesting a refund within seven days. If the third- party food delivery service does not provide the refund requested after seven days or the third- party food delivery service continues to charge fees in violation of this Ordinance after the initial notice and seven-day cure period, a covered establishment may enforce this Ordinance by means of a civil action seeking damages and injunctive relief. The prevailing party in any such action shall be entitled to an award of reasonable attorney fees. b. Violations under this Ordinance shall accrue on a daily basis for each day and for each covered establishment charged a fee in violation of this Sixth Supplement. c. Notwithstanding any provision of this Ordinance, or any other ordinance to the contrary, no criminal penalties shall attach for violation of this Ordinance. SECTION 7. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately, and shall terminate 90 days after the County and State allow restaurants to offer dine-in service, without limitation, or upon the termination of the COVID-19 local emergency, whichever comes first. If the restrictions are lifted, but then reimposed within such 90 day period, this Ordinance shall remain in effect until a full 90 days without restrictions have transpired. SECTION 8. If any provision of this Ordinance is found to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, that invalidity shall not affect the remaining provisions of this Ordinance which can be implemented without the invalid provisions, and to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are declared to be severable. This Ordinance would have been adopted and each provision thereof irrespective of whether any one or more provisions are found invalid, unconstitutional or otherwise unenforceable. SECTION 9. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this ordinance and shall cause this ordinance to be published by title and summary in the manner required by law. 1.b Packet Pg. 19 5 SECTION 10. For the reasons set forth above in the recitals, this Ordinance is an urgency ordinance and shall take effect immediately upon adoption by a 4/5 vote of the City Council, due to the immediate need to protect the public health, safety and welfare. Signed and approved this 17th day of December, 2020. _/s/ Sasha Renée Pérez ________________ Sasha Renée Pérez, Mayor Attest: _/s/ Lauren Myles___________________ Lauren Myles, City Clerk I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing ordinance was adopted by the City Council of the City of Alhambra at its meeting held on the 17th day of December, 2020 by the following vote: AYES: LEE, MAZA, MALONEY, ANDRADE-STADLER, PÉREZ NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE __/s/ Lauren Myles_______________ Lauren Myles, City Clerk LA #4810-5420-9236 v1 1.b Packet Pg. 20 Third-Party Food D elivery Servic es 1 / 26 Q1 Do you currently use a third-party food deliv ery s ervic e? Yes Q2 Which third-party food deliv ery s ervic es do you c urrently us e? Uber Eats, Door Dash, Grub Hub, PostMates Q3 Please share with us the delivery fees paid to the third- party food delivery serv ice provider. Other (please s pec ify ): all abov e 30% Q4 What ty pe of other fees are y ou c urrently paying for third party delivery serv ices ? Service Fee Q5 What are the total fees paid to third-party delivery serv ices , inc luding the deliv ery fee and other fees? Respondent skipped this question Q6 Would a cap on third-party delivery service fees help the ec onom ic v iability of y our restaurant during COVID-19 res tric tions? Yes Q7 What would be a reas onable cap on s uch delivery fees ? 15% #1#1 COMPLETECOMPLETE Col lector:Col lector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link )(Web Link ) Started:Started: Tues day, J anuary 12, 2021 4:46:14 PMTuesday, J anuary 12, 2021 4:46:14 PM Last Modified:Last Modified: Tues day, J anuary 12, 2021 4:47:24 PMTuesday, J anuary 12, 2021 4:47:24 PM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:01:0900:01:09 IP Address:IP Address: 174.243.182.9174.243.182.9 Page 1: Thi rd-Party D elivery Services 1.c Packet Pg. 21 Third-Party Food D elivery Servic es 2 / 26 Q8 Please prov ide any feedbac k related to this surv ey. Respondent skipped this question 1.c Packet Pg. 22 Third-Party Food D elivery Servic es 3 / 26 Q1 Do you currently use a third-party food deliv ery s ervic e? Yes Q2 Which third-party food deliv ery s ervic es do you c urrently us e? Uber Eats, Door Dash, PostMates Q3 Please share with us the delivery fees paid to the third- party food delivery serv ice provider. 20-30% Q4 What ty pe of other fees are y ou c urrently paying for third party delivery serv ices ? High Credit card fees Other (please s pec ify ): Q5 What are the total fees paid to third-party delivery serv ices , including the delivery fee and other fees ? 30++ Q6 Would a cap on third-party delivery service fees help the ec onom ic v iability of y our restaurant during COVID-19 res tric tions? Yes Q7 What would be a reas onable cap on s uch delivery fees ? 10% #2#2 COMPLETECOMPLETE Col lector:Col lector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link )(Web Link ) Started:Started: Tues day, J anuary 12, 2021 5:44:32 PMTuesday, J anuary 12, 2021 5:44:32 PM Last Modified:Last Modified: Tues day, J anuary 12, 2021 5:48:50 PMTuesday, J anuary 12, 2021 5:48:50 PM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:04:1800:04:18 IP Address:IP Address: 172.58.28.253172.58.28.253 Page 1: Thi rd-Party D elivery Services 1.c Packet Pg. 23 Third-Party Food D elivery Servic es 4 / 26 Q8 Please prov ide any feedbac k related to this surv ey. Hope y ou can get this up and running as quickly as la c ount and s f county did. We are in la county. This s hould have already tak en place. 1.c Packet Pg. 24 Third-Party Food D elivery Servic es 5 / 26 Q1 Do you currently use a third-party food deliv ery s ervic e? Yes Q2 Which third-party food deliv ery s ervic es do you c urrently us e? Grub Hub, PostMates Q3 Please share with us the delivery fees paid to the third- party food delivery serv ice provider. Other (please s pec ify ): 28% Q4 What ty pe of other fees are y ou c urrently paying for third party delivery serv ices ? Commission Fee Q5 What are the total fees paid to third-party delivery serv ices , including the delivery fee and other fees ? 28% Q6 Would a cap on third-party delivery service fees help the ec onom ic v iability of y our restaurant during COVID-19 res tric tions? Yes Q7 What would be a reas onable cap on s uch delivery fees ? 10-12% #3#3 COMPLETECOMPLETE Col lector:Col lector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link )(Web Link ) Started:Started: Tues day, J anuary 12, 2021 5:58:06 PMTuesday, J anuary 12, 2021 5:58:06 PM Last Modified:Last Modified: Tues day, J anuary 12, 2021 6:14:57 PMTuesday, J anuary 12, 2021 6:14:57 PM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:16:5100:16:51 IP Address:IP Address: 47.147.1.12847.147.1.128 Page 1: Thi rd-Party D elivery Services 1.c Packet Pg. 25 Third-Party Food D elivery Servic es 6 / 26 Q8 Please prov ide any feedbac k related to this surv ey. My fees have been a combination of c ommission, mark eting, and deliv ery. Initially, there was an one-time start-up fee. 1.c Packet Pg. 26 Third-Party Food D elivery Servic es 7 / 26 Q1 Do you currently use a third-party food deliv ery s ervic e? Yes Q2 Which third-party food deliv ery s ervic es do you c urrently us e? Uber Eats, Door Dash, Grub Hub, PostMates Q3 Please share with us the delivery fees paid to the third- party food delivery serv ice provider. 20-30% Q4 What ty pe of other fees are y ou c urrently paying for third party delivery serv ices ? Commission Fee Q5 What are the total fees paid to third-party delivery serv ices , inc luding the deliv ery fee and other fees? Respondent skipped this question Q6 Would a cap on third-party delivery service fees help the ec onom ic v iability of y our restaurant during COVID-19 res tric tions? Yes Q7 What would be a reas onable cap on s uch delivery fees ? 15% #4#4 COMPLETECOMPLETE Col lector:Col lector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link )(Web Link ) Started:Started: Tues day, J anuary 12, 2021 7:02:04 PMTuesday, J anuary 12, 2021 7:02:04 PM Last Modified:Last Modified: Tues day, J anuary 12, 2021 7:05:16 PMTuesday, J anuary 12, 2021 7:05:16 PM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:03:1200:03:12 IP Address:IP Address: 72.211.216.10372.211.216.103 Page 1: Thi rd-Party D elivery Services 1.c Packet Pg. 27 Third-Party Food D elivery Servic es 8 / 26 Q8 Please prov ide any feedbac k related to this surv ey. Respondent skipped this question 1.c Packet Pg. 28 Third-Party Food D elivery Servic es 9 / 26 Q1 Do you currently use a third-party food deliv ery s ervic e? No, If No Apps are currently utilized, pleas e share why : They are charging too muc h from total cos t of food. Let say, if food c ost is $10 and then they will c harge to res taurant clos e to $3. If it is s o, there will be not enough profit to run the business. And s ame-time, I believ e they als o charge to cus t omer as well. For example, some of res t aurant, their cos t already s et high it might be little better but s ome plac e’s c ost already t oo low, we can not us e deliv ery serv ice to pay high amt of share. Q2 Which third-party food deliv ery s ervic es do you c urrently us e? Other (please s pec ify ): None Q3 Please share with us the delivery fees paid to the third- party food delivery serv ice provider. 20-30% Q4 What ty pe of other fees are y ou c urrently paying for third party delivery serv ices ? Service Fee Q5 What are the total fees paid to third-party delivery serv ices , including the delivery fee and other fees ? 30% + Q6 Would a cap on third-party delivery service fees help the ec onom ic v iability of y our restaurant during COVID-19 res tric tions? No #5#5 COMPLETECOMPLETE Col lector:Col lector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link )(Web Link ) Started:Started: Tues day, J anuary 12, 2021 6:52:06 PMTuesday, J anuary 12, 2021 6:52:06 PM Last Modified:Last Modified: Tues day, J anuary 12, 2021 7:09:16 PMTuesday, J anuary 12, 2021 7:09:16 PM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:17:0900:17:09 IP Address:IP Address: 47.138.107.8647.138.107.86 Page 1: Thi rd-Party D elivery Services 1.c Packet Pg. 29 Third-Party Food D elivery Servic es 10 / 26 Q7 What would be a reas onable cap on s uch delivery fees ? 15% or less Q8 Please prov ide any feedbac k related to this surv ey. It is the great s upport from the c ity to collec t the hards hip from the disas ter. 1.c Packet Pg. 30 Third-Party Food D elivery Servic es 11 / 26 Q1 Do you currently use a third-party food deliv ery s ervic e? Yes Q2 Which third-party food deliv ery s ervic es do you c urrently us e? Door Dash, Grub Hub, PostMates, Seamless Q3 Please share with us the delivery fees paid to the third- party food delivery serv ice provider. 20-30% Q4 What ty pe of other fees are y ou c urrently paying for third party delivery serv ices ? Commission Fee Q5 What are the total fees paid to third-party delivery serv ices , including the delivery fee and other fees ? 25%-30% Q6 Would a cap on third-party delivery service fees help the ec onom ic v iability of y our restaurant during COVID-19 res tric tions? Yes Q7 What would be a reas onable cap on s uch delivery fees ? 10%-15% #6#6 COMPLETECOMPLETE Col lector:Col lector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link )(Web Link ) Started:Started: Wednesday, January 13, 2021 8:28:50 AMWednesday, January 13, 2021 8:28:50 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, January 13, 2021 8:32:43 AMWednesday, January 13, 2021 8:32:43 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:03:5200:03:52 IP Address:IP Address: 68.225.238.12468.225.238.124 Page 1: Thi rd-Party D elivery Services 1.c Packet Pg. 31 Third-Party Food D elivery Servic es 12 / 26 Q8 Please prov ide any feedbac k related to this surv ey. Thanks f or y our input and conc ern about loc al busines s . 1.c Packet Pg. 32 Third-Party Food D elivery Servic es 13 / 26 Q1 Do you currently use a third-party food deliv ery s ervic e? Yes Q2 Which third-party food deliv ery s ervic es do you c urrently us e? Uber Eats, Door Dash, Grub Hub, PostMates, Other (please s pec ify ): Fantuan Q3 Please share with us the delivery fees paid to the third- party food delivery serv ice provider. Other (please s pec ify ): 20-35% Q4 What ty pe of other fees are y ou c urrently paying for third party delivery serv ices ? All of above and proc ess ing fee Other (please s pec ify ): Q5 What are the total fees paid to third-party delivery serv ices , including the delivery fee and other fees ? Yes . Same answer with Q.4 Q6 Would a cap on third-party delivery service fees help the ec onom ic v iability of y our restaurant during COVID-19 res tric tions? Yes #7#7 COMPLETECOMPLETE Col lector:Col lector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link )(Web Link ) Started:Started: Wednesday, January 13, 2021 12:01:30 PMWednesday, January 13, 2021 12:01:30 PM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, January 13, 2021 12:06:54 PMWednesday, January 13, 2021 12:06:54 PM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:05:2300:05:23 IP Address:IP Address: 104.172.39.41104.172.39.41 Page 1: Thi rd-Party D elivery Services 1.c Packet Pg. 33 Third-Party Food D elivery Servic es 14 / 26 Q7 What would be a reas onable cap on s uch delivery fees ? 10% Q8 Please prov ide any feedbac k related to this surv ey. Customer pic k up 3% Delivery 10% Plz 1.c Packet Pg. 34 Third-Party Food D elivery Servic es 15 / 26 Q1 Do you currently use a third-party food deliv ery s ervic e? Yes Q2 Which third-party food deliv ery s ervic es do you c urrently us e? Uber Eats Q3 Please share with us the delivery fees paid to the third- party food delivery serv ice provider. Other (please s pec ify ): 30% Q4 What ty pe of other fees are y ou c urrently paying for third party delivery serv ices ? None Other (please s pec ify ): Q5 What are the total fees paid to third-party delivery serv ices , including the delivery fee and other fees ? Only 30 perc ent of s ale Q6 Would a cap on third-party delivery service fees help the ec onom ic v iability of y our restaurant during COVID-19 res tric tions? No Q7 What would be a reas onable cap on s uch delivery fees ? 5% bec ause they als o c harge the cus tomer for us ing their s ervic e. #8#8 COMPLETECOMPLETE Col lector:Col lector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link )(Web Link ) Started:Started: Wednesday, January 13, 2021 1:43:29 PMWednesday, January 13, 2021 1:43:29 PM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, January 13, 2021 1:46:56 PMWednesday, January 13, 2021 1:46:56 PM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:03:2600:03:26 IP Address:IP Address: 76.225.144.17976.225.144.179 Page 1: Thi rd-Party D elivery Services 1.c Packet Pg. 35 Third-Party Food D elivery Servic es 16 / 26 Q8 Please prov ide any feedbac k related to this surv ey. Thank y ou for keeping us in mind 1.c Packet Pg. 36 Third-Party Food D elivery Servic es 17 / 26 Q1 Do you currently use a third-party food deliv ery s ervic e? Yes Q2 Which third-party food deliv ery s ervic es do you c urrently us e? Uber Eats, Door Dash, Grub Hub, PostMates, Seamless Q3 Please share with us the delivery fees paid to the third- party food delivery serv ice provider. 20-30% Q4 What ty pe of other fees are y ou c urrently paying for third party delivery serv ices ? Commission Fee Q5 What are the total fees paid to third-party delivery serv ices , including the delivery fee and other fees ? Almost 35% Q6 Would a cap on third-party delivery service fees help the ec onom ic v iability of y our restaurant during COVID-19 res tric tions? Yes #9#9 COMPLETECOMPLETE Col lector:Col lector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link )(Web Link ) Started:Started: Wednesday, January 13, 2021 5:35:20 PMWednesday, January 13, 2021 5:35:20 PM Last Modified:Last Modified: Wednesday, January 13, 2021 5:37:21 PMWednesday, January 13, 2021 5:37:21 PM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:02:0000:02:00 IP Address:IP Address: 71.83.191.8071.83.191.80 Page 1: Thi rd-Party D elivery Services 1.c Packet Pg. 37 Third-Party Food D elivery Servic es 18 / 26 Q7 What would be a reas onable cap on s uch delivery fees ? 5% Q8 Please prov ide any feedbac k related to this surv ey. Respondent skipped this question 1.c Packet Pg. 38 Third-Party Food D elivery Servic es 19 / 26 Q1 Do you currently use a third-party food deliv ery s ervic e? Yes Q2 Which third-party food deliv ery s ervic es do you c urrently us e? Uber Eats, Door Dash, Grub Hub, PostMates, Other (please s pec ify ): Slic e Q3 Please share with us the delivery fees paid to the third- party food delivery serv ice provider. 20-30% Q4 What ty pe of other fees are y ou c urrently paying for third party delivery serv ices ? Service Fee Q5 What are the total fees paid to third-party delivery serv ices , including the delivery fee and other fees ? 40% of order total Q6 Would a cap on third-party delivery service fees help the ec onom ic v iability of y our restaurant during COVID-19 res tric tions? Yes #10#10 COMPLETECOMPLETE Col lector:Col lector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link )(Web Link ) Started:Started: Friday, January 15, 2021 9:46:32 AMFriday, January 15, 2021 9:46:32 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Friday, January 15, 2021 9:48:54 AMFriday, January 15, 2021 9:48:54 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:02:2200:02:22 IP Address:IP Address: 45.50.203.24745.50.203.247 Page 1: Thi rd-Party D elivery Services 1.c Packet Pg. 39 Third-Party Food D elivery Servic es 20 / 26 Q7 What would be a reas onable cap on s uch delivery fees ? 20% of order total Q8 Please prov ide any feedbac k related to this surv ey. Respondent skipped this question 1.c Packet Pg. 40 Third-Party Food D elivery Servic es 21 / 26 Q1 Do you currently use a third-party food deliv ery s ervic e? Yes Q2 Which third-party food deliv ery s ervic es do you c urrently us e? Uber Eats, Door Dash, Grub Hub, PostMates Q3 Please share with us the delivery fees paid to the third- party food delivery serv ice provider. 20-30% Q4 What ty pe of other fees are y ou c urrently paying for third party delivery serv ices ? Marketing Fee Q5 What are the total fees paid to third-party delivery serv ices , inc luding the deliv ery fee and other fees? Respondent skipped this question Q6 Would a cap on third-party delivery service fees help the ec onom ic v iability of y our restaurant during COVID-19 res tric tions? Yes Q7 What would be a reas onable cap on s uch delivery fees ? 22% #11#11 COMPLETECOMPLETE Col lector:Col lector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link )(Web Link ) Started:Started: Thurs day, J anuary 21, 2021 9:23:50 AMThursday, J anuary 21, 2021 9:23:50 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Thurs day, J anuary 21, 2021 9:26:23 AMThursday, J anuary 21, 2021 9:26:23 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:02:3200:02:32 IP Address:IP Address: 104.33.4.68104.33.4.68 Page 1: Thi rd-Party D elivery Services 1.c Packet Pg. 41 Third-Party Food D elivery Servic es 22 / 26 Q8 Please prov ide any feedbac k related to this surv ey. Respondent skipped this question 1.c Packet Pg. 42 Third-Party Food D elivery Servic es 23 / 26 Q1 Do you currently use a third-party food deliv ery s ervic e? Yes Q2 Which third-party food deliv ery s ervic es do you c urrently us e? Door Dash Q3 Please share with us the delivery fees paid to the third- party food delivery serv ice provider. 20-30% Q4 What ty pe of other fees are y ou c urrently paying for third party delivery serv ices ? Service Fee Q5 What are the total fees paid to third-party delivery serv ices , inc luding the deliv ery fee and other fees? Respondent skipped this question Q6 Would a cap on third-party delivery service fees help the ec onom ic v iability of y our restaurant during COVID-19 res tric tions? No Q7 What would be a reas onable cap on s uch delivery fees ? Respondent skipped this question Q8 Please prov ide any feedbac k related to this surv ey. Respondent skipped this question #12#12 COMPLETECOMPLETE Col lector:Col lector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link )(Web Link ) Started:Started: Thurs day, J anuary 21, 2021 10:41:17 AMThursday, J anuary 21, 2021 10:41:17 AM Last Modified:Last Modified: Thurs day, J anuary 21, 2021 10:42:33 AMThursday, J anuary 21, 2021 10:42:33 AM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:01:1600:01:16 IP Address:IP Address: 107.185.162.144107.185.162.144 Page 1: Thi rd-Party D elivery Services 1.c Packet Pg. 43 Third-Party Food D elivery Servic es 24 / 26 Q1 Do you currently use a third-party food deliv ery s ervic e? Yes, If No Apps are currently utilized, pleas e share why : Na Q2 Which third-party food deliv ery s ervic es do you c urrently us e? Uber Eats, Door Dash, PostMates Q3 Please share with us the delivery fees paid to the third- party food delivery serv ice provider. 20-30% Q4 What ty pe of other fees are y ou c urrently paying for third party delivery serv ices ? Commission Fee Q5 What are the total fees paid to third-party delivery serv ices , including the delivery fee and other fees ? 33% Q6 Would a cap on third-party delivery service fees help the ec onom ic v iability of y our restaurant during COVID-19 res tric tions? Yes Q7 What would be a reas onable cap on s uch delivery fees ? 10% #13#13 COMPLETECOMPLETE Col lector:Col lector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link )(Web Link ) Started:Started: Thurs day, J anuary 21, 2021 12:43:00 PMThursday, J anuary 21, 2021 12:43:00 PM Last Modified:Last Modified: Thurs day, J anuary 21, 2021 12:46:06 PMThursday, J anuary 21, 2021 12:46:06 PM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:03:0500:03:05 IP Address:IP Address: 45.50.198.645.50.198.6 Page 1: Thi rd-Party D elivery Services 1.c Packet Pg. 44 Third-Party Food D elivery Servic es 25 / 26 Q8 Please prov ide any feedbac k related to this surv ey. We appreciate the help. Times are rough. Restaurant profit margins are anywhere from 0-15%. I ts not a v iable busines s model to be pay ing 30% c ommis sions . 1.c Packet Pg. 45 Third-Party Food D elivery Servic es 26 / 26 Q1 Do you currently use a third-party food deliv ery s ervic e? No Q2 Which third-party food deliv ery s ervic es do you c urrently us e? Respondent skipped this question Q3 Please share with us the delivery fees paid to the third- party food delivery serv ice provider. Respondent skipped this question Q4 What ty pe of other fees are y ou c urrently paying for third party delivery serv ices ? Respondent skipped this question Q5 What are the total fees paid to third-party delivery serv ices , inc luding the deliv ery fee and other fees? Respondent skipped this question Q6 Would a cap on third-party delivery service fees help the ec onom ic v iability of y our restaurant during COVID-19 res tric tions? No Q7 What would be a reas onable cap on s uch delivery fees ? Respondent skipped this question Q8 Please prov ide any feedbac k related to this surv ey. Respondent skipped this question #14#14 COMPLETECOMPLETE Col lector:Col lector: Web Link 1 Web Link 1 (Web Link )(Web Link ) Started:Started: Friday, January 22, 2021 2:43:38 PMFriday, January 22, 2021 2:43:38 PM Last Modified:Last Modified: Friday, January 22, 2021 2:48:57 PMFriday, January 22, 2021 2:48:57 PM Time Spent:Time Spent: 00:05:1900:05:19 IP Address:IP Address: 47.138.107.7447.138.107.74 Page 1: Thi rd-Party D elivery Services 1.c Packet Pg. 46 Temporary Fee Cap on Delivery Service Providers City Council Study Session of February 2, 2021 1.d Packet Pg. 47 Background •March 4,2020-Governor Newsom proclaimed a state of emergency due to the threat posed by Novel Coronavirus (Covid-19). •January 25,2021-Governor Newsom canceled the Regional Stay Home Order allowing Counties to go back to the State’s Blueprint for a Safer Economy. •LA County has,and continues to be,in the Purple Tier 1 (Widespread) which is the most restrictive Tier. •LA.County has indicated that they will be following the State’s Tier 1 guidance and will be modifying their health orders to allow restaurants to operate outdoors effective January 29,2021. •Restaurants rely heavily on third-party delivery services to continue operations and pay 30%or more in fees. 1.d Packet Pg. 48 Third Party Delivery Services •Third party Delivery Services utilize online platforms and phone apps that connect restaurants with customers. •Most commonly used: DoorDash, GrubHub, PostMates, Uber Eats,Seamless •Restaurants sign up via an agreement, and pay 20-40% in fees per order. •Menu Prices are set by the restaurant. •Core components: –Fees Paid by Restaurant –Fees Paid by the Consumer 1.d Packet Pg. 49 Fee Components Fees Paid by Restaurant –Menu Fees –Commission Fees –Pick-up/takeout Fees –Marketing Fees –Delivery Fees 1.d Packet Pg. 50 Fee Components-cont. Fees Paid by Customers –35% in Fees –Delivery Fees –Service Fees –Pick-up/takeout Fees –CA Driver Benefits –Tips/Gratuity 1.d Packet Pg. 51 LA County Ordinance •Approved on July 2020 by the Board of Supervisors of the Los Angeles County •Placed a 20%cap on Food Delivery Platforms inclusive of all fees. •Made it unlawful for companies to reduce the compensation,including tip or gratuity,paid to any worker. •Effective until 90 days from the expiration of the “Safer at Home”order restricting indoor dining. 1.d Packet Pg. 52 Local Ordinances Comparison Fee Caps City of Alhambra Dec. 2020 •Any combination of fees, commissions or costs that total more than 20% of the purchase price of each online order. Fees, commissions or costs includes a delivery fee. •A delivery fee that totals more than 15% of the purchase price. •The third-party food delivery service shall disclose to the customer an accurate, clearly identified, and itemized cost breakdown of each transaction. City of Los Angeles Oct. 2020 •Delivery fees that total more than 15% of the Purchase price of each online order. •Third-party fees, commissions or other costs greater than 5% for fees, these costs do not include delivery fees. •Food Delivery services provider may not charge a customer any purchase price for a food or beverage item that is higher than the prices set by the retail food establishment on the third-party food delivery service, if no price is set the price listed of the retail food establishment’s own menu shall be used. City of Pasadena July 2020 •Delivery fees that total more than 15% of the Purchase price of each online order. •Any combination of fees, commissions or costs that total more than 20% of the purchase price of each online order. Fees, commissions or costs includes a delivery fee. •Unlawful for a third-party food delivery service to retain any portion of amounts designated as a tip or gratuity. •Allows third-party food delivery services a grace period of 7 days after the ordinance becomes effective. •Allows for food establishment to seek civil action against third-party delivery services for any violations of the urgency ordinance. •Ordinance terminates 90 days after the Pasadena Health Officer allows restaurants to offer dine-in service, without limitations, or upon the terminations of the COVID-19 local emergency, whichever comes first. 1.d Packet Pg. 53 Local Ordinances Comparison Fee Caps City of South Pasadena Aug. 2020 Adopted by reference:County of Los Angeles Ordinance. County of Los Angeles July 2020 •Any combination of fees, commissions or costs that total more than 20% of the purchase price of each online order. Fees, commissions or costs includes a delivery fee. •Delivery fees that total more than 15% of the Purchase price of each online order. •It shall be unlawful for a food delivery platform to charge a restaurant a deliver fee for an online order that does not involve the delivery of food. •Unlawful for a third-party food delivery service to reduce the compensation, including any tip or gratuity paid to any worker as a result of the prohibitions. •A food delivery platform shall disclose to the customer an accurate, clearly defined, and itemized cost breakdown for each and every online order. 1.d Packet Pg. 54 Ordinance Recap •15% Delivery Fee Cap •20% Cap on all fees inclusive of the delivery fee •Gratuity Retention •Fee Transparency 1.d Packet Pg. 55 AB 286 Introduced •State Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez (D-San Diego) introduced AB286 to set a statewide 15% cap on commissions. AB 286 caps fees charged to restaurants at 15 percent of the menu-listed price of an online order, not including taxes, gratuities, and any other fees or costs that may make up the total amount charged to the customer. AB 286 would require food delivery apps to give their customers and partnered restaurants an accurate, clearly identified and itemized cost breakdown of each transaction. Delivery app companies would be prohibited from taking any portion of money intended to be a tip or gratuity for the delivery driver. 1.d Packet Pg. 56 Survey Results •14 Respondents •Survey emailed to 52 food establishments in Diamond Bar. •86 % use Third-Party Delivery Services •Commissions Paid range 30%-40% •71% of respondents support a temporary cap on commissions. 1.d Packet Pg. 57 Options Options available to the Council include: A.Provide direction for staff to prepare an Ordinance for Council consideration at the next Council meeting on February 16, 2021 based on the LA County Ordinance; or B.Take no further action on this matter at this time. 1.d Packet Pg. 58 Agenda #: 3.1 Meeting Date: February 2, 2021 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Daniel Fox, City Manager TITLE: CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 19, 2021 MEETING. STRATEGIC GOAL: Open, Engaged & Responsive Government RECOMMENDATION: Approve the January 19, 2021 Regular City Council meeting minutes. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Minutes have been prepared and are being presented for approval. PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY: Attachments: 1. 3.1.a January 19, 2021 City Council Minutes 3.1 Packet Pg. 59 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 19, 2021 CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Lyons called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Mayor Lyons announced that consistent with COVID-19 regulations, all Council Members and staff participated via teleconference and there was no physical location for public attendance. The Public was invited to join the meeting online or by phone at the numbers printed on the agenda. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Lyons led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: Council Members Andrew Chou, Stan Liu, Steve Tye, Mayor Pro Tem Ruth Low, Mayor Nancy Lyons Staff participating telephonically: Dan Fox, City Manager; Dave DeBerry, City Attorney; Ryan McLean, Assistant City Manager; Anthony Santos, Assistant to the City Manager; Ryan Wright, Parks and Recreation Director; David Liu, Public Works Director; Hal Ghafari, Public Works Manager/Assistant City Engineer; Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; Dianna Honeywell, Director of Finance, Marsha Roa, Public Information Manager; Cecilia Arellano, Public Information Coordinator; Kristina Santana, City Clerk APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As submitted. 1. CITY MANAGER REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: CM/Fox provided a COVID-19 vaccination update. Los Angeles County residents who are 65 and older can register to receive their vaccination should visit www.vaccinatelacounty.com to schedule their appointments. One of five large capacity vaccination sites established at the Pomona Fairplex will serve the Diamond Bar area. CM/Fox shared information from Terry Muse, Public SectorWaste Management Representative, that Waste Management continues to experience staffing shortages due to COVID-19 impact with a 420 percent increases in absences from November with January trending even higher. Waste Management continues to follow all CDC guidelines including health assessment and with the current schedule, Waste Management continues to ensure that trash and bulky items are begin picked up on a weekly basis.. All residents who have provided their current information should receive a text, email or phone call each week prior to their service to remind them that their green waste or recycle cart will be scheduled for the following week. Customers can place extra bags of green waste and recycling for pickup at no additional charge. A postcard will be sent to communicate the temporary schedule and alleviate questions. Every Thursday, staff and Waste Management meet f or a status update and report, and work together to determine when it will be safe to return to normal pickup schedules. 3.1.a Packet Pg. 60 JANUARY 19, 2021 PAGE 2 CITY COUNCIL Residents can contact the customer service center at www.cslosangeles@wm.com. M/Lyons asked if there was a discussion of a fee rebate and CM/Fox said while the subject has been discussed, there has been no official determination regarding a fee rebate. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS: CC/Santana read the following public comments submitted via emai l: Martin Strudwick requested that Street Sweeping Parking enforcement be discontinued until the LA County stay-at-home order is removed. Dave Reynolds, President, Cimarron HOA, suggested that if the Waste Management Service modification exceeds two m onths, they should analyze the difference in cost to the company related to the modification with rebates to customers, if warranted. Public comments offered telephonically: Tammy Peng, Liaison, Office of State Senator Josh Ne wman, introduced herself to Council and said she looked forward to working with and for Diamond Bar. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR: MPT/Low moved, C/Liu seconded, to approve the Consent Calendar as presented, with the exception of Item 3.4 withdrawn from Consent Calendar by M/Lyons. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chou, Liu, Tye, MPT/Low, M/Lyons NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None 3.1 APPROVED CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: 3.1a JANUARY 5, 2021 REGULAR MEETING 3.2 CITY COUNCIL RECEIPT AND FILING OF COMMISSION MINUTES: 3.2a PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 24, 2020. 3.3 RATIFIED CHECK REGISTER DATED DECEMBER 31, 2020 THROUGH JANUARY 13, 2021 TOTALING $422,680.99. ITEMS WITHDRAWN FROM CONSENT CALENDAR: 3.4 APPROVE THE FREEWAY MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ACTING BY AND THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND, AUTHORIZED THE CITY 3.1.a Packet Pg. 61 JANUARY 19, 2021 PAGE 3 CITY COUNCIL MANAGER TO AMEND EXHIBIT A TO THE FREEWAY MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT ON AN AS-NEEDED BASIS. M/Lyons felt the contract should more accurately reflect what the City expects from Caltrans, that Caltrans will maintain the off and onramps, trash removed frequently (bi-weekly). PWD/Liu responded to M/Lyons that this agreement is a State of California template contract the State enters into for all jurisdictions within the State, the purpose of which is to clearly define the maintenance areas and does not include performance measurements or standards and must be fully executed prior to the final design package is approved for the SR57/60 Confluence project. Staff continues to maintain coordination with the district director on a weekly basis regarding maintenance issues. CA/DeBerry stated that this agreement addresses the City’s responsibilities for maintenance within the Caltrans right-of-way and the State is not interested in detailing responsibilities with respect to the ir own freeways and properties and Caltrans has been clear that they will not enter into any agreements where the cit ies dictates how Caltrans will perform maintenance responsibilities on property they own. MPT/Low stated that she and many residents have noted that the on and off ramps are littered and very unsightly and unhealthy and asked how this contract differs from past contracts. PWD/Liu responded that the most notable difference is the attached Exhibit A which clearly delineates the street areas within the Caltrans right -of-way that the City is responsible for maintaining. C/Liu echoed M/Lyons and MPT/Low’s comments and also asked if there was anything the City could do to impose some level of influence regarding maintenance issues. PWD/Liu responded as he did to M/Lyons and MPT/Low that there was not. M/Lyons moved, MPT/Low seconded, to approve the Freeway Maintenance Agreement with the State oOf California Acting by and through the Department of Transportation, and authorized the City Manager to amend Exhibit A to the Freeway Maintenance Agreement on an as-needed basis. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chou, Liu, Tye, MPT/Low, M/Lyons NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None 4. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: 4.1 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING A COST REPORT AND 3.1.a Packet Pg. 62 JANUARY 19, 2021 PAGE 4 CITY COUNCIL ESTABLISHMENT OF A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AND LIEN TO RECOVER NUISANCE ABATEMENT COSTS RELATED TO THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1223 BRAMFORD COURT (APN: 8701-037- 016). CM/Fox asked Council to withdraw this item from consideration. The property owner and CDD/Gubman reached an agreement that the property owner would reimburse the City in multiple installments for identified costs to abate the nuisance and, CDD/Gubman continues to work with the property owner to abate the ongoing landscape maintenance concerns at the property. C/Tye thanked the property owner for working with staff to resolve this matter. C/Chou moved, C/Tye seconded, to withdraw consideration to impose a special assessment in light of the property owners’ agreement to directly reimburse the City for costs incurred in the p erformance of a nuisance abatement at 1223 Bramford Court (APN: 8701 -037-016). Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chou, Liu, Tye, MPT/Low, M/Lyons NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None 5. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: 5.1 TRANSMITTAL OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2019 -2020 COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT. Debbie Harper, CPA, Lance, Soll and Lunghard, LLP , stated her firm conducted an analysis of the financial report and found no mistakes, material weaknesses or significant deficiencies, stated that the financial report could be relied upon for budgetary determinations , and responded to Council questions and concerns . FD/Honeywell thanked her staff for their hard work in receiving an unmodified opinion, provided Council with a report on the FY2020 year- end financial results and responded to Council questions. MPT/Tye moved, MPT/Low seconded, to Receive and File the FY 2019- 2020 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report; approve an a ppropriation of General Fund Reserves in the amount of $41,835 to the Park Development Fund; and, approve an appropriation of General Fund Reserves in the amount of $41,835 to the Building Facility & Maintenance Fund. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: 3.1.a Packet Pg. 63 JANUARY 19, 2021 PAGE 5 CITY COUNCIL AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chou, Liu Tye, MPT/Low, M/Lyons NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None 5.2 APPOINTMENTS TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION, PLANNING COMMMISSION, AND TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATIO N COMMISSION TO FILL UNEXPIRED TERMS. C/Chou appointed Raphael Plunkett to the Parks and Recreation Commission. C/Liu appointed Stephen Qiu to the Parks and Recreation Commission, Mahendra Garg to the Planning Commission, and Gary Busteed to the Traffic and Transportation Commission. C/Tye moved, MPT/Low seconded, to ratify the aforementioned appointments to Commissions to fill unexpired terms. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chou, Liu Tye, MPT/Low, M/Lyons NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None 6. COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS/COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS: C/Chou thanked staff for their great work and knowledge reflected in their reports, reported on the Cal Cities Public Safety Committee meeting, congratulated the local winner of the Youth Social Justice Award, thanked Supervisor Hahn for initiating a $330,000 grant designed to help struggling restaurants and families in need, $12,500 of which was brought to Diamond Bar, and invited residents to a COVID-friendly drive up free box luncheon mass distribution on Saturday, January 23 rd beginning at about 10:00 a.m. at the Diamond Bar United Church of Christ. C/Liu spoke about his meeting with the school district and school’s offering mental health help for students, thanked staff for their support during the pandemic and congratulated ISD/Desforges and his staff for receiving the 2020 Municipal Information Systems Association of California’s Excellence in Technology Practice award; thanked staff and his colleagues for their swift actions to create cost savings during the Pandemic, thanked Commission applicants who expressed their desire to serve the community, and thanked the Supervisor Hilda Solis for signing an Executive Order offering vaccines for residents aged 65 and over. He also thanked residents for their support of one another and their efforts toward keeping the community safe. 3.1.a Packet Pg. 64 JANUARY 19, 2021 PAGE 6 CITY COUNCIL C/Tye reiterated his gratitude to FD/Honeywell and her team as well as, Diamond Bar staff for their transparency and work on the budget and obtaining an excellent CAFR report, encouraged residents to register and participate in the Walnut Valley Water workshop for drought tolerant plants beginning January 23rd as well as, the Water is Life virtual poster art contest for grades 3 through 12 th and the High School Broadcast Media and Digital Art virtual contest. MPT/Low thanked staff for a great CAFR report and the transparency and trust it provides residents assuring them of the excellent stewardship and protection of the City’s limited resources during the Pandemic, and thanked PWD/Liu and his staff for their diligence and ongoing dialogue with Caltrans. MPT/Low welcomed Ms. Peng to Diamond Bar and said she looked forward to working with her and Senator Newman. She cautioned everyone that scammers are hard at work in the COVID arena and everyone should be very cautious about responding to requests for money and personal information to “enhance vaccine eligibility”. As a reminder, government agencies do not solicit information and money in order for individuals to receive the vaccine. M/Lyons revealed that she was the individual who supposedly sent the email to MPT/Low asking her for five $100 Apple gift cards which she absolutely did not do. M/Lyons thanked FD/Honeywell for a clear and concise presentation of the annual financial report and receipt of the unmodified opinion, congratulated the Information Technology Department led by Ken Desforges for receipt of the 2020 Municipal Information Systems Association of California’s Excellence in Technology Practice award, and said she was thankful for the Sheriff’s Deputies serving on the Special Assessment Team who do great work on behalf of Diamond Bar. She spoke about Arthur Coleman who lived in Diamond Bar for 46 years until his recent passing. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to conduct, M/Lyons adjourned the Regular City Council Meeting at 7:53 p.m. in memory of Arthur Coleman, longtime Diamond Bar resident. Respectfully submitted: __________________________ Kristina Santana, City Clerk The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 2nd day of February, 2021. __________________________ Nancy Lyons, Mayor Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0" 3.1.a Packet Pg. 65 Agenda #: 3.2 Meeting Date: February 2, 2021 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Daniel Fox, City Manager TITLE: CITY COUNCIL RECEIPT OF COMMISSION MINUTES. STRATEGIC GOAL: Open, Engaged & Responsive Government RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file the Planning Commission meeting minutes of December 8, 2020. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: It is the practice of the City of Diamond Bar to provide the City Council with approved Commission meeting minutes. The Planning Commission minutes of December 8, 2020 have been approved and are being transmitted to the Council for your information. PREPARED BY: 3.2 Packet Pg. 66 REVIEWED BY: Attachments: 1. 3.2.a Planning Commission Minutes of December 8, 2020 3.2 Packet Pg. 67 3.2.a Packet Pg. 68 3.2.a Packet Pg. 69 3.2.a Packet Pg. 70 Agenda #: 3.3 Meeting Date: February 2, 2021 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Daniel Fox, City Manager TITLE: RATIFICATION OF CHECK REGISTER DATED JANUARY 14, 2021 THROUGH JANUARY 27, 2021 TOTALING $ 1,503,147.72. STRATEGIC GOAL: Responsible Stewardship of Public Resources RECOMMENDATION: Ratify the Check Register. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Expenditure of $ 1,503,147.72. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The City has established the policy of issuing accounts payable checks on a weekly basis with City Council ratification at the next scheduled City Council Meeting. The attached check register containing checks dated January 14, 2021 through January 27, 2021 totaling $ 1,503,147.72 is being presented for ratification. All payments have been made in compliance with the City’s purchasing policies and procedures, and have been reviewed and approved by the appropriate departmental staff. The attached Affidavit affirms that the check register has been audited and deemed accurate by the Finance Director. PREPARED BY: 3.3 Packet Pg. 71 REVIEWED BY: Attachments: 1. 3.3.a Check Register Affidavit 2-2-2021 2. 3.3.b Check Register 2-2-2021 3.3 Packet Pg. 72 3.3.a Packet Pg. 73 City of Diamond Bar Check Register CHECK # CHECK DATE VENDOR NAME OTP VENDOR NAME INVOICE DESCRIPTION ORG OBJECT AMOUNT 1112 1/20/2021 ASSA ABLOY ENTRANCE SYSTEMS US INC AUTOMATIC DOORS - CITY HALL & LIBRARY 100620 52320 $1,236.90 CHECK TOTAL $1,236.90 1113 1/20/2021 BEST LIGHTING PRODUCTS INC MONTHLY MAINTENANCE DEC 2020 238638 52320 $177.52 1/20/2021 BEST LIGHTING PRODUCTS INC MONTHLY MAINTENANCE DEC 2020 100620 52320 $262.60 1/20/2021 BEST LIGHTING PRODUCTS INC MONTHLY MAINTENANCE DEC 2020 100510 52320 $267.38 1/20/2021 BEST LIGHTING PRODUCTS INC MONTHLY MAINTENANCE DEC 2020 100630 55505 $1,826.61 CHECK TOTAL $2,534.11 1114 1/20/2021 BREA AUTO ELECTRIC VEHICLE MAINTENANCE - PARKS & RECREATION RANGER 502630 52312 $787.72 CHECK TOTAL $787.72 1115 1/20/2021 CDW GOVERNMENT VERITAS BACKUP-EXEC ANNUAL SUPPORT 100230 52314 $7,065.03 1/20/2021 CDW GOVERNMENT GFI LANGUARD SUBSCRIPTION RENEWAL - 1 YEAR 100230 52314 $1,917.44 CHECK TOTAL $8,982.47 1116 1/20/2021 COLLEY AUTO CARS INC VEHICLE MAINTENANCE - ROAD MAINTENANCE 502655 52312 $885.72 CHECK TOTAL $885.72 1117 1/20/2021 DFM ASSOCIATES 2021 CALIFORNIA ELECTION CODE BOOK 100130 53530 $58.99 CHECK TOTAL $58.99 1118 1/20/2021 EMERALD LANDSCAPE SERVICES INC LANDSCAPING SERVICES - ADDL' @ CITY HALL 100620 52320 $15.01 CHECK TOTAL $15.01 1119 1/20/2021 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION EXPRESS MAIL - GENERAL 100130 52170 $58.00 1/20/2021 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION EXPRESS MAIL - GENERAL 100130 52170 $35.55 1/20/2021 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION EXPRESS MAIL - GENERAL 100130 52170 $35.55 1/20/2021 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION EXPRESS MAIL - GENERAL 100130 52170 $56.19 3.3.b Packet Pg. 74 City of Diamond Bar Check Register CHECK # CHECK DATE VENDOR NAME OTP VENDOR NAME INVOICE DESCRIPTION ORG OBJECT AMOUNT CHECK TOTAL $185.29 1120 1/20/2021 FOOTHILL BUILDING MATERIALS INC 10 SCOOPS SAND DELIVERY TO FIRE STATION 119 100655 51250 $399.13 CHECK TOTAL $399.13 1121 1/20/2021 FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS CORP INTERNET/ETHERNET CITY HALL/SUMMARY BILL 1/1/21 100230 52200 $718.01 CHECK TOTAL $718.01 1122 1/20/2021 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES MAINT OF GROUNDS BUILDINGS - PARKS & FACILITIES 100630 52320 $23.92 CHECK TOTAL $23.92 1123 1/20/2021 HONEYCOTT INC DIST 38 GROUNDS MAINTENANCE 238638 52320 $120.00 CHECK TOTAL $120.00 1124 1/20/2021 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN LEGAL ADS - CITY CLERK 100130 52160 $635.00 CHECK TOTAL $635.00 1125 1/20/2021 KEVIN D JONES CS - SR/57-60 CONFLUENCE PROJ ADVOCACY - DEC 2020 100615 54400 $4,000.00 CHECK TOTAL $4,000.00 1126 1/20/2021 LA COUNTY ASSESSOR OFFICE SBF ABSTRACT - NOV 2020 100230 52314 $64.00 CHECK TOTAL $64.00 1127 1/20/2021 LOOMIS COURIER SVCS - DEC 2020 100210 54900 $320.44 1/20/2021 LOOMIS COURIER SVCS - DEC 2020 100510 54900 $320.44 CHECK TOTAL $640.88 1128 1/20/2021 OFFICE SOLUTIONS OFFICE SUPPLIES - PARKS AND FACILITIES 100630 51200 $15.83 1/20/2021 OFFICE SOLUTIONS OFFICE SUPPLIES - PARKS & FACILITIES 100630 51200 $126.53 CHECK TOTAL $142.36 1129 1/20/2021 ONE TIME PAY VENDOR ALMA AGUINAGA EVENT REFUND 100 20202 $2,069.41 CHECK TOTAL $2,069.41 1130 1/20/2021 ONE TIME PAY VENDOR AMBER ARREGUIN EVENT REFUND 100 20202 $2,224.46 CHECK TOTAL $2,224.46 1131 1/20/2021 ONE TIME PAY VENDOR RUBY CORONADO CONTRACT CLASS REFUND FALL 2020 - COVID CANCLE 100 20202 $149.00 3.3.b Packet Pg. 75 City of Diamond Bar Check Register CHECK # CHECK DATE VENDOR NAME OTP VENDOR NAME INVOICE DESCRIPTION ORG OBJECT AMOUNT CHECK TOTAL $149.00 1132 1/20/2021 ONE TIME PAY VENDOR ALWAYS RELIABLE ROOFING RECYCLING DEPOSIT 100 22105 $250.00 CHECK TOTAL $250.00 1133 1/20/2021 ONE TIME PAY VENDOR SUNSHINE ROOFING RECYCLING DEPOSIT 100 22105 $250.00 CHECK TOTAL $250.00 1134 1/20/2021 PUBLIC STORAGE #23051 STORAGE RENTAL # 2108 FOR FEB. 2021 100130 52302 $466.00 CHECK TOTAL $466.00 1135 1/20/2021 PYRO COMM SYSTEMS INC FIRE ALARM MONITORING - CITY HALL 100620 52320 $135.00 CHECK TOTAL $135.00 1136 1/20/2021 RETAIL MARKETING SERVICES INC SHOPPING CART RETRIEVAL 250170 55000 $580.00 CHECK TOTAL $580.00 1137 1/20/2021 SANDRA YBANEZ PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING 100520 52525 $45.00 CHECK TOTAL $45.00 1138 1/20/2021 SC FUELS FLEET VEHICLE FUEL - JAN 2021 502130 52330 $27.18 1/20/2021 SC FUELS FLEET VEHICLE FUEL - JAN 2021 502620 52330 $200.20 1/20/2021 SC FUELS FLEET VEHICLE FUEL - JAN 2021 502655 52330 $227.27 1/20/2021 SC FUELS FLEET VEHICLE FUEL - JAN 2021 502630 52330 $356.20 CHECK TOTAL $810.85 1139 1/20/2021 SCHAFER CONSULTING CONSULTING SERVICES FOR ERP PROJECT - DEC 2020 503230 56135 $9,687.50 CHECK TOTAL $9,687.50 1140 1/20/2021 SIMPSON ADVERTISING INC GRAPHIC DESIGN SERVICES -FEB 2021 NEWSLETTER 100240 54900 $1,575.00 CHECK TOTAL $1,575.00 1141 1/20/2021 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 633 GRAND - 12.11.20 - 01.12.21 238638 52210 $1.85 1/20/2021 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 20664 LARKSTONE 12.11.20 - 1.11.21 100630 52210 $215.17 1/20/2021 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 20850 HIGH COUNTRY 12.14.20 - 1.13.21 241641 52210 $12.74 1/20/2021 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 20980 E CANYON RIDGE 12.14.20 - 1.13.21 241641 52210 $12.78 3.3.b Packet Pg. 76 City of Diamond Bar Check Register CHECK # CHECK DATE VENDOR NAME OTP VENDOR NAME INVOICE DESCRIPTION ORG OBJECT AMOUNT 1/20/2021 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21208 WASHINGTON 12.14.20 - 1.13.21 100630 52210 $21.56 1/20/2021 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 1000 S LEMON 12.15.20 - 1.14.21 238638 52210 $25.10 1/20/2021 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON SAFETY LIGHTS - 1798 DBB/22566 GOLDEN SPRINGS 100655 52210 $117.08 1/20/2021 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON GS-1 23331 GOLDEN SPRINGS 100655 52210 $70.27 1/20/2021 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON TRAFFIC CONTROL - 20781 PATHFINDER TC-1 100655 52210 $118.51 1/20/2021 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON SAFETY LIGHTS - 21325 PATHFINDER LS-2 100655 52210 $143.13 1/20/2021 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON SAFETY LIGHTS - 21250 GOLDEN SPRINGS LS-2 100655 52210 $52.09 1/20/2021 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON SAFETY LIGHTS - 1003 GOLDEN SPRINGS LS-2 100655 52210 $68.74 1/20/2021 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON TRAFFIC CONTROL - 21250 GOLDEN SPRINGS TC-1 100655 52210 $73.16 1/20/2021 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON SAFETY LIGHTS - 2201 DBB LS-2 100655 52210 $52.09 1/20/2021 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON TRAFFIC CONTROL - 20791 GOLDEN SPRINGS TC-1 100655 52210 $121.92 1/20/2021 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON SAFETY LIGHTS - 3564 BREA CYN B-PED LS-3 DEC & JAN 100655 52210 $170.44 1/20/2021 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON SAFETY LIGHTS - 2746 BREA CANYON B- PED LS-3 100655 52210 $153.67 1/20/2021 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON SAFETY LIGHTS - 2746 BREA CYN B-PED LS-3 100655 52210 $156.74 1/20/2021 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON TRAFFIC CONTROL - 809 S. DBB TC-1 100655 52210 $115.36 1/20/2021 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON TRAFFIC CONTROL - 1611 S. BREA CANYON TC-1 100655 52210 $59.45 1/20/2021 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON TRAFFIC CONTROL - 801 S LEMON TC-1 100655 52210 $308.50 1/20/2021 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON GS-1 1215 S, BREA CANYON ROAD 100655 52210 $91.01 1/20/2021 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON TRAFFIC CONTROL - 20439 GOLDEN SPRINGS PED TC-1 100655 52210 $104.95 1/20/2021 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON TRAFFIC CONTROL - 20439 GOLDEN SPRINGS PED TC-1 100655 52210 $118.42 1/20/2021 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON SAFETY LIGHTS - 3798 S BREA CANYON ROAD LS-2 100655 52210 $39.07 1/20/2021 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON SAFETY LIGHTS - 21615 GATEWAY CTR LS-2 100655 52210 $52.09 3.3.b Packet Pg. 77 City of Diamond Bar Check Register CHECK # CHECK DATE VENDOR NAME OTP VENDOR NAME INVOICE DESCRIPTION ORG OBJECT AMOUNT 1/20/2021 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON TRAFFIC CONTROL - 1395 DBB & VARIOUS TC-1 100655 52210 $825.65 CHECK TOTAL $3,301.54 1142 1/20/2021 SPECTRUM BUSINESS INTERNET SERVICE - HERITAGE PARK 1/2021 100230 54030 $264.10 CHECK TOTAL $264.10 1143 1/20/2021 THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY NEWSPAPER GR LEGAL AD-PL 19-188 100 22107 $642.50 1/20/2021 THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY NEWSPAPER GR LEGAL AD-PL 20-17 100 22107 $627.50 1/20/2021 THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY NEWSPAPER GR LEGAL ADS - CITY CLERK 100130 52160 $290.00 1/20/2021 THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY NEWSPAPER GR LEGAL ADS - CITY CLERK 100130 52160 $462.50 1/20/2021 THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY NEWSPAPER GR LEGAL ADS - CITY CLERK 100130 52160 $326.00 1/20/2021 THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY NEWSPAPER GR LEGAL ADS - CITY CLERK 100130 52160 $342.50 1/20/2021 THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY NEWSPAPER GR LEGAL ADS - CITY CLERK 100130 52160 $372.50 CHECK TOTAL $3,063.50 1144 1/20/2021 TRANE SERVICE GROUP INC HVAC MAINTENANCE - PANTERA PARK 100630 52320 $760.15 1/20/2021 TRANE SERVICE GROUP INC HVAC MAINTENANCE - DIAMOND BAR CENTER 100510 52320 $4,551.68 1/20/2021 TRANE SERVICE GROUP INC HVAC MAINTENANCE - CITY HALL 100620 52320 $3,873.27 1/20/2021 TRANE SERVICE GROUP INC HVAC MAINTENANCE - HERITAGE PARK 100630 52320 $2,328.46 CHECK TOTAL $11,513.56 1145 1/20/2021 UNITED RECORDS MANAGEMENT INC OFF-SITE STORAGE OF BACK-UP TAPES - SEPT 2020 100230 55000 $678.01 1/20/2021 UNITED RECORDS MANAGEMENT INC OFF-SITE STORAGE OF BACK-UP TAPES - JULY 2020 100230 55000 $594.00 CHECK TOTAL $1,272.01 1146 1/20/2021 US BANK CALCARD STATEMENT - DEC 2020 999 28100 $8,139.87 CHECK TOTAL $8,139.87 1147 1/20/2021 VERIZON WIRELESS WIRELESS PHONE SERVICE - PW & CD 11/17-12/16 100230 52200 $1,742.46 3.3.b Packet Pg. 78 City of Diamond Bar Check Register CHECK # CHECK DATE VENDOR NAME OTP VENDOR NAME INVOICE DESCRIPTION ORG OBJECT AMOUNT CHECK TOTAL $1,742.46 1148 1/20/2021 WW GRAINGER INC PARKS & FACILITIES BUILDING MAINTENANCE 100630 52320 $206.04 CHECK TOTAL $206.04 1149 1/20/2021 WALNUT VALLEY WATER DISTRICT PARKS - DECEMBER 2020 100630 52220 $11,733.21 1/20/2021 WALNUT VALLEY WATER DISTRICT DIST 39 - DECEMBER 2020 239639 52220 $5,282.10 1/20/2021 WALNUT VALLEY WATER DISTRICT DIST 38 - DEC 2020 238638 52220 $11,331.83 1/20/2021 WALNUT VALLEY WATER DISTRICT DIST 41 - DEC 2020 PT 1 241641 52220 $32.60 1/20/2021 WALNUT VALLEY WATER DISTRICT DBC - DECEMBER 2020 100510 52220 $222.77 1/20/2021 WALNUT VALLEY WATER DISTRICT CITY HALL - DEC 2020 100620 52220 $737.53 CHECK TOTAL $29,340.04 1150 1/20/2021 WEST COAST ARBORISTS INC CITYWIDE TREE CARE/MAINT - 12.16.20 - 12.31.20 100645 55522 $435.00 1/20/2021 WEST COAST ARBORISTS INC CITYWIDE TREE WATERING - 12.16.20 - 12.31.20 100645 55522 $2,040.00 CHECK TOTAL $2,475.00 1151 1/20/2021 WOODRUFF SPRADLIN & SMART LEGAL SVCS - NOVEMBER 2020 100120 54020 $92.00 1/20/2021 WOODRUFF SPRADLIN & SMART LEGAL SVCS - NOVEMBER 2020 100120 54020 $322.00 1/20/2021 WOODRUFF SPRADLIN & SMART LEGAL SVCS - NOVEMBER 2020 100120 54020 $391.00 1/20/2021 WOODRUFF SPRADLIN & SMART LEGAL SVCS - NOVEMBER 2020 100120 54020 $506.00 1/20/2021 WOODRUFF SPRADLIN & SMART LEGAL SVCS - NOVEMBER 2020 100120 54020 $529.00 1/20/2021 WOODRUFF SPRADLIN & SMART LEGAL SVCS - NOVEMBER 2020 100120 54020 $690.00 1/20/2021 WOODRUFF SPRADLIN & SMART LEGAL SVCS - NOVEMBER 2020 100120 54020 $851.00 1/20/2021 WOODRUFF SPRADLIN & SMART LEGAL SVCS - NOVEMBER 2020 100120 54020 $1,817.00 CHECK TOTAL $5,198.00 1155 1/27/2021 AIRGAS INC HELIUM 100630 51200 $8.00 1/27/2021 AIRGAS INC HELIUM 100520 51200 $93.00 CHECK TOTAL $101.00 1156 1/27/2021 AMERICOMP GROUP TONER FOR PRINTERS/COPIERS 100230 55000 $919.59 1/27/2021 AMERICOMP GROUP TONER FOR PRINTERS/COPIERS 100230 51200 $1,204.12 3.3.b Packet Pg. 79 City of Diamond Bar Check Register CHECK # CHECK DATE VENDOR NAME OTP VENDOR NAME INVOICE DESCRIPTION ORG OBJECT AMOUNT CHECK TOTAL $2,123.71 1157 1/27/2021 ARC DOCUMENT SOLUTIONS LLC OCE PLOTWARE SCANNER - SERVICE/MAINT 2021 100230 52314 $1,250.00 1/27/2021 ARC DOCUMENT SOLUTIONS LLC HP T1200 COPIER/PRINTER SERVICE/MAINT 2021 100230 52314 $1,770.00 CHECK TOTAL $3,020.00 1158 1/27/2021 NAILA ASAD BARLAS PC MTG ATTENDANCE 1/12/21 BARLAS 100410 52525 $65.00 CHECK TOTAL $65.00 1159 1/27/2021 BONTERRA PSOMAS MITIGATION MONITORING 10/23 - 11/20/20 100 22107 $260.00 CHECK TOTAL $260.00 1160 1/27/2021 BULLSEYE TELECOM INC ANALOG PHONE LINES - DEC 2020 100230 52200 $1,608.22 1/27/2021 BULLSEYE TELECOM INC ANALOG PHONE LINES - JAN 2021 100230 52200 $1,628.89 CHECK TOTAL $3,237.11 1161 1/27/2021 CALIFORNIA DEPT OF TAX AND FEE ADMI OCT-DEC'20 USED TAX 100 29005 $275.00 CHECK TOTAL $275.00 1162 1/27/2021 CALIFORNIA NEWSPAPERS PARTNERSHIP PRINTING OF FEBRUARY 2021 NEWSLETTER 100240 52110 $2,810.10 CHECK TOTAL $2,810.10 1163 1/27/2021 CDW GOVERNMENT RARITAN 1 YEAR EXT. WARRANTY 100230 52314 $2,065.00 1/27/2021 CDW GOVERNMENT FATPIPE PLATINUM SERVICE 100230 52314 $6,336.00 CHECK TOTAL $8,401.00 1164 1/27/2021 DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES INC LANDSCAPE PLAN CHECK 3/29 - 5/22/20 100 22107 $47.50 1/27/2021 DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES INC LANDSCAPE PLAN CHECK 3/29 - 5/22/20 100 22107 $2,856.50 1/27/2021 DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES INC LANDSCAPE PLAN CHECK 11/1 - 11/28/20 100 22107 $917.50 1/27/2021 DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES INC LANDSCAPE PLAN CHECK 11/1 - 11/28/20 100 22107 $1,515.00 CHECK TOTAL $5,336.50 1165 1/27/2021 DELUXE SMALL BUSINESS SALES INC 2020 W-2 & 1095 FORMS 100210 52110 $144.30 3.3.b Packet Pg. 80 City of Diamond Bar Check Register CHECK # CHECK DATE VENDOR NAME OTP VENDOR NAME INVOICE DESCRIPTION ORG OBJECT AMOUNT CHECK TOTAL $144.30 1166 1/27/2021 CAROL A DENNIS MINUTE SECRETARY T&T COMMISSION SEPT 2020 100610 54900 $100.00 1/27/2021 CAROL A DENNIS MINUTE SECRETARY - T&T COMMISSION MEETING NOV 2020 100610 54900 $100.00 1/27/2021 CAROL A DENNIS PLANNING COM MINS - AUGT 2020 100410 54900 $75.00 1/27/2021 CAROL A DENNIS PLNG COM MINUTES - SEPT22 2020 100410 54900 $50.00 1/27/2021 CAROL A DENNIS PC PLNG MINUGES - NOV24 DEC8 2020 100410 54900 $100.00 CHECK TOTAL $425.00 1167 1/27/2021 DENNIS VLASICH CS - LAND MGMT SYSTEM RFP/NOV 2020 503230 56135 $816.20 CHECK TOTAL $816.20 1168 1/27/2021 DIANA CHO CONSULTANT SVCS-ADA AREA 1 JUL- OCT 20 301610 56101 $3,823.00 CHECK TOTAL $3,823.00 1169 1/27/2021 DIVISION OF THE STATE ARCHITECT SB1186 FEES - OCT - DEC 20 226 20602 $290.80 CHECK TOTAL $290.80 1170 1/27/2021 DMPR 4 LLC STORAGE RENTAL IN FEB. 2021 100130 52302 $1,321.00 CHECK TOTAL $1,321.00 1171 1/27/2021 DOGGIE WALK BAGS INC ADDL' DOGGIE BAG ORDER - JAN 2021 250170 51200 $350.40 CHECK TOTAL $350.40 1172 1/27/2021 EATON CORPORATION ANNUAL SERVICE CONTRACT - BATTERY BLADES/SERVERS 100230 52314 $5,156.00 CHECK TOTAL $5,156.00 1173 1/27/2021 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION EXPRESS MAIL - GENERAL 100130 52170 $21.46 CHECK TOTAL $21.46 1174 1/27/2021 FEHR & PEERS PS - ENGR/VARIOUS TRAFFIC-RELATED PROJ - DEC 2020 100615 54410 $850.50 CHECK TOTAL $850.50 1175 1/27/2021 FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS CORP ANALOG PHONE LINE SUMMARY BILL 12/28/20 100230 52200 $359.01 CHECK TOTAL $359.01 3.3.b Packet Pg. 81 City of Diamond Bar Check Register CHECK # CHECK DATE VENDOR NAME OTP VENDOR NAME INVOICE DESCRIPTION ORG OBJECT AMOUNT 1176 1/27/2021 GATEWAY CORP CENTER ASSOC ASSOCIATION DUES FOR FEB 2021 100620 52400 $2,079.98 CHECK TOTAL $2,079.98 1177 1/27/2021 GRANICUS INC CIVIC STREAMING/AGENDA & MINUTES THRU 6/30/21 100230 52314 $13,549.68 CHECK TOTAL $13,549.68 1178 1/27/2021 HDL COMPANIES SALES TAX CONSULTANT - QTR 2 100210 54010 $1,416.53 CHECK TOTAL $1,416.53 1179 1/27/2021 HODGMAN ENTERPRISES STREET SWEEPING NOTICE POSTCARD 100240 52110 $1,679.67 CHECK TOTAL $1,679.67 1180 1/27/2021 INSIGHT PUBLIC SECTOR VMWARE/VSPHERE ESSENTIALS KIT- ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION 100230 52314 $65.00 CHECK TOTAL $65.00 1181 1/27/2021 INTEGRUS LLC RICOH COPY SERVICES BILLING - 12/19/20-1/18/21 100230 52100 $85.49 CHECK TOTAL $85.49 1182 1/27/2021 JOE A GONSALVES & SON INC LEGISLATIVE SERVICES IN FEB. 2021 100130 54900 $2,500.00 CHECK TOTAL $2,500.00 1183 1/27/2021 LANCE SOLL & LUNGHARD LLP AUDIT SVCS - FINAL 2020 100210 54010 $2,775.00 1/27/2021 LANCE SOLL & LUNGHARD LLP AUDIT SVCS - TOT AUP FINAL 100210 54010 $750.00 1/27/2021 LANCE SOLL & LUNGHARD LLP AUDIT SVCS - STATE CONTROLLER RPT 100210 54010 $335.00 CHECK TOTAL $3,860.00 1184 1/27/2021 LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT FY2020-21 SHERIFF'S LAW ENFORCEMENT SVS - 11/2020 100310 55400 $589,029.04 1/27/2021 LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT FY2020-21 SHERIFF'S LAW ENFORCEMENT SVS - 12/2020 100310 55400 $589,029.04 CHECK TOTAL $1,178,058.08 1185 1/27/2021 MERCURY DISPOSAL SYSTEMS INC RECYCLING FEES 250170 55000 $859.00 CHECK TOTAL $859.00 1186 1/27/2021 MITY LITE INC ALUMINUM EDGE KIT 100510 56116 $341.69 CHECK TOTAL $341.69 3.3.b Packet Pg. 82 City of Diamond Bar Check Register CHECK # CHECK DATE VENDOR NAME OTP VENDOR NAME INVOICE DESCRIPTION ORG OBJECT AMOUNT 1187 1/27/2021 MOBILE RELAY ASSOCIATES INC REPEATER SERVICE FOR EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS 100130 54900 $78.75 CHECK TOTAL $78.75 1188 1/27/2021 NEXTECH SYSTEMS INC TS MAINT/BBS REPAIR - BREA CYN RD @ DIAMOND CREST 100655 55536 $247.44 1/27/2021 NEXTECH SYSTEMS INC TS MAINT/BBS REPAIR - GOLDEN SPRINGS/BREA CYN RD 100655 55536 $478.31 1/27/2021 NEXTECH SYSTEMS INC TS MAINT/BBS REPAIR - GOLDEN SPRINGS/LAVENDER 100655 55536 $343.69 CHECK TOTAL $1,069.44 1189 1/27/2021 ONE TIME PAY VENDOR AKBAR ALI EVENT REFUND 100 20202 $780.00 CHECK TOTAL $780.00 1190 1/27/2021 ONE TIME PAY VENDOR DIAMOND BAR HIGH SCHOOL BAND EVENT CANCELED 100 20202 $1,915.20 CHECK TOTAL $1,915.20 1191 1/27/2021 ONE TIME PAY VENDOR DR. ROBIN ABARI EVENT CANCELED 100 20202 $937.50 CHECK TOTAL $937.50 1192 1/27/2021 ONE TIME PAY VENDOR MAGGI SANDHU EVENT CANCELED 100 20202 $3,120.00 CHECK TOTAL $3,120.00 1193 1/27/2021 PLANETBIDS INC PB SYSTEM VENDOR/BID MGMT SUPPORT 100230 52314 $8,168.39 CHECK TOTAL $8,168.39 1194 1/27/2021 REGIONAL TAP SERVICE CENTER FOOTHILL PASSES - DEC 2020 206650 55620 $440.40 1/27/2021 REGIONAL TAP SERVICE CENTER FOOTHILL PASSES - DEC 2020 206650 55610 $1,761.60 1/27/2021 REGIONAL TAP SERVICE CENTER FOOTHILL PASSES - NOV 2020 206650 55620 $216.00 1/27/2021 REGIONAL TAP SERVICE CENTER FOOTHILL PASSES - NOV 2020 206650 55610 $864.00 CHECK TOTAL $3,282.00 1195 1/27/2021 REGISTRAR-RECORDER/COUNTY CLERK CANYON LOOP TRAIL NOD 100520 51200 $2,555.25 CHECK TOTAL $2,555.25 1196 1/27/2021 SCMAF SCMAF CONTRACT CLASS INSURANCE 100520 55320 $123.00 CHECK TOTAL $123.00 3.3.b Packet Pg. 83 City of Diamond Bar Check Register CHECK # CHECK DATE VENDOR NAME OTP VENDOR NAME INVOICE DESCRIPTION ORG OBJECT AMOUNT 1197 1/27/2021 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON SAFETY LIGHTS - 3201 DBB LS-2 100655 52210 $78.12 1/27/2021 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON SAFETY LIGHTS - 1025 BREA CANYON TC1 LS-2 100655 52210 $83.23 1/27/2021 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON SAFETY LIGHTS - 1 DBB/TEMPLE LS-2 100655 52210 $74.87 1/27/2021 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON TRAFFIC CONTROL - DBB N/W @ TEMPLE TC-1 100655 52210 $65.90 1/27/2021 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON GS-1 - 2838 S DBB PED 100655 52210 $96.51 1/27/2021 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON SAFETY LIGHTS - BREA CYN/FALLOWFIELD LS-2 100655 52210 $51.98 1/27/2021 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON SAFETY LIGHTS - BREA CYN/OAKCREST LS-2 100655 52210 $39.65 1/27/2021 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON SAFETY LIGHTS - 24230 GOLDEN SPRINGS LS-2 100655 52210 $49.48 1/27/2021 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON SAFETY LIGHTS - 21010 WASHINGTON ST LS-2 100655 52210 $62.38 1/27/2021 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON SAFETY LIGHTS - 22805 GOLDEN SPRINGS LS-2 100655 52210 $65.10 1/27/2021 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON TRAFFIC CONTROL - 717 GRAND AVE. TC-1 100655 52210 $143.12 CHECK TOTAL $810.34 1198 1/27/2021 SPECTRUM BUSINESS COAX ACCT - FIBER INTERNET CH - DEC 2020 100230 54030 $1,718.27 1/27/2021 SPECTRUM BUSINESS CABLE TV - DBC DEC 2020 100230 54030 $122.80 CHECK TOTAL $1,841.07 1199 1/27/2021 TASC FSA ADMINISTRARIVE FEES-DEC 2020 100220 52515 $131.04 1/27/2021 TASC FSA ADMINISTRATIVE FEES - OCT 2020 100220 52515 $153.04 CHECK TOTAL $284.08 1200 1/27/2021 THE COMDYN GROUP INC GIS SUPPORT - DEC 2020 100230 54900 $2,621.19 CHECK TOTAL $2,621.19 1201 1/27/2021 THE GAS COMPANY DIAMOND BAR CENTER - 12.15.20 - 01.14.21 100510 52215 $772.93 1/27/2021 THE GAS COMPANY HERITAGE PARK 12.14.20 - 01.13.21 100630 52215 $164.47 1/27/2021 THE GAS COMPANY CITY HALL 12.11.20 - 01.12.21 100620 52215 $1,091.76 CHECK TOTAL $2,029.16 3.3.b Packet Pg. 84 City of Diamond Bar Check Register CHECK # CHECK DATE VENDOR NAME OTP VENDOR NAME INVOICE DESCRIPTION ORG OBJECT AMOUNT 1202 1/27/2021 TIMOTHY J PEREZ DATABASE ADMINISTRATION 100130 54900 $2,992.50 CHECK TOTAL $2,992.50 1203 1/27/2021 TRANSCORE LLC TRAFFIC MGMT SYSTEM - ANNUAL SOFTWARE THRU 5/31/21 207650 52314 $20,000.00 CHECK TOTAL $20,000.00 1204 1/27/2021 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES INC IMPLEMENTATION OF FINANCE ERP SYSTEM - 12/20 503230 56135 $10,500.00 1/27/2021 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES INC IMPLEMENTATION OF FINANCE ERP SYSTEM - NOV 2020 503230 56135 $4,900.00 1/27/2021 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES INC IMPLEMENTATION OF FINANCE ERP SYSTEM - OCT 2020 503230 56135 $2,800.00 1/27/2021 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES INC IMPLEMENTATION OF FINANCE ERP SYSTEM - SEPT 2020 503230 56135 $3,500.00 1/27/2021 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES INC IMPLEMENTATION OF FINANCE ERP SYSTEM - OCT 2020 503230 56135 $9,100.00 1/27/2021 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES INC IMPLEMENTATION/ERP SYSTEM - MILESTONES PHASE 1 503230 56135 $65,184.00 CHECK TOTAL $95,984.00 1205 1/27/2021 WALNUT VALLEY WATER DISTRICT PARKS DEC - PT. 2 100630 52220 $664.81 1/27/2021 WALNUT VALLEY WATER DISTRICT RECYCLED - DECEMBER 2020 238638 52220 $735.98 CHECK TOTAL $1,400.79 1206 1/27/2021 MUFG UNION BANK NA ANNUAL ADMIN FEE - FY2021 401510 52255 $3,285.00 CHECK TOTAL $3,285.00 GRAND TOTAL $1,503,147.72 3.3.b Packet Pg. 85 Agenda #: 5.1 Meeting Date: February 2, 2021 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Daniel Fox, City Manager TITLE: PRESENTATION OF DIGITAL BILLBOARD PROPOSAL BY WALNUT VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT. STRATEGIC GOAL: Open, Engaged & Responsive Government RECOMMENDATION: Hear presentation and provide direction as deemed appropriate. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: Walnut Valley Unified School District (WVUSD) has approached the City about an opportunity to install a digital billboard at their Administrative Office p roperty on Lemon Avenue adjacent to the SR-60 freeway. The City’s Sign Code (DBMC Section 22.36.080(11)) prohibits off-site signs, including billboards and outdoor advertising (Attachment 1). Therefore, an amendment to the Municipal Code would need to be approved to accommodate such request. This is a formal process that would require some form of environmental review and public hearings before both the Planning Commission and City Council. In June 2020, Staff from both the City and WVUSD, along with then City Liaisons Mayor Pro Tem Lyons and Council Member Chou, and School Board Members Cynthia Ruiz and Larry Redinger, met to discuss the billboard proposal. While generally open to considering the proposal, the Council Liaisons did identify a variety of questions that would need to be addressed and felt it appropriate for WVUSD to present the concept to the City Council. The purpose of this initial discussion is to provide WVUSD representatives an opportunity to present preliminary information about their proposal. Given the 5.1 Packet Pg. 86 necessary upfront investment in both cost and time by WVUSD in making such a proposal, initial Council feedback is requested to assist WVUSD in determining the feasibility to proceed with an application to amend the Diamond Bar Municipal Code. DISCUSSION: The proposed billboard would be located in the parking lot of the District Administrative Offices on the north side of the SR-60 freeway, east of Lemon Avenue (Attachment 2). WVUSD representatives will be available to presen t the information in more detail and respond to questions from the City Council. The City historically has identified billboards as a prohibited sign type. There is only one (1) existing non-conforming billboard in the City, which is oriented toward the SR-57 freeway near Brea Canyon Road/Via Sorella, and pre -dates City incorporation (Attachment 3). The City Council ultimately has the ability to establish development standards and policies that reflect the values and quality of life characteristics in the best interest of the community. For discussion purposes, the Council may choose to provide comment on the following broad topics, or others, as deemed appropriate: • The precedent-setting nature of such proposal and ability to limit billboards elsewhere along the freeway corridors. • Aesthetic considerations such as design, community character, light and glare. • Location criteria such as adjacency to freeway, distance from residential uses and between other billboards. • Level of community benefit, community identification. Should WVUSD decide to proceed with a billboard proposal, a development application would be required to be submitted to the Community Development Department. The application would also be subject to environmental review under the Cali fornia Environmental Quality Act. WVUSD as the applicant would be responsible for application fees which are roughly estimated between $45,000 and $60,000, most of which is dependent on the type of environmental review that may be required. Consideration of any application would require noticed public hearings with both the Planning Commission and City Council. Any comments presented or discussed as part of this agenda item should not be construed to be binding on the City, Planning Commission or City Council. Any action taken on any application would be based on the entire record through the formal application process. PREPARED BY: 5.1 Packet Pg. 87 REVIEWED BY: Attachments: 1. 5.1.a DBMC 22-36-080 Prohibited Signs 2. 5.1.b WVUSD Presentation 3. 5.1.c Existing Billboard 5.1 Packet Pg. 88 1/18/2021 Diamond Bar, CA Code of Ordinances 1/2 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) Sec. 22.36.080. - Prohibited signs. The following signs are inconsistent with the purposes and standards of this chapter and are, therefore, prohibited in all zoning districts: Abandoned and/or dilapidated signs and sign structures; Animals or human beings, live or simulated, designed or used so as to attract attention to the premises; Animated, moving, flashing, blinking, reflecting, revolving, or other similar signs, except time/temperature devices and barber poles and signs or decorations commemorating a national, state, or local holiday; Banners, streamers, and pennants, except as specifically allowed by the provisions of section 22.36.120(f); Bench signs, except at approved bus passenger loading areas; Changeable copy signs, except as approved for a civic organization/institution, place of worship, movie theater, or gasoline pricing sign; Electronic reader board signs, except time/temperature devices and except as provided in section 22.36.120(c)(7); Inflated signs, balloons, and figures except as provided in section 22.36.120(f)(2); Neon signs, except as approved through a comprehensive sign program; Obscene or offensive signs containing statements, words, or pictures of an obscene, indecent or immoral character which appeal to the prurient interest in sex, or which are patently offensive and do not have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value; Off-site signs not specifically allowed by the provisions of this chapter, including billboards and outdoor advertising; Painted signs on fences, walls, or roofs; Portable signs, except as approved through a comprehensive sign program; Pole-mounted signs; Price signs, except for service stations; Projecting signs; Roof signs extending above the edge of the roof of a structure; Signs erected in a manner that a portion of its surface or supports will interfere in any way with the free use of a fire escape, exit, or standpipe or obstruct a required ventilator, door, stairway, or window above the first story; Signs not in compliance with the provisions of this chapter; Signs emitting audible sounds, odors, or visible matter; Signs that conflict with or imitate traffic control devices due to color, wording, design, location 5.1.a Packet Pg. 89 1/18/2021 Diamond Bar, CA Code of Ordinances 2/2 (22) (23) (24) (25) or illumination, or that interfere with the safe and efficient flow of vehicular and/or pedestrian traffic; Signs on public property or projecting within the public right-of-way, except political signs and signs with an encroachment permit issued by the city; Strings of lights or signs outlined with individual light bulbs; and Signs attached to or painted on motor vehicles or trailers that are parked on or adjacent to property for more than 48 consecutive hours, the principal purpose of which is to attract attention to a product sold or business located on or near the property where the vehicle or trailer is located; Signs attached to trees. (Ord. No. 02(1998), § 2, 11-3-98; Ord. No. 01(2002), § 1, 1-29-02) 5.1.a Packet Pg. 90 BILLBOARD PROJECTDISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE880 S. LEMON AVE., WALNUT, CA 917895.1.bPacket Pg. 91 AgendaWalnut Valley Unified School District •Overview of Site/Sample Signs•Benefits to City, Students, Community and District•Current City Code•Questions?25.1.bPacket Pg. 92 Walnut Valley Unified School District Potential Sign Location880 S. LEMON AVE., WALNUT, CA 91789 35.1.bPacket Pg. 93 Walnut Valley Unified School District Potential Sign Location880 S. LEMON AVE., WALNUT, CA 91789Potential Location60 Freeway45.1.bPacket Pg. 94 Walnut Valley Unified School District Sample Electronic SignsANNUAL REVENUE TO THE DISTRICT FROM ONE DOUBLE‐SIDED DIGITAL BILLBOARD LOCATED ADJACENT TO A MAJOR FREEWAY LIKE THE 60 COULD BE APPROXIMATELY $150,000 ‐ $300,000 A YEAR55.1.bPacket Pg. 95 Walnut Valley Unified School District Sample Electronic Signs65.1.bPacket Pg. 96 Walnut Valley Unified School District Sample Electronic Signs75.1.bPacket Pg. 97 Walnut Valley Unified School District City General Plan: Highlights Diamond Bar Schools •“Diamond Bar has been fortunate to be associated with high‐performing schools that have bolstered its reputation as a family‐friendly community.”•“Schools are a key factor in attracting new families and residents to the city.”•“Maintaining strong partnerships with the school and supporting the schools will be an important consideration as the city grows.”•WVUSD “is one of the top performing school districts in the state, with Diamond Bar High ranking particularly high.”85.1.bPacket Pg. 98 Walnut Valley Unified School District Benefits to City from Entitling Sign•In line with General Plan Maintaining strong partnerships with and supporting WVUSD schoolsHelps District schools remain high functioning by sign revenues funding education and programs•City could benefit from Free Advertising Time for City Programs and EventsAmber Alerts Community Safety MessagingPotential Revenue Generation for City95.1.bPacket Pg. 99 Walnut Valley Unified School District Benefits to WVUSD, Students and Community•Substantial revenue stream•Increased revenue provides more resources for District students and programs•District will often apply revenue to programs that could otherwise go with less •Potential for District to “Bond” income stream for numerous projects•Advertising for School and Community Events105.1.bPacket Pg. 100 Walnut Valley Unified School District Current Diamond Bar City Code11•Off‐sitesigns, including billboards and outdoor advertising are prohibited. (Mun. Code, § 22.36.080(11)) Off‐site signs advertise a business, service, product or activity offered at a different location.•Freeway‐oriented on‐sitesigns are allowed with restrictions including allowable distance to residences and other signs.(§ 22.36.120(c))An on‐site sign is a sign that is on the premises of the business being advertised by the sign. 5.1.bPacket Pg. 101 Walnut Valley Unified School District Sample On‐Site Signs: Diamond Bar125.1.bPacket Pg. 102 Walnut Valley Unified School District Sample On‐Site Freeway Signs: Diamond Bar135.1.bPacket Pg. 103 Walnut Valley Unified School District Entitling Off‐Site Signs•The City can amend its sign ordinance to allow off‐site static/digital signage. •The City could establish similar restrictions for off‐site signs, including:Properties must be within a certain distance of a freeway (i.e., 200 feet)Signs must be a minimum distance apart (i.e., 1,300 feet apart)Signs must be a minimum distance from a residential neighborhood145.1.bPacket Pg. 104 Walnut Valley Unified School District Examples of Cities in California Amending Billboard/Sign Ordinances •San Jose•Sacramento•Hawthorne•El Monte•Many more155.1.bPacket Pg. 105 ANY QUESTIONS?THANK YOUMatt Torres, Ed.D.Assistant Superintendent, Business Services 909‐595‐1261 Ext. 43426 matorres@wvusd.org5.1.bPacket Pg. 106 Attachment 3 Existing Non-Conforming Billboard Via Sorella Billboard Location 5.1.c Packet Pg. 107 Agenda #: 5.2 Meeting Date: February 2, 2021 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Daniel Fox, City Manager TITLE: CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT STRATEGIC GOAL: Responsible Stewardship of Public Resources RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Resolution 2021-04 approving and adopting the final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project, and direct City staff to file a Notice of Determination. 2. Approve the Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Design and construction funding has been appropriated from the Habitat Conservation Fund, Measure A, Measure W, Quimby, and Park Development funds totaling $625,436. Based on potential mitigation expenses, the improvements ma y need to be phased or reduced. BACKGROUND: The Parks and Recreation Department has been developing a conceptual design for the Canyon Loop Multi-Use Trail, which is a 1.29-mile trail loop within General Plan designation of Open Space. The goal of this conceptual plan is to provide safe, convenient pedestrian and bicyclist access for recreation, exercise, and enjoyment of the natural environment. The Canyon Loop Trail is located within the center of the Summitridge Park Trail system comprised of nearly five miles of trail adjacent to the Diamond Bar Center. This system currently consists of five trails and three trailheads. An area of focus for this project includes identifying deficiencies and rendering it more accessible. The Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project (“Project”) will realign the trail, stabilize the path, provide 5.2 Packet Pg. 108 water diverts, cobblestone swales, and landscape tie steps or steps within steep grades where necessary. To better inform residents and trail users, updated interpretive and directional signage will be included. In addition, the design will include the creation of rest areas, and amenities such as benches, shade structures, and trash receptacles. Since August 2019, the City has contracted with landscape architect Rich ard Fisher Associates (RFA). RFA has extensive experience designing and developing park and trail projects throughout Southern California. RFA provides the technical expertise and support while providing the City with potential trail design and amenity options. If the City Council approves Resolution 2021-XX and the Project, final construction plans, specifications and cost estimates will be developed and brought back to the City Council for direction on putting the Project out to bid. On September 26, 2019, staff elicited feedback from the Parks and Recreation Commission regarding potential trail improvements. On October 15, 2019, the City Council also provided design feedback during a City Council Study Session. The feedback was considered in RFA’s design. Since that time, the City became aware of potential environmental impacts that may need to be mitigated based on the location of the Project. To properly identify environmental impacts and meet California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements, the City Council approved a contract with Michael Baker International (MBI) on May 5, 2020 to perform the requisite environmental analysis. This in-depth environmental assessment was completed in early January 2021. The Project was brought back to the Parks and Recreation Commission on January 28, 2021 for a Project update. ANALYSIS: This Project has been reviewed for compliance with CEQA. Based on that assessment, the City prepared a Draft Initial Study and filed a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project with the Office of Planning and Research and the Los Angeles County Clerk on October 16, 2020. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15105, a 30-day public review period for the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration began on October 16, 2020, and ended November 16, 2020. The Initial Study (IS) is a detailed analysis to determine whether a Negative Declaration (ND), Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), or Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is the appropriate environmental document for a project. If the IS concludes that the potential impacts from a proposed project can be mitigated to less -than-significant levels pursuant to CEQA, an MND may be prepared. As stated, an MND was prepared for the Project. Among the most notable findings in the IS/MND is documentation that the Project site supports habitat for, and is populated by, the coastal California gnatcatcher, a Federally Threatened Species and California Species of Special Concern, as well as the co astal cactus wren, a Southern California bird experiencing habitat decline. During the 30-day public review period, the City received written comments from the California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW), the Diamond Bar-Pomona Valley Sierra Club Task Force, and Hamilton Biological, Inc. on behalf of a consortium of 5.2 Packet Pg. 109 Diamond Bar residents. The IS/MND (Attachment A) includes the comments received, the City’s responses to the comments, and, where warranted, revisions to the proposed mitigation measures to address the comments. The Final IS/MND identifies potentially significant impacts in the categories of Aesthetics, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources (non-tribal), Geology/Soils, Noise and Tribal Cultural Resources. The IS further prescribes 11 mitigation measures that would reduce those impacts to less-than-significant levels. To mitigate for removal of gnatcatcher and cactus wren habitat, habitat restoration/replacement at ratios of up to 5:1, either on-or off-site, shall be required. The Final IS/MND also includes a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“Program”), which sets forth the manner in which the mitigation measures shall be implemented. The Program identifies the project milestones that trigger specific mitigation measures and identifies the parties responsible for monitoring compliance with the mitigation measures. An accompanying checklist is included in the Program to track monitoring progress. Tribal Cultural Resources Assembly Bill 52 requires lead agencies to request consultation with all Native American tribes that have ancestral ties to the area in which a project subject to CEQA is located. The Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation responded to the City’s request, and a formal consultation between the City and Kizh Nation representatives took place via teleconference on August 6, 2020. As a result of this consultation, the IS/MND includes mitigation measures requiring the IS/MND the City to retain a culturally - affiliated Native American monitor to observe ground-disturbing construction activities for the purpose of identifying the potential presence of any significant historic or prehistoric tribal cultural resources. LEGAL REVIEW: The City Attorney has reviewed and approved the IS/MND as to form. PREPARED BY: 5.2 Packet Pg. 110 REVIEWED BY: Attachments: 1. 5.2.a Resolution No. 2021-04 2. 5.2.b Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3. 5.2.c Biological Reports 4. 5.2.d AB 52 (Tribal Consultation) Documentation 5.2 Packet Pg. 111 RESOLUTION NO. 2021-04 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND APPROVING THE CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. A. RECITALS 1. The proposed Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project calls for the following improvements along the Canyon Loop Trail within the Summit Ridge Park Trail System including: (a) widening the existing trail along most of the South Canyon Loop to approximately five (5) feet; (b) adding gabion retaining walls in five (5) areas along the South Canyon Loop to stabilize soils and reduce erosion; (c) providing stairs with handrails and cobblestone swales to facilitate ease of access and improve safety and drainage; (d) adding six (6) drainage crossings along South Canyon Loop to improve drainage and reduce erosion; (e) adding two (2) shade structures with benches and trash receptacles along the South Canyon Loop and one (1) shade str ucture with benches and trash receptacles along the North Canyon Loop at identified view points; (f) lodging pole fences with mounted “Trail Closed” signs in five (5) areas along the South Canyon Loop to restrict trail users from entering informal trail areas off the existing South Canyon Loop; (g) adding a perforated bench on the west end of the South Canyon Loop; (h) installing wayfinding signs on the eastern and western ends of the Canyon Loop Trail; (i) adding interpretive signage in various locations to promote awareness of sensitive biological habitat and species, including the California gnatcatcher and cactus wren, and to indicate that the trail was implemented in a manner to minimize biological resources impacts; and (j) providing long-term maintenance for these project components. 2. These improvements are collectively referred to herein as the “proposed project” or the “Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project;” 5.2.a Packet Pg. 112 Resolution No. 2021-04 2 3. The proposed project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq. and California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000 et seq. (“CEQA”); 4. For CEQA purposes, the City of Diamond Bar is the lead agency for the proposed project, and the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar is the decision-making body for the proposed project; 5. The City of Diamond Bar prepared an initial study to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project ; 6. The initial study concluded that, with the implementation of mitigation, all of the proposed project’s potential environmental impacts can be reduced to a level of less than significant and a draft mitigated negative declaration was prepared accordingly; 7. On October 16, 2020, the City of Diamond Bar filed a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration with the Los Angeles County Clerk and the Office of Planning and Research (State Clearinghouse # 2020100291); 8. The Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was also provided to the public pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15072(b); 9. The initial study and draft mitigated negative declara tion were made available for a 30-day public review and comment period from October 16, 2020 to November 16, 2020 in compliance with Sections 15072 and 15105 of the CEQA Guidelines; 10. The initial study and mitigated negative declaration were prepared and circulated in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines; 11. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15074(d), the City of Diamond Bar prepared a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project; 12. The City Council has considered the initial study and mitigated negative declaration together with information and testimony presented by City staff, the public, and other interested parties at a public hearing held on February 2, 2021; and 13. All other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. RESOLUTION NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: 5.2.a Packet Pg. 113 Resolution No. 2021-04 3 1. This City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct; 2. On the basis of the whole record, including the initial study, mitigated negative declaration, and comments received, there is no substantial evidence that the proposed project will have a significant effect on the environment; 3. The initial study and mitigated negative declaration reflect the City of Diamond Bar’s independent judgment and analysis pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21082.1(c)(3); 4. Therefore, the City Council hereby adopts the mitigated negative declaration for the proposed project; 5. The City Council hereby adopts the mitigation monitoring and reporting program for the proposed project which is located within the mitigated negative declaration; 6. The City Council hereby approves the Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project; 7. The City Council hereby delegates the authority to the City’s Director of Parks and Recreation to file a Notice of Determination with the Los Angeles County Clerk pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15075(a); and 8. The record of proceedings on which the City’s decision is based is located at the Diamond Bar City Hall, 21810 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California, 91765. The custodian of the record of procee dings is the City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar. PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 2nd day of February, 2021 by the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar. ______________________________ Nancy Lyons, Mayor 5.2.a Packet Pg. 114 Resolution No. 2021-04 4 ATTEST: I, Kristina Santana, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 2nd day of February 2021, by the following vote to wit: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ______________________________ Kristina Santana, City Clerk 5.2.a Packet Pg. 115 5.2.b Packet Pg. 116 5.2.b Packet Pg. 117 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 i Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PART II RESPONSES TO COMMENTS PART III MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 5.2.b Packet Pg. 118 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 ii Table of Contents This page intentionally left blank. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 119 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 iii Table of Contents IS/MND and Technical Appendices on CD This page intentionally left blank. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 120 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 iv Table of Contents This page intentionally left blank. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 121 PART I – INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 5.2.b Packet Pg. 122 5.2.b Packet Pg. 123 FINAL INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project SCH# 2020100291 LEAD AGENCY: City of Diamond Bar 21810 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Contact: Mr. Ryan Wright 909.839.7061 PREPARED BY: Michael Baker International 5 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 500 Santa Ana, CA 92707 Contact: Mr. Alan Ashimine 949.472.3505 January 2021 JN 178669 5.2.b Packet Pg. 124 This document is designed for double-sided printing to conserve natural resources. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 125 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 i Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Statutory Authority and Requirements ............................................................................................ 1-1 1.2 Purpose .......................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 Consultation ................................................................................................................................... 1-2 1.4 Incorporation by Reference ............................................................................................................ 1-2 2.0 Project Description ..................................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Project Location .............................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.2 Environmental Setting .................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2.1 Existing General Plan Designation and Zoning ............................................................ 2-1 2.2.2 Surrounding Land Uses ................................................................................................ 2-1 2.3 Project Background ........................................................................................................................ 2-5 2.4 Project Characteristics .................................................................................................................... 2-5 2.5 Construction/Phasing ..................................................................................................................... 2-6 2.6 Permits and Approvals ................................................................................................................... 2-6 3.0 Initial Study Checklist ................................................................................................................................ 3-1 3.1 Background .................................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected .................................................................................... 3-2 3.3 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ............................................................................................. 3-2 4.0 Environmental Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 4.1-1 4.1 Aesthetics ................................................................................................................................... 4.1-1 4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ............................................................................................ 4.2-1 4.3 Air Quality ................................................................................................................................... 4.3-1 4.4 Biological Resources ................................................................................................................... 4.4-1 4.5 Cultural Resources ...................................................................................................................... 4.5-1 4.6 Energy ................................................................................................................................... 4.6-1 4.7 Geology and Soils ....................................................................................................................... 4.7-1 4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................................................ 4.8-1 4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .............................................................................................. 4.9-1 4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ..................................................................................................... 4.10-1 4.11 Land Use and Planning ............................................................................................................. 4.11-1 4.12 Mineral Resources ..................................................................................................................... 4.12-1 4.13 Noise ......................................................................................................................................... 4.13-1 4.14 Population and Housing ............................................................................................................ 4.14-1 4.15 Public Services .......................................................................................................................... 4.15-1 4.16 Recreation ................................................................................................................................. 4.16-1 4.17 Transportation ........................................................................................................................... 4.17-1 4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................... 4.18-1 4.19 Utilities and Service Systems .................................................................................................... 4.19-1 4.20 Wildfire ................................................................................................................................. 4.20-1 4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ........................................................................................... 4.21-1 4.22 References ................................................................................................................................ 4.22-1 4.23 Report Preparation Personnel ................................................................................................... 4.23-1 5.0 Inventory of Mitigation Measures .............................................................................................................. 5-1 5.2.b Packet Pg. 126 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 ii Table of Contents 6.0 Consultant Recommendation .................................................................................................................... 6-1 7.0 Lead Agency Determination ...................................................................................................................... 7-1 APPENDICES Appendix A Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas/Energy Data Appendix B Biological Resources Reports Appendix C Cultural Resources Assessment Appendix D Noise Data Appendix E AB 52 Documentation 5.2.b Packet Pg. 127 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 iii Table of Contents LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit 2-1 Regional Vicinity ............................................................................................................................. 2-2 Exhibit 2-2 Site Vicinity ..................................................................................................................................... 2-3 Exhibit 2-3 Summitridge Park Trail System ...................................................................................................... 2-4 Exhibit 2-4 Conceptual Trail Improvement Plan ............................................................................................... 2-7 LIST OF TABLES Table 4.3-1 Maximum Short-Term Construction Emissions ........................................................................... 4.3-5 Table 4.3-2 Localized Significance of Emissions ............................................................................................ 4.3-8 Table 4.6-1 Construction Energy Consumption .............................................................................................. 4.6-3 Table 4.6-2 Project Energy Use General Plan Consistency Analysis ............................................................. 4.6-4 Table 4.8-1 Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions ....................................................................................... 4.8-5 Table 4.8-2 Project CAP Consistency Analysis .............................................................................................. 4.8-6 Table 4.13-1 Noise and Land Use Compatibility ............................................................................................ 4.13-2 Table 4.13-2 General Plan Land Use/Noise Compatibility Matrix .................................................................. 4.13-3 Table 4.13-3 Maximum Noise Levels Generated by Construction Equipment ............................................... 4.13-6 Table 4.13-4 Construction Noise Levels by Construction Activity ................................................................... 4.13-6 Table 4.13-5 Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment ................................................................ 4.13-8 5.2.b Packet Pg. 128 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 iv Table of Contents This page intentionally left blank. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 129 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 v Table of Contents INITIAL STUDY AND APPENDICES ON CD This page intentionally left blank. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 130 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 vi Table of Contents This page intentionally left blank. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 131 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 1-1 Introduction 1.0 INTRODUCTION The proposed Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project (herein referenced as the “project”) involves the addition of trail improvements along the Canyon Loop Trail within the Summitridge Park Trail System; refer to Section 2.0, Project Description. Following a preliminary review of the proposed project, the City of Diamond Bar (City) has determined that it is subject to the guidelines and regulations of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378, a “project” is defined as the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and that is any of the following:  An activity directly undertaken by any public agency, including, but not limited to, public works construction and related activities clearing or grading of land, improvements to existing public structures, enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances, and the adoption and amendment of local General Plans or elements thereof pursuant to Government Code Sections 65100-65700;  An activity undertaken by a person which is supported in whole or in part through public agency contacts, grants, subsidies, loans, or other forms of assistance from one or more public agencies; or  An activity involving the issuance to a person of a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use by one or more public agencies. This Initial Study addresses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects of the project, as proposed. 1.1 STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND REQUIREMENTS In accordance with Sections 15051 and 15367 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), the City is identified as the Lead Agency for the proposed project. Under CEQA (Public Resources Code Section 21000-21177) and pursuant to Section 15063 of the CCR, the City is required to undertake the preparation of an Initial Study to determine if the proposed project would have a significant environmental impact. If, as a result of the Initial Study, the Lead Agency finds that there is evidence that any aspect of the project may cause a significant environmental effect, the Lead Agency shall further find that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is warranted to analyze project-related and cumulative environmental impacts. Alternatively, if the Lead Agency finds that there is no evidence that the project, either as proposed or as modified to include the mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study, may cause a significant effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall find that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment and shall prepare a Negative Declaration (or Mitigated Negative Declaration). Such determination can be made only if “there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the Lead Agency” that such impacts may occur (Section 21080[c], Public Resources Code). The environmental documentation, which is ultimately selected by the City in accordance with CEQA, is intended as an informational document undertaken to provide an environmental basis for subsequent discretionary actions upon the project. The resulting documentation is not, however, a policy document and its approval and/or certification neither presupposes nor mandates any actions on the part of those agencies from whom permits, and other discretionary approvals would be required. 1.2 PURPOSE CEQA Guidelines Section 15063 identifies specific disclosure requirements for inclusion in an Initial Study. Pursuant to those requirements, an Initial Study shall include:  A description of the project, including the location of the project;  Identification of the environmental setting; 5.2.b Packet Pg. 132 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 1-2 Introduction  Identification of environmental effects by use of a checklist, matrix, or other method, provided that entries on a checklist or other form are briefly explained to indicate that there is some evidence to support the entries;  Discussion of ways to mitigate significant effects identified, if any;  Examination of whether the project is compatible with existing zoning, plans, and other applicable land use controls; and  The name(s) of the person(s) who prepared or participated in the preparation of the Initial Study. 1.3 CONSULTATION Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(g), as soon as the Lead Agency (in this case, the City) has determined that an Initial Study would be required for the project, the Lead Agency is directed to consult informally with all Responsible Agencies and Trustee Agencies that are responsible for resources affected by the project, in order to obtain the recommendations of those agencies as to whether an EIR or Negative Declaration should be prepared for the project. Following receipt of any written comments from those agencies, the Lead Agency considers any recommendations of those agencies in the formulation of the preliminary findings. Following completion of this Initial Study, the Lead Agency initiates formal consultation with these and other governmental agencies as required under CEQA and its implementing guidelines. 1.4 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE The following references were utilized during preparation of this Initial Study and are incorporated into this document by reference. These documents are available for review at the City of Diamond Bar, located at 21810 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California 91765.  Diamond Bar General Plan 2040 (December 2019). The Diamond Bar General Plan 2040 (General Plan) is a dynamic policy document intended to guide the long-term development within Diamond Bar. The General Plan reflects the community’s values and desires, as expressed in a broad vision for the future through 2040, and addresses important issue, such as land use and urban design, economic development, circulation, resource conservation, public facilities and services, safety, public health, and sustainability. The General Plan consists of the following elements: Land Use and Economic Development; Community Character and Placemaking; Circulation; Resource Conservation; Public Facilities and Services; Public Safety; and Community Health and Sustainability.  Diamond Bar Environmental Impact Report 2040 (State Clearinghouse No. 2018051066) (November 2019). The Diamond Bar Environmental Impact Report 2040 (General Plan EIR) evaluates the environmental impacts associated with the adoption of the General Plan. The General Plan EIR concluded that the General Plan would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to air quality, historic resources, parks and recreation, and transportation (vehicle miles traveled). All other environmental impacts would not involve significant and unavoidable impacts following implementation of recommended mitigation, Diamond Bar Municipal Code requirements, and relevant General Plan policies.  Diamond Bar Municipal Code (codified through Ordinance No. 01(2019), enacted January 15, 2019). The Diamond Bar Municipal Code (Municipal Code) includes the City’s regulatory, penal, and administrative ordinances. Municipal Code Title 22, Development Code (Development Code), is the City’s main tool to implement the General Plan. The purpose of the Development Code is to implement the policies of the General Plan by classifying and regulating the uses of land and structures within the City. In addition, the 5.2.b Packet Pg. 133 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 1-3 Introduction Development Code is adopted to protect and promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of residents, and preserve and enhance the aesthetic quality of Diamond Bar.  Diamond Bar Parks and Recreation Master Plan (July 2011). The Diamond Bar Parks and Recreation Master Plan (Park Master Plan) updates the previous 1998 Park Master Plan and provides a conceptual master plan for Summitridge Park that outlines opportunities for the development of future facilities within the park. The Park Master Plan acts as the planning tool for City staff to reference when making recommendations for future growth and implementation strategies associated with the City’s parks and recreational facilities. Overall, the Parks Master Plan provides direction to continue the orderly and consistent planning, acquisition, development, and administration of the parks and recreation programming in the City. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 134 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 1-4 Introduction This page intentionally left blank. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 135 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 2-1 Project Description 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION Regionally, the project site is located within the City of Diamond Bar (City), in the southeastern portion of Los Angeles County; refer to Exhibit 2-1, Regional Vicinity. Surrounding jurisdictions include the cities of Industry and Walnut and the unincorporated community of Rowland Heights to the west, Pomona to the north, Chino Hills to the east, and Brea and unincorporated Los Angeles County to the south. The project site is the existing Canyon Loop Trail situated within the central portion of the City and is part of the Summitridge Park Trail System. The 1.29-linear mile trail is located within Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 8701- 059-904; refer to Exhibit 2-2, Site Vicinity. Regional access to the project site is provided via State Route 60 (SR-60) and State Route 57 (SR-57) to the west. 2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING As shown on Exhibit 2-3, Summitridge Park Trail System, the Summitridge Park Trail System encompasses three trail routes: the Ridge Route, Canyon Loop Trail, and Grand View Route. The Canyon Loop Trail is located in the central portion of the trail system with Ridge Route to the north and Grand View Route to the south. The Canyon Loop Trail can be further distinguished into the North Canyon and South Canyon Loops that make up the full loop trail. The trail is currently unpaved with two existing benches located along the eastern end of the North Canyon Loop and one bench on the eastern end of the South Canyon Loop. Trailhead and wayfinding signs are located on the east and west sides of the loop. A Southern California Edison easement and three towers with overhead wires traverse the North Canyon Loop. The trail undergoes varying topography, ranging in elevation from approximately 970 to 1,275 feet above mean sea level (amsl), sloping uphill from west to east with the highest elevation located along the easternmost portion of the South Canyon Loop. The Summitridge Park Trail System area is characterized by undeveloped open space dominated by Venturan coastal sage scrub, oak woodland, and walnut woodland plant communities. Prickly pear cactus is also present throughout the area and sightings of special-status coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) and cactus wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus) have been documented in the immediate vicinity of the Canyon Loop Trail. Trail users of the Summitridge Park Trail System are able to access the three trails, including the Canyon Loop Trail, via two trailhead access points at Summit Ridge Park to the south or via access points on the eastern and western end of the trail system from residential neighborhood roadways, including Peak Court, Wynnewood Drive, Dare Court, and Clear Creek Canyon Road. 2.2.1 EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION AND ZONING Based on the Diamond Bar General Plan 2040 (General Plan) and City of Diamond Bar Zoning Map (Zoning Map), the project site is designated Open Space and zoned Low Density Residential (RL). 2.2.2 SURROUNDING LAND USES Surrounding land uses in proximity to the project site are primarily comprised of open space and residential uses as described below. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 136 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Exhibit 2-1 Regional Vicinity 08/20 JN 178669 NOT TO SCALE P A C I F I C O C E A N USMC Camp Pendleton SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAN DIEGO COUNTY LOS ANGELES COUNTY ORANGE COUNTY 101 395 405 405 605 105 210 210 710 110 215 215 5 5 5 15 15 15 15 10 10 10 73 55 57 9191 90 60 71 83 66 91 60 38 18 18 22 1 2 14 18 18 138 138 173 247 74 74 1 1 133 261 241 330 241 Victorville Adelanto Hesperia Apple Valley SanBernardino LakeArrowhead RunningSprings Riverside Fontana OntarioPomona RanchoCucamonga Chino Rialto Corona Norco LakeElsinore Hemet Beaumont Redlands Temecula Fallbrook Oceanside Murrieta Palmdale Lancaster SanFernando Pasadena WestCovina Whittier Burbank Glendora LosAngeles Torrance LongBeach NewportBeach HuntingtonBeach SanClemente DanaPoint LagunaBeach San JuanCapistrano SantaAna CostaMesa GardenGrove Fullerton YorbaLinda Irvine MorenoValley SunCity Perris Project Site 5.2.b Packet Pg. 137 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Exhibit 2-2 Site Vicinity Source: Google Earth Pro, 2020.SUMMITRIDGE DRBROOKWOOD DRDIAMOND BAR BLVDCLEAR CREEK CANYON DRGRAND AVE GOLDEN NUGGET AVE MEANDERING CREEK DR S T E EP CANYO N R D Ca nyon Loop Trail Ridge Route Grand Vie w R o u t e MONUMEN T C A N Y O N D R 08/20 JN 178669 NOT TO SCALE 5.2.b Packet Pg. 138 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Exhibit 2-3 Summitridge Park Trail System Source: City of Diamond Bar, 2011. 08/20 JN 178669 NOT TO SCALE 5.2.b Packet Pg. 139 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 2-5 Project Description  North: Ridge Route and open space, including steep undeveloped hillsides are present to the north of the project site. These areas are designated Open Space and zoned RL.  East: Open space and single-family residential uses are located to the east of the Canyon Loop Trail. These areas are designated Open Space and Low Density Residential and zoned RL.  South: Grand View Route, open space, and recreational uses (Diamond Bar Center and Summit Ridge Park) are located to the south of the project site. These areas are designated Open Space, Public Facility, and Park, and zoned RL.  West: Single-family and multifamily residential and commercial uses are located to the west of the Canyon Loop Trail. These areas are designated Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, and General Commercial, and zoned Low Medium Density Residential, Medium High Density Residential, and Regional Commercial. 2.3 PROJECT BACKGROUND The City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) serves as a plan for the provision of public improvements, special projects, and ongoing maintenance programs, including park improvements. As part of the CIP, the Diamond Bar City Council appropriated funds to improve the existing Canyon Loop Trail with the intent to realign the trail, improve drainage, re-grade cross slopes, and provide recreational amenities. Consistent with the General Plan Public Facilities and Services Element and Diamond Bar Parks and Recreation Master Plan (PMP), the project is intended to provide enhanced recreational opportunities for residents and visitors. The PMP details recommended improvements in the Summitridge Park Trail System, including trailhead access points and signage, benches and trash receptacles, stairs, and footbridges. Improvements desired by the community include level pads and benches at scenic viewpoints along the three trails within the Summitridge Park Trail System. As detailed below, the project proposes several of the recommended and desired trail improvements along the Canyon Loop Trail. On July 16, 2019, the City Council awarded a contract to a landscape architecture firm, Richard Fisher Associates (RFA), for the conceptual design of such improvements. In October 2019, RFA provided the City with a conceptual trail improvement plan that includes trail realignment, stairs, retaining walls, and small shade shelters with benches primarily along the South Canyon Loop of the trail. 2.4 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS As shown on Exhibit 2-4, Conceptual Trail Improvement Plan, the project proposes several trail improvement features along the Canyon Loop Trail. Existing amenities along the trail are limited to two benches along the North Canyon Loop and one bench on the eastern end of the South Canyon Loop. Proposed improvements include the following:  The existing trail along most of the South Canyon Loop would be widened to approximately five feet and remain a natural, unpaved surface;  Gabion retaining walls would be provided in five areas along the South Canyon Loop to stabilize soils and reduce erosion;  Stairs with handrails and cobblestone swales would be provided in six areas along the South Canyon Loop to facilitate ease of access and safety and improve drainage;  Six drainage crossings are proposed along the South Canyon Loop to improve drainage and reduce erosion;  Two shade structures with benches and trash receptacles would be provided along the South Canyon Loop and one shade structure with benches and trash receptacles would be provided along the North Canyon Loop at identified view points; 5.2.b Packet Pg. 140 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 2-6 Project Description  Lodge pole fences with “Trail Closed” signs mounted on the fences would be installed in five areas along the South Canyon Loop to restrict trail users from entering informal trail areas off the existing Canyon Loop trail;  A perforated bench is proposed on the west end of the South Canyon Loop;  A wayfinding sign would be installed on the eastern and western end of the Canyon Loop Trail;  Interpretive signage in various locations that promote awareness of the presence of sensitive biological habitat and species (including the coastal California gnatcatcher and cactus wren), and indicate that the trail was implemented in a manner to minimize impacts to biological resources; and  Long-term, routine maintenance of the project components above. Most of the trail improvements would occur along the South Canyon Loop with minor improvements along the North Canyon Loop; refer to Exhibit 2-4. 2.5 CONSTRUCTION/PHASING Construction of the proposed trail improvements is anticipated to occur in a single phase with a duration of four months, beginning in spring 2021. 2.6 PERMITS AND APPROVALS The City and other applicable agency approvals required for project implementation would include, but are not limited to, the following: City of Diamond Bar  California Environmental Quality Act Clearance  Approval of Conceptual Design Plan U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service  Incidental Take Permit Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board  National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Construction General Permit 5.2.b Packet Pg. 141 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Exhibit 2-4 Conceptual Trail Improvement Plan Source: Richard Fisher Associates, 2020. 08/20 JN 178669 NOT TO SCALE 5.2.b Packet Pg. 142 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 2-8 Project Description This page intentionally left blank. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 143 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 3-1 Initial Study Checklist 3.0 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST 3.1 BACKGROUND 1. Project Title: Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Diamond Bar Parks and Recreation Department 21810 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Mr. Ryan Wright, Parks and Recreation Director 909.839.7061 4. Project Location: The project site is the existing Canyon Loop Trail situated within the central portion of the City and is part of the Summitridge Park Trail System. The 1.29-linear mile trail is located within Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 8701-059-904. 5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: City of Diamond Bar Parks and Recreation Department 21810 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 6. General Plan Designation: The project site is designated Open Space by the Diamond Bar General Plan 2040. 7. Zoning: The project site is zoned Low Density Residential (RL) by the City of Diamond Bar Zoning Map. 8. Description of the Project: Refer to Section 2.4, Project Characteristics. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Refer to Section 2.2.2, Surrounding Land Uses. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval or participation agreement). Refer to Section 2.6, Permits and Approvals. 11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.? In compliance with Assembly Bill (AB) 52, the City distributed letters to applicable Native American tribes to notify tribes of the opportunity to consult with the City regarding the proposed project. The letters were distributed by certified mail on July 2, 2020. The tribes had 30 days to respond to the City’s request for consultation. Refer to Section 4.18, Tribal Cultural Resources. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 144 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 3-2 Initial Study Checklist 3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” or “Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated,” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.  Aesthetics Mineral Resources Agriculture and Forestry Resources  Noise Air Quality Population and Housing  Biological Resources Public Services  Cultural Resources Recreation Energy Transportation  Geology and Soils  Tribal Cultural Resources Greenhouse Gas Emissions Utilities and Service Systems Hazards and Hazardous Materials Wildfire Hydrology and Water Quality  Mandatory Findings of Significance Land Use and Planning 3.3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS This section analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. The issue areas evaluated in this Initial Study include:  Aesthetics  Agriculture and Forestry Resources  Air Quality  Biological Resources  Cultural Resources  Energy  Geology and Soils  Greenhouse Gas Emissions  Hazards and Hazardous Materials  Hydrology and Water Quality  Land Use and Planning  Mineral Resources  Noise  Population and Housing  Public Services  Recreation  Transportation  Tribal Cultural Resources  Utilities and Service Systems  Wildfire The environmental analysis in this section is patterned after the Initial Study Checklist recommended by the CEQA Guidelines and used by the City of Diamond Bar in its environmental review process. For the preliminary environmental assessment undertaken as part of this Initial Study’s preparation, a determination that there is a potential for significant effects indicates the need to more fully analyze the development’s impacts and to identify mitigation. For the evaluation of potential impacts, the questions in the Initial Study Checklist are stated and an answer is provided according to the analysis undertaken as part of the Initial Study. The analysis considers the long-term, direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the development. To each question, there are four possible responses:  No Impact. The development will not have any measurable environmental impact on the environment. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 145 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 3-3 Initial Study Checklist  Less Than Significant Impact. The development will have the potential for impacting the environment, although this impact will be below established thresholds that are considered to be significant.  Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The development will have the potential to generate impacts which may be considered as a significant effect on the environment, although mitigation measures or changes to the development’s physical or operational characteristics can reduce these impacts to levels that are less than significant.  Potentially Significant Impact. The development will have impacts which are considered significant, and additional analysis is required to identify mitigation measures that could reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. Where potential impacts are anticipated to be significant, mitigation measures will be required, so that impacts may be avoided or reduced to insignificant levels. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 146 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 3-4 Initial Study Checklist This page intentionally left blank. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 147 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.1-1 Aesthetics 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The following is a discussion of potential project impacts as identified in the Initial Study/Environmental Checklist. Explanations are provided for each item. 4.1 AESTHETICS Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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. In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?  d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?  a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. A scenic vista is generally defined as a view of undisturbed natural lands exhibiting a unique or unusual feature that comprises an important or dominant portion of the viewshed.1 Scenic vistas may also be represented by a particular distant view that provides visual relief from less attractive views of nearby features. Other designated Federal and State lands, as well as local open space or recreational areas, may also offer scenic vistas if they represent a valued aesthetic view within the surrounding landscape of nearby features. According to the General Plan EIR, scenic vistas in the City include those afforded from the circulation network as well as of and from open spaces, local hillsides and ridges, and distant views of the San Gabriel Mountains. Based on this definition, City-designated scenic resources encompass the project site and its surrounding open space area (i.e., Summitridge Park and Summitridge Park Trail System). The Canyon Loop Trail is visible from other trails within the Summitridge Park Trail System, including Ridge Route to the north and Grand View Route to the south, trail access points in local residential neighborhoods to the east and west, and the Diamond Bar Center located north of Summitridge Park. The project site is not located adjacent to any major circulation roadways. The nearest major roadway identified in Figure 4-1, Circulation Diagram, of the General Plan is Diamond Bar Boulevard, located approximately 0.3-mile west of the project site. Views of the existing trail from Diamond Bar Boulevard are obstructed by existing hills, residences, and elevation changes. During project construction, vegetation removal, clearing, grading, and trail widening activities would be visible to viewers from nearby trails, however, would likely be obstructed from surrounding land uses given the elevational changes in the hillside and existing tree lines. Although views towards the project site may be temporarily altered by 1 A viewshed is the geographical area which is visible from a particular location. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 148 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.1-2 Aesthetics construction activities, project construction would occur over a short duration (approximately four months) and would not result in any significant public view blockage of other City-designated scenic resources in the area, including the entire Summitridge Park Trail System. To further reduce short-term impacts to visual character and quality, the project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure AES-1. Mitigation Measure AES-1 would require project construction materials, heavy-duty equipment, and debris piles be staged in designated construction staging areas. Compliance with Mitigation Measure AES-1 would ensure the project’s construction-related impacts to scenic vista are reduced to less than significant levels. At project completion, the Canyon Loop Trail would be improved with new trail amenities and features, such as widened paths, gabion retaining walls, stairs with handrails and cobblestone swales, drainage crossings, shade structures with benches, signs, and lodge pole fences. The project would enhance the existing visual character and quality of the Canyon Loop Trail and would not adversely impact scenic vistas in the project area. Long-term project impacts would be less than significant in this regard. Mitigation Measures: AES-1 To minimize construction-related impacts to scenic vistas and the visual character and quality of the project area, the project contractor shall ensure that all construction materials, heavy-duty equipment, and debris piles are staged and screened from public view in a designated construction staging area. Staging areas shall be approved and subject to periodic field inspections by the City of Diamond Bar Parks and Recreation Department, or responsible designee(s). b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? No Impact. According to the General Plan EIR, there are no adopted State scenic highways within Diamond Bar. Although a portion of State Route 57 (SR-57) within the City’s planning area is eligible for official scenic highway designation, the site is not visible from SR-57 due to elevational changes and obstructing residential and commercial structures. Thus, no impacts would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. While the Canyon Loop Trail is adjacent to nearby urban uses (i.e., residential neighborhoods, Diamond Bar Center, and Summitridge Park), the Summitridge Park Trail System, including the project site, can be characterized as a non-urbanized area given its existing trails, hillsides, and natural open space areas. As such, the following analysis evaluates the project’s potential to substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings. Public views of the project site include those afforded from public sidewalks within the nearby residential communities, adjacent trails in the Summitridge Park Trail System (Ridge Route to the north and Grand View Route to the south), and the Diamond Bar Center and Summitridge Park to the south. Construction-Related Impacts Short-term construction activities along the trail would be visible from neighboring residential uses to the east and west of the project site. However, intervening topography would screen neighboring uses from the majority of the project’s 5.2.b Packet Pg. 149 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.1-3 Aesthetics proposed construction activities and construction-related visual impacts would be temporary. The project would also implement Mitigation Measure AES-1 to further reduce temporary construction-related impacts to visual character and quality. Mitigation Measure AES-1 requires project construction materials, heavy-duty equipment, and debris piles be staged and screened in designated staging areas. Compliance with Mitigation Measure AES-1 would ensure construction-related impacts to visual character/quality of the project area are reduced to less than significant levels. Operational Impacts On a long-term (operational) basis, a project is generally considered to have a significant visual/aesthetic impact if it substantially changes the character of the project site such that it becomes visually incompatible or visually unexpected when viewed in the context of its surroundings. As noted above in Response 4.1(a), the proposed trail improvements would enhance the visual character of the existing trail with gabion retaining walls, stairs, drainage crossings, shade structures with benches, signs, and lodge pole fences. Additionally, these improvements are typical amenities of recreational trails and would facilitate access and safety, improving drainage, and reducing erosion in the project area. Thus, the project’s potential to substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measure AES-1. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? No Impact. There are two primary sources of light: light emanating from building interiors that pass through windows and light from exterior sources (i.e., street lighting, parking lot lighting, building illumination, security lighting, and landscape lighting). Light introduction can be a nuisance to adjacent uses and diminish the view of the clear night sky. There are no existing lighting sources along the Canyon Loop Trail. Light and glare in the project vicinity are primarily associated with adjacent residential neighborhoods, including vehicular headlights, street lights, and private residences. Project construction could involve temporary glare impacts as a result of construction equipment and materials. However, based on the project’s limited construction duration and scope of activities, these sources of glare would not be substantial. Further, pursuant to Municipal Code Section 8.12.720, Construction Noise, all construction activities associated with the proposed project shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and on Saturdays. As such, construction activities would not occur during nighttime and would not require nighttime lighting. The project does not include light fixtures that could generate new sources of lighting along the trail. No new sources of light or glare would occur at project completion. Thus, long-term impacts in this regard would not occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 150 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.1-4 Aesthetics This page intentionally left blank. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 151 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.2-1 Agriculture and Forestry Resources 4.2 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 Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?  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 122220(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 or forest land to non- forest use?  a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. Based on the California Department of Conservation’s Important Farmland Finder, the project site is not mapped as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance.1 The project site is currently utilized as a recreational trail and no active agricultural uses occur on-site. Project implementation would improve existing amenities on the trail and would not change the site’s current land use. No impacts would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The project site is zoned Low Density Residential (RL) and is not covered under an existing Williamson Act contract.2 Thus, no impacts would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 1 California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, California Important Farmland Finder, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/, accessed May 22, 2020. 2 California Department of Conservation, State of California Williamson Act Contract Land, 2017. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 152 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.2-2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 122220(g)), timberland as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? No Impact. The project site is zoned RL and is not occupied or used for forest land, timberland, or timberland production. Further, project implementation would not result in the rezoning of forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned timberland production. No impact would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. Refer to Response 4.2(c). No impacts would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. Refer to Responses 4.2(a) through 4.2(d). No impacts would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 153 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.3-1 Air Quality 4.3 AIR QUALITY Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?  b. 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?  c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?  d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?  a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less Than Significant Impact. The project is located within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin), which is governed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The Federal Clean Air Act requires the SCAQMD to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants for which the Basin is in nonattainment: ozone (O3), coarse particulate matter (PM10), and fine particulate matter (PM2.5).1 O3, PM10, and PM2.5 are considered criteria pollutants, since they are three of several prevalent air pollutants known to be hazardous to human health. The SCAQMD prepared the 2016 Air Quality Management Plan for the South Coast Air Basin (2016 AQMP) to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants for which the Basin is in non-attainment. The 2016 AQMP was adopted by the SCAQMD Governing Board on March 3, 2017 and incorporates the latest scientific and technical information and planning assumptions, including the latest applicable growth assumptions, Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG’s) 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2016-2040 RTP/SCS), and updated emission inventory methodologies for various source categories. According to SCAQMD’s 1993 CEQA Air Quality Handbook (CEQA Air Quality Handbook), the following two main criteria must be addressed in order to determine consistency with the 2016 AQMP. Criterion 1: With respect to the first criterion, SCAQMD methodologies require that an air quality analysis for a project include forecasts of project emissions in relation to contributing to air quality violations and delay of attainment. a) Would the project result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations? Since the consistency criteria identified under the first criterion pertain to pollutant concentrations, rather than to total regional emissions, an analysis of the project’s pollutant emissions relative to localized pollutant concentrations is used as the basis for evaluating project consistency. As discussed in Response 4.3(c), localized concentrations of carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) would be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations. Because reactive organic gasses (ROG) are not a criteria pollutant, there is no 1 An area designated as “nonattainment” for an air pollutant is an area that does not achieve national and/or State ambient air quality standards for that pollutant. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 154 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.3-2 Air Quality ambient standard or localized threshold for ROGs. Due to the role ROG plays in O3 formation, it is classified as a precursor pollutant and only a regional emissions threshold has been established. b) Would the project cause or contribute to new air quality violations? As discussed in Response 4.3(b), the proposed project would result in emissions that are below SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, the proposed project would not have the potential to cause or affect a violation of the ambient air quality standards and would result in a less than significant impact. c) Would the project delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP? As discussed in Response 4.3(c), the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts with regard to localized concentrations during project construction. Further, the project would not generate additional operational emissions compared to the existing conditions. As such, the proposed project would not delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or AQMP emissions reductions. Criterion 2: With respect to the second criterion for determining consistency with SCAQMD and SCAG air quality policies, it is important to recognize that air quality planning within the Basin focuses on attainment of ambient air quality standards at the earliest feasible date. Projections for achieving air quality goals are based on assumptions regarding population, housing, and growth trends. Thus, the SCAQMD’s second criterion for determining project consistency focuses on whether or not the proposed project exceeds the assumptions utilized in preparing the forecasts presented in the AQMP. Determining whether or not a project exceeds the assumptions reflected in the AQMP involves the evaluation of the three criteria outlined below. The following discussion provides an analysis of each of these criteria. a) Would the project be consistent with the population, housing, and employment growth projections utilized in the preparation of the AQMP? A project is consistent with the AQMP in part if it is consistent with the population, housing, and employment assumptions that were used in the development of the AQMP. In the case of the 2016 AQMP, three sources of data form the basis for the projections of air pollutant emissions: Diamond Bar General Plan 2040 (General Plan), SCAG’s Growth Management Chapter of the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG), and SCAG’s 2016-2040 RTP/SCS. The 2016-2040 RTP/SCS also provides socioeconomic forecast projections of regional population growth. As a part of the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP), the project would improve the existing Canyon Loop Trail by realigning and widening the trail, improving drainage, and providing additional recreation amenities; refer to Section 2.0, Project Description. The proposed Canyon Loop Trail improvements would not change the site’s existing General Plan land use designation and zoning; therefore, the proposed project would be consistent the General Plan; refer to Section 4.11, Land Use and Planning. Furthermore, the project does not involve any uses that would increase population beyond what is considered in the General Plan and, therefore, would not affect county-wide plans for population growth at the project site. Thus, the proposed project is consistent with the types, intensity, and patterns of land use envisioned for the site vicinity in the RCPG. The population, housing, and employment forecasts, which are adopted by SCAG’s Regional Council, are based on the local plans and policies applicable to the County; these are used by SCAG in all phases of implementation and review. Additionally, as the SCAQMD has incorporated these same projections into the 2016 AQMP, it can be concluded that the proposed project would be consistent with the projections. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 155 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.3-3 Air Quality b) Would the project implement all feasible air quality mitigation measures? The proposed project would result in less than significant air quality impacts. Compliance with all feasible emission reduction measures identified by the SCAQMD would be required as identified in Response 4.3(b). As such, the proposed project meets this AQMP consistency criterion. c) Would the project be consistent with the land use planning strategies set forth in the AQMP? The project proposes several trail improvements features along the existing Canyon Loop Trail, refer to Exhibit 2- 4, Conceptual Trail Improvement Plan. The project would not conflict with the General Plan land use assumptions. According to the General Plan and City of Diamond Bar Zoning Map, the project site is designated Open Space and zoned Low Density Residential (RL). The proposed project is consistent with these designations, and project implementation would not induce substantial population growth either directly or indirectly; refer to Section 4.14, Population and Housing. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the 2016 AQMP and impacts would be less than significant in this regard. In conclusion, the determination of AQMP consistency is primarily concerned with the long-term influence of a project on air quality in the Basin. The proposed project would not result in a long-term impact on the region’s ability to meet State and Federal air quality standards. As discussed above, the proposed project’s long-term influence would also be consistent with the goals and policies of the 2016 AQMP and is, therefore, considered consistent with the SCAQMD’s 2016 AQMP. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. b) 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? Less Than Significant Impact. Criteria Pollutants Carbon Monoxide (CO). Carbon monoxide (CO) is an odorless, colorless toxic gas that is emitted by mobile and stationary sources as a result of incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons or other carbon-based fuels. In cities, automobile exhaust can cause as much as 95 percent of all CO emissions. CO replaces oxygen in the body’s red blood cells. Individuals with a deficient blood supply to the heart, patients with diseases involving heart and blood vessels, fetuses (unborn babies), and patients with chronic hypoxemia (oxygen deficiency) as seen in high altitudes are most susceptible to the adverse effects of CO exposure. People with heart disease are also more susceptible to developing chest pains when exposed to low levels of CO. Ozone (O3). O3 occurs in two layers of the atmosphere. The layer surrounding the earth’s surface is the troposphere. The troposphere extends approximately 10 miles above ground level, where it meets the second layer, the stratosphere. The stratospheric (the “good” O3 layer) extends upward from about 10 to 30 miles and protects life on earth from the sun’s harmful ultraviolet rays. “Bad” O3 is a photochemical pollutant, and needs volatile organic compounds (VOCs), NOX, and sunlight to form; therefore, VOCs and NOX are O3 precursors. To reduce O3 concentrations, it is necessary to control the emissions of these O3 precursors. Significant O3 formation generally requires an adequate amount of precursors in the atmosphere and a period of several hours in a stable atmosphere with strong sunlight. High O3 concentrations can form over large regions when emissions from motor vehicles and stationary sources are carried hundreds of miles from their origins. While O3 in the upper atmosphere (stratosphere) protects the earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation, high concentrations of ground-level O3 (in the troposphere) can adversely affect the human respiratory system and other 5.2.b Packet Pg. 156 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.3-4 Air Quality tissues. O3 is a strong irritant that can constrict the airways, forcing the respiratory system to work hard to deliver oxygen. Individuals exercising outdoors, children, and people with pre-existing lung disease such as asthma and chronic pulmonary lung disease are considered to be the most susceptible to the health effects of O3. Short-term exposure (lasting for a few hours) to O3 at elevated levels can result in aggravated respiratory diseases such as emphysema, bronchitis and asthma, shortness of breath, increased susceptibility to infections, inflammation of the lung tissue, increased fatigue, as well as chest pain, dry throat, headache, and nausea. Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2). Nitrogen dioxide (NO2), often used interchangeably with NOX, is a reddish-brown gas that can cause breathing difficulties at elevated levels. NOX are a family of highly reactive gases that are a primary precursor to the formation of ground-level O3 and react in the atmosphere to form acid rain. Peak readings of NO2 occur in areas that have a high concentration of combustion sources (e.g., motor vehicle engines, power plants, refineries, and other industrial operations). NO2 can irritate and damage the lungs and lower resistance to respiratory infections such as influenza. The health effects of short-term exposure are still unclear. However, continued or frequent exposure to NO2 concentrations that are typically much higher than those normally found in the ambient air may increase acute respiratory illnesses in children and increase the incidence of chronic bronchitis and lung irritation. Chronic exposure to NO2 may aggravate eyes and mucus membranes and cause pulmonary dysfunction. Coarse Particulate Matter (PM10). PM10 refers to suspended particulate matter, which is smaller than 10 microns or ten one-millionths of a meter. PM10 arises from sources such as road dust, diesel soot, combustion products, construction operations, and dust storms. PM10 scatters light and significantly reduces visibility. In addition, these particulates penetrate into lungs and can potentially damage the respiratory tract. On June 19, 2003, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted amendments to the Statewide 24-hour particulate matter standards based upon requirements set forth in the Children’s Environmental Health Protection Act (Senate Bill 25). Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5). Due to recent increased concerns over health impacts related to fine particulate matter (particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less), both State and Federal PM2.5 standards have been created. Particulate matter impacts primarily affect infants, children, the elderly, and those with pre-existing cardiopulmonary disease. In 1997, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced new PM2.5 standards. Industry groups challenged the new standard in court and the implementation of the standard was blocked. However, upon appeal by the EPA, the United States Supreme Court reversed this decision and upheld the EPA’s new standards. On January 5, 2005, the EPA published a Final Rule in the Federal Register that designates the Basin as a nonattainment area for Federal PM2.5 standards. On June 20, 2002, CARB adopted amendments for Statewide annual ambient particulate matter air quality standards. These standards were revised/established due to increasing concerns by CARB that previous standards were inadequate, as almost everyone in California is exposed to levels at or above the current State standards during some parts of the year, and the Statewide potential for significant health impacts associated with particulate matter exposure was determined to be large and wide-ranging. Lastly, on March 7, 2017, CARB released its revised 2016 State Strategy for the State Implementation Plan (State SIP Strategy), describing the proposed commitment to achieve the reductions necessary from mobile sources, fuels, and consumer products to meet federal ozone and PM2.5 standards over the next 15 years. Sulfur Dioxide (SO2). Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is a colorless, irritating gas with a rotten egg smell; it is formed primarily by the combustion of sulfur-containing fossil fuels. Sulfur dioxide is often used interchangeably with sulfur oxides (SOX). Exposure of a few minutes to low levels of SO2 can result in airway constriction in some asthmatics. Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC). Volatile organic compounds (VOC’s) are hydrocarbon compounds (any compound containing various combinations of hydrogen and carbon atoms) that exist in the ambient air. VOCs contribute to the formation of smog through atmospheric photochemical reactions and/or may be toxic. Compounds of carbon (also known as organic compounds) have different levels of reactivity; that is, they do not react at the same speed or do not form O3 to the same extent when exposed to photochemical processes. VOCs often have an odor, and some examples include gasoline, alcohol, and the solvents used in paints. Exceptions to the VOC designation include: carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 157 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.3-5 Air Quality VOCs are a criteria pollutant since they are a precursor to O3, which is a criteria pollutant. The SCAQMD uses the terms VOC and ROG (see below) interchangeably. Reactive Organic Gases (ROG). Similar to VOC, reactive organic gases (ROG) are also precursors in forming O3 and consist of compounds containing methane, ethane, propane, butane, and longer chain hydrocarbons, which are typically the result of some type of combustion/decomposition process. Smog is formed when ROG and nitrogen oxides react in the presence of sunlight. ROGs are a criteria pollutant since they are a precursor to O3, which is a criteria pollutant. As stated, the SCAQMD uses the terms ROG and VOC interchangeably. Short-Term (Construction) Emissions Construction Emissions Primary components of the construction process would involve grading of the trail to widen it and construction of the retaining walls, staircase, drainage crossings, and shade structures. Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to commence in Spring 2021 and last for approximately four months, ending in August 2021. Soil would be balanced on-site during the construction activities. Table 4.3-1, Construction Air Emissions, provides the construction emissions associated with the project. Emitted pollutants would include ROG, CO, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5. Exhaust emissions from construction activities include emissions associated with the transport of machinery and supplies to and from the project site, emissions produced on-site as the equipment is used, and emissions from trucks transporting materials to and from the site. Exhaust emission factors for typical diesel-powered heavy equipment are based on the California Emissions Estimator Model version 2016.3.2 (CalEEMod) program defaults. Variables factored into estimating the total construction emissions include the level of activity, length of construction period, number of pieces and types of equipment in use, site characteristics, weather conditions, number of construction personnel, and the amount of materials to be transported on- or off-site. The analysis of daily construction emissions has been prepared utilizing CalEEMod. Refer to Appendix A, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas/Energy Data, for the CalEEMod outputs and results. Table 4.3-1 Maximum Short-Term Construction Emissions Emissions Source Pollutant (pounds/day)1,2 ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Construction Emissions Year 1 2.06 17.25 16.15 0.03 2.71 1.75 Maximum Daily Emissions 2.06 17.25 16.15 0.03 2.71 1.75 SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55 Is Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No Notes: ROG = reactive organic gas; NOx = nitrous oxide; CO = carbon monoxide; SO2 = sulfur dioxide; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter 1. Emissions were calculated using CalEEMod, version 2016.3.2. 2. Modeling assumptions include compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 which requires: properly maintain mobile and other construction equipment; replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly; water exposed surfaces three times daily; cover stock piles with tarps; water all haul roads twice daily; and limit speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. Source: Refer to Appendix A for detailed model input/output data. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 158 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.3-6 Air Quality As depicted in Table 4.3-1, construction-related emissions would not exceed the established SCAQMD thresholds for criteria pollutants. During construction activities, the project would also be required to comply with standard SCAQMD regulations, such as Rule 402 and 403. A less than significant construction impact would occur. Fugitive Dust Emissions Construction activities are a source of fugitive dust emissions that may have a substantial, temporary impact on local air quality. In addition, fugitive dust may be a nuisance to those living and working in the project area. Fugitive dust emissions are associated with land clearing, ground excavation, cut-and-fill, and truck travel on unpaved roadways (typically during demolition and construction activities). Fugitive dust emissions vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity, specific operations, and weather conditions. Fugitive dust from grading, excavation and construction is expected to be short-term and would cease upon project completion. These short-term impacts, however, would not be significant for the reasons discussed below. Dust (larger than 10 microns) generated by such activities usually becomes more of a local nuisance than a serious health problem. Of particular health concern is the amount of PM10 generated as a part of fugitive dust emissions. PM10 poses a serious health hazard alone or in combination with other pollutants. PM2.5 is mostly produced by mechanical processes. These include automobile tire wear, industrial processes such as cutting and grinding, and re- suspension of particles from the ground or road surfaces by wind and human activities such as construction or agriculture. PM2.5 is mostly derived from combustion sources, such as automobiles, trucks, and other vehicle exhaust, as well as from stationary sources. These particles are either directly emitted or are formed in the atmosphere from the combustion of gases such as NOX and SOX combining with ammonia. PM2.5 components from material in the earth’s crust, such as dust, are also present, with the amount varying in different locations. The project would implement all required SCAQMD dust control techniques (i.e., daily watering) and adhere to SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 (which require watering of inactive and perimeter areas, track out requirements, etc.), to reduce PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations. As provided in Table 4.3-1, total PM10 and PM2.5 emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds during construction. Naturally Occurring Asbestos Asbestos is a term used for several types of naturally occurring fibrous minerals that are a human health hazard when airborne. The most common type of asbestos is chrysotile, but other types such as tremolite and actinolite are also found in California. Asbestos is classified as a known human carcinogen by State, Federal, and international agencies and was identified as a toxic air contaminant by CARB in 1986. Asbestos can be released from serpentinite and ultramafic rocks when the rock is broken or crushed. At the point of release, the asbestos fibers may become airborne, causing air quality and human health hazards. These rocks have been commonly used for unpaved gravel roads, landscaping, fill projects, and other improvement projects in some localities. Asbestos may be released to the atmosphere due to vehicular traffic on unpaved roads, during grading for development projects, and at quarry operations. All of these activities may have the effect of releasing potentially harmful asbestos into the air. Natural weathering and erosion processes can act on asbestos bearing rock and make it easier for asbestos fibers to become airborne if such rock is disturbed. According to the Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, A General Location Guide for Ultramafic Rocks in California – Areas More Likely to Contain Naturally Occurring Asbestos Report (August 2000), serpentinite and ultramafic rocks are not known to occur within the project area. Thus, there would be no impact in this regard. Long-Term (Operational) Emissions The project proposes several trail improvements features along the existing Canyon Loop Trail, refer to Exhibit 2-4, Conceptual Trail Improvement Plan. The project would not generate additional traffic trips when compared to existing 5.2.b Packet Pg. 159 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.3-7 Air Quality conditions or create additional operational emissions. Further, the project is anticipated to result in beneficial long-term air quality effects, as it would result in improved connectivity in the project area for alternative modes of transportation and would promote the City’s General Plan goal of maintaining open space. As a result, the project would not generate substantial operational emissions. Thus, impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Air Quality Health Impacts Adverse health effects induced by criteria pollutant emissions are highly dependent on a multitude of interconnected variables (e.g., cumulative concentrations, local meteorology and atmospheric conditions, and the number and character of exposed individual [e.g., age and gender]). In particular, O3 precursors, VOCs and NOX, affect air quality on a regional scale. Health effects related to O3 are therefore the product of emissions generated by numerous sources throughout a region. Existing models have limited sensitivity to small changes in criteria pollutant concentrations, and, as such, translating project-generated criteria pollutants to specific health effects or additional days of nonattainment would produce meaningless results. In other words, the project’s less than significant increases in regional air pollution from criteria air pollutants would have nominal or negligible impacts on human health. As noted in the Brief of Amicus Curiae by the SCAQMD (April 6, 2015) for the Sierra Club vs. County of Fresno, the SCAQMD acknowledged it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible to quantify health impacts of criteria pollutants for various reasons including modeling limitations as well as where in the atmosphere air pollutants interact and form. Further, as noted in the Brief of Amicus Curiae by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) (April 13, 2015) for the Sierra Club vs. County of Fresno, SJVAPCD has acknowledged that currently available modeling tools are not equipped to provide a meaningful analysis of the correlation between an individual development project’s air emissions and specific human health impacts. The SCAQMD acknowledges that health effects quantification from O3, as an example is correlated with the increases in ambient level of O3 in the air (concentration) that an individual person breathes. SCAQMD’s Brief of Amicus Curiae states that it would take a large amount of additional emissions to cause a modeled increase in ambient O3 levels over the entire region. The SCAQMD states that based on their own modeling in the SCAQMD’s 2012 Air Quality Management Plan, a reduction of 432 tons (864,000 pounds) per day of NOX and a reduction of 187 tons (374,000 pounds) per day of VOCs would reduce O3 levels at highest monitored site by only nine parts per billion. As such, the SCAQMD concludes that it is not currently possible to accurately quantify O3-related health impacts caused by NOX or VOC emissions from relatively small projects (defined as projects with regional scope) due to photochemistry and regional model limitations. Thus, as the project would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for construction emissions, and operational air emissions would not change from existing conditions, the project would have a less than significant impact for air quality health impacts. Conclusion As summarized above, the project’s short-term construction emissions would be below the SCAQMD thresholds and would result in a less than significant impact. Furthermore, the project would not result in significant long-term air quality impacts, as emissions would not change from existing conditions. Thus, the project’s construction and operational emissions would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable air quality impact for nonattainment criteria pollutants in the Basin. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact. Sensitive receptors are defined as facilities or land uses that include members of the population that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly, and people with illnesses. Examples of these sensitive receptors are residences, schools, hospitals, and daycare centers. CARB has 5.2.b Packet Pg. 160 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.3-8 Air Quality identified the following groups of individuals as the most likely to be affected by air pollution: the elderly over 65, children under 14, athletes, and persons with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases such as asthma, emphysema, and bronchitis. The nearest residential property is located approximately 80 feet west of the proposed project construction limits. Localized Significance Thresholds Localized Significance Thresholds (LST) were developed in response to SCAQMD Governing Boards’ Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative (I-4). The SCAQMD provided the Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (dated June 2003 [revised 2008]) for guidance. The LST methodology assists lead agencies in analyzing localized impacts associated with project-specific level proposed projects. The SCAQMD provides the LST lookup tables for one, two, and five-acre projects emitting CO, NOX, PM2.5, or PM10. The LST methodology and associated mass rates are not designed to evaluate localized impacts from mobile sources traveling over the roadways. The project is located within Sensitive Receptor Area (SRA) 10, Pomona/Walnut Valley. Based off the CalEEMod results, the project would disturb less than an acre over 45 days (less than an acre per day); therefore, the LST thresholds for one acre were conservatively utilized for the construction LST analysis. It is noted that an operational LST analysis was not prepared, as the project operational emissions would not change from existing emissions. As noted above, the closest sensitive receptor to the project site is a residential property located approximately 80 feet (or 24 meters) to the west of the project’s construction limits. This sensitive land uses may be potentially affected by air pollutant emissions generated during on-site construction activities. LST thresholds are provided for distances to sensitive receptors of 25, 50, 100, 200, and 500 meters. As the nearest sensitive use is approximately 24 meters away, the LST values of 25 meters were conservatively utilized. Table 4.3-2, Localized Significance of Emissions, shows the construction-related emissions for NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 compared to the LST’s for SRA 10, Pomona/Walnut Valley. As shown in Table 4.3-2, the short term (approximately four months) construction emissions would not exceed the LST’s for SRA 10. Therefore, localized significance impacts from construction would be less than significant. Table 4.3-2 Localized Significance of Emissions Source1 Emissions (pounds/day)1 NOX CO PM10 PM2.5 Year 12 11.00 10.70 0.32 0.60 Maximum Daily Emissions 11.00 10.70 0.32 0.60 SCAQMD Localized Significance Threshold3 103 612 4 3 Thresholds Exceeded? No No No No Notes: NOx = nitrous oxide; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter 1. Modeling assumptions include compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 which requires properly maintaining mobile and other construction equipment; replacing ground cover in disturbed areas quickly; watering exposed surfaces three times daily; covering stockpiles with tarps; watering all haul roads twice daily; and limiting speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. 2. Year 1 (2021) grading phase emissions present the worst-case scenario for PM10, and PM2.5 and building construction phase emissions present the worst-case scenario for NOX, CO 3. The Localized Significance Threshold was determined using Appendix C of the SCAQMD’s Final Localized Significant Threshold Methodology guidance document for NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. The Localized Significance Threshold was based on the anticipated daily acreage disturbance for construction (the thresholds for one acre was utilized), the distance to sensitive receptors (25 meters), and Source Receptor Area 10. Source: Refer to Appendix A for detailed model input/output data. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 161 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.3-9 Air Quality Carbon Monoxide Hotspots CO emissions are a function of vehicle idling time, meteorological conditions, and traffic flow. Under certain extreme meteorological conditions, CO concentrations near a congested roadway or intersection may reach unhealthful levels (i.e., adversely affecting residents, school children, hospital patients, the elderly, etc.). The SCAQMD requires a quantified assessment of CO hotspots when a project increases the volume-to-capacity ratio (also called the intersection capacity utilization [ICU]) by 0.02 (two percent) for any intersection with an existing level of service LOS D or worse. Because traffic congestion is highest at intersections where vehicles queue and are subject to reduced speeds, these hot spots are typically produced at intersections. The project proposes several trail improvements features along the existing Canyon Loop Trail. These improvements would not alter the existing use and would not add additional vehicle trips when compared to existing conditions. Thus, the project would not increase the ICU of nearby intersections and therefore would not warrant a CO hotspot analysis. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard. Localized Air Quality Health Impacts As evaluated above, the project’s air emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD’s LST thresholds and CO hotpots would not occur as a result of the proposed project. Therefore, the project would not exceed the most stringent applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standards for emissions of CO, NOX, PM10, or PM2.5. It should be noted that the ambient air quality standards are developed and represent levels at which the most susceptible persons (children and the elderly) are protected. In other words, the ambient air quality standards are purposefully set in a stringent manner to protect children, elderly, and those with existing respiratory problems. Thus, the project would not result in localized air quality health impacts. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Less Than Significant Impact. According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses associated with odor complaints typically include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The proposed project involves improvements to the existing Canyon Loop Trail and does not include any uses identified by the SCAQMD as being associated with odors. Construction activities associated with the project may generate detectable odors from heavy-duty equipment exhaust. However, construction-related odors would be short-term in nature and cease upon project completion. In addition, the project would be required to comply with the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 13, sections 2449(d)(3) and 2485, which minimizes the idling time of construction equipment either by shutting it off when not in use or by reducing the time of idling to no more than five minutes. This would reduce the detectable odors from heavy-duty equipment exhaust. Any project odor impacts to the existing adjacent land uses and the closest nearby sensitive receptors (80 feet to the west) would be short-term and not substantial as these odors would quickly dissipate due to the prevailing meteorology, the volatility of the emissions, and the distance to nearby sensitive receptors. Furthermore, any construction or project odors would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402. As such, the project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 162 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.3-10 Air Quality This page intentionally left blank. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 163 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.4-1 Biological Resources 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?  b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?  c. Have a substantial adverse effect on State or Federally protected wetlands (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?  The information presented in this analysis is based on the following technical studies; refer to Appendix B, Biological Resources Reports:  Michael Baker International, Results of a Biological Resources Assessment of the Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project – City of Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, California (Biological Resources Assessment), dated July 10, 2020; and  Michael Baker International, Results of Coastal California Gnatcatcher and Cactus Wren Focused Surveys for the Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project in the City of Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, California (Focused Bird Survey Report), dated August 7, 2020. a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. A Biological Resources Assessment was prepared for the project and included a habitat assessment to survey existing biological conditions on and surrounding the project site. In addition to the habitat assessment, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW) California Natural 5.2.b Packet Pg. 164 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.4-2 Biological Resources Diversity Database (CNDDB) Rarefind 5 and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) database were queried for reported locations of listed and special-status plant and wildlife species as well as special-status vegetation communities in the U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute Baldwin Park, San Dimas, Ontario, La Habra, Yorba Linda, and Prado Dam quadrangles. The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants supplied information regarding the distribution and habitats of plants in the project vicinity. The habitat assessment assessed the ability of the plant communities found on-site to provide suitable habitat for relevant special-status plant and wildlife species. According to the Biological Resources Assessment, the survey area, defined as the project site plus a 500-foot buffer, generally consists of natural vegetation with relatively undisturbed soils. Further, a Focused Bird Survey Report was prepared for coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica; a Federally Threatened Species and CDFW Species of Special Concern [SSC]) and cactus wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus). The surveys were conducted between May 26 and July 1, 2020 in accordance with the Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) Presence/Absence Survey Guidelines and survey guidelines for cactus wren. A total of six surveys were conducted in patches of suitable habitat for these species within 500 feet of the project site, similar to the habitat assessment, with the goal of mapping occurrences and territories of coastal California gnatcatchers and cactus wrens and, if possible, mapping nesting locations. Special-Status Plant Species A total of 41 special-status plant species have been recorded in the USGS Baldwin Park, San Dimas, Ontario, La Habra, Yorba Linda, and Prado Dam, California 7.5-minute quadrangles by the CNDDB, IPaC, and CNPS Online Inventory. One special-status plant species was observed during the field survey, southern California black walnut (Juglans californica). Based on the results of the field survey and a review of specific habitat preferences, distributions, and elevation ranges, it was determined that the survey area has a moderate potential to support Catalina mariposa-lily (Calochortus catalinae); and a low potential to support chaparral sand-verbena (Abronia villosa var. aurita), California androsace (Androsace elongata ssp. acuta), western spleenwort (Asplenium vespertinum), Braunton’s milk-vetch (Astragalus brauntonii), Nevin’s barberry (Berberis nevinii), Plummer’s mariposa-lily (Calochortus plummerae), intermediate mariposa-lily (Calochortus weedii var. intermedius), Lewis’ evening-primrose (Camissoniopsis lewisii), Parry’s spineflower (Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi), paniculate tarplant (Deinandra paniculata), many-stemmed dudleya (Dudleya multicaulis), mesa horkelia (Horkelia cuneata var. puberula), Robinson’s pepper-grass (Lepidium virginicum var. robinsonii), aparejo grass (Muhlenbergia utilis), Hubby’s phacelia (Phacelia hubbyi), south coast branching phacelia (Phacelia ramosissima var. austrolitoralis), Brand’s star phacelia (Phacelia stellaris), white rabbit-tobacco (Pseudognaphalium leucocephalum), Engelmann oak (Quercus engelmannii), and Coulter’s matilija poppy (Romneya coulteri). All remaining special-status plant species identified by the CNDDB, IPaC, and CNPS databases are not expected to occur within the survey area. To ensure proper avoidance of special-status plant species, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 requires a qualified botanist to conduct a focused rare plant survey in areas with suitable habitat to determine presence or absence of special-status plant species prior to construction and during the appropriate blooming periods. If individual or populations of special- status plant species are found within the areas proposed for disturbance, measures to avoid and minimize impacts would be required in accordance with 2018 CDFW and/or 2001 CNPS guidelines. Although not expected, if State- and/or Federally-listed plant species are present and avoidance is infeasible, consultation with the CDFW and/or USFWS would be required and Incidental Take Permits (ITPs) from the CDFW and/or USFWS would be required prior to the commencement of project activities. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 165 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.4-3 Biological Resources Special-Status Wildlife Species A total of 66 special-status wildlife species have been recorded in the USGS Baldwin Park, San Dimas, Ontario, La Habra, Yorba Linda, and Prado Dam, California 7.5-minute quadrangles by the CNDDB and IPaC. Four special-status wildlife species were observed during the habitat assessment and subsequent focused bird surveys: Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii; a CDFW Watch List (WL) species), southern California rufous-crowned sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps canescens; a CDFW WL species), coastal whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri; a CDFW SSC), and coastal California gnatcatcher (a Federally Threatened Species and CDFW SSC). Based on the results of the field surveys and a review of specific habitat preferences, occurrence records, known distributions, and elevation ranges, it was determined that the survey area has a high potential to support sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus; a CDFW WL species), red-diamond rattlesnake (Crotalus ruber; a CDFW SSC), and American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum; a CDFW Fully Protected (FP) Species); a moderate potential to support merlin (Falco columbarius; a CDFW WL species); and a low potential to support southern California legless lizard (Anniella stebbinsi; a CDFW SSC), golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos; a CDFW FP and WL species), California glossy snake (Arizona elegans occidentalis; a CDFW SSC), long-eared owl (Asio otus; a CDFW SSC), orange-throated whiptail (Aspidoscelis hyperythra; a CDFW WL species), Crotch bumble bee (Bombus crotchii; a State Candidate Endangered species), Vaux’s swift (Chaetura vauxi; a CDFW SSC), northern harrier (Circus hudsonius; a CDFW SSC), white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus; a CDFW FP species), willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii; a State Endangered species), southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus; a Federally and State Endangered species), California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia; a CDFW WL species), western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus; a CDFW SSC), loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus; a CDFW SSC), western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii; a CDFW SSC), San Diego desert woodrat (Neotoma lepida intermedia; a CDFW SSC), coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii; a CDFW SSC), summer tanager (Piranga rubra; a CDFW SSC), coast patch-nosed snake (Salvadora hexalepis virgultea; a CDFW SSC), and yellow warbler (Setophaga petechia; a CDFW SSC). Some of these species, including Vaux’s swift, willow flycatcher, southwestern willow flycatcher, and yellow warbler would only potentially occur as migrants briefly stopping over on their way north or south. All remaining special-status wildlife species identified by the CNDDB and IPaC are not expected to occur within the survey area. Because the project proposes to widen much of the South Canyon Loop to a width of five feet, vegetation removal of habitat that could be suitable for special-status wildlife species with the potential to occur in the survey, or in some cases is already known to support (i.e., coastal California gnatcatcher), can occur. Due to regional significance, coastal California gnatcatcher and cactus wren are described in further detail below. Coastal California Gnatcatcher (CAGN) CAGN is a Federally threatened species with restricted habitat requirements, being an obligate resident of sage scrub habitats, particularly, those that are dominated by California sagebrush. This species generally occurs below 750 feet elevation in coastal regions and below 1,500 feet inland. It ranges from Ventura County south to San Diego County and northern Baja California and is less common in sage scrub with a high percentage of tall shrubs. CAGN prefers habitat with more low-growing vegetation. California gnatcatchers breed between mid-February and the end of August, with peak activity from mid-March to mid-May. Population estimates indicate that there are approximately 1,600 to 2,290 pairs of California gnatcatcher remaining. Declines are attributed to loss of sage scrub habitat due to development, as well as cowbird nest parasitism. While Federally-designated Critical Habitat for CAGN is not located within or directly adjacent to the survey area (refer to Biological Resources Assessment Figure 7, Critical Habitat), the survey area provides abundant suitable habitat for CAGN, with known populations occurring in the area. In addition, multiple breeding pairs of CAGNs are known to be present within the survey area. As detailed in the Focused Bird Survey Report, CAGN is a rare and local resident in the coastal slope of Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties. Populations are somewhat widespread but persistent in the project vicinity in Los Angeles County, spanning across the Chino Hills, San Jose Hills, and Puente Hills. In San Bernardino County, which 5.2.b Packet Pg. 166 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.4-4 Biological Resources is located immediately to the east of the project site, CAGN persists in only four or five populations in the entire county, including in Chino Hills State Park. Farther to the south, CAGN is reasonably common in the foothills of the Santa Ana Mountains in Orange County. However, as stated, the project site is not located within USFWS-designated Critical Habitat for CAGN. Results of the Focused Bird Survey Report mapped a minimum of five CAGN territories within the biological study area; refer to Figure 4, Coastal California Gnatcatcher Results, of the Focused Bird Survey Report. Four nests were found in two of the territories, one of which successfully led to chicks fledging. Of the minimum five territories, four territories (Territories 1, 3, 4, and 5) had chicks fledge in them. The boundaries of Territories 3 and 5 expanded over time due to post-breeding dispersal, with Territory 5 potentially undergoing two separate instances of dispersal to two areas where no CAGN had been previously detected. Refer to Focused Bird Survey Report Table 2, CAGN Survey Results, for a more detailed summary of CAGN activity in each territory during the surveys. Coastal Cactus Wren (CCACW) Cactus wren is a somewhat common avian species found within arid and semi-arid regions of southern California. The subspecies coastal cactus wren (C. b. sandiegensis), or CCACW, is found within a very limited range of southern California and is designated by CDFW as a SSC. CCACW have a range that extends from extreme northwestern Baja California north at least through the coastal lowlands of San Diego County. The actual northern limit of its range is uncertain because of the lack of specimens from northwestern San Diego County and most of Orange County. However, observations made in the field based on differences in song and visual assessments suggest southern Orange County to approximately the vicinity of State Route 74 (Ortega Highway) is the northern limit of CCACW. CCACW are mainly restricted to thickets of chollas (Cylindropuntia prolifera) or prickly-pear cacti (i.e., Opuntia littoralis, O. oricola) large enough to protect from predation. Suitable habitat conditions are normally found on south-facing slopes, at bases of hillsides, or in dry washes. Territories have been recorded as occurring at elevations below 1,500 feet and averaging three acres in size. The survey area provides an abundance of undisturbed coast prickly pear scrub habitat that is essential nesting habitat for this species. Although multiple territories of cactus wren were observed on- site, the survey area is well outside the known range for the coastal sandiegensis subspecies, which ends around State Route 74 based on CDFW mapping. As such, this local subspecies found on-site is likely C. b. anthonyi. Similar to CAGN, cactus wren is a rare and local resident on the coastal slope of Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties. In Los Angeles County, the species is better off but declining, with populations known from the Chino Hills, San Jose Hills, Puente Hills, and foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains. In adjacent San Bernardino County, the only known populations are in the upper Santa Ana River wash near Redlands/Mentone/Highland and near the confluence of Cajon and Lytle Creeks, both far from the survey area. This species is much more common in Orange County in the foothills of the Santa Ana Mountains and less so in the San Joaquin Hills. Cactus wren in Los Angeles County are considered to be of the non-sensitive subspecies C.b. anthonyi, although it should be noted that many of the birds on the coast, including the ones in the survey area, show characteristics, such as the extent of white barring in the tail feathers, typically associated with the sensitive CCACW. According to the Focused Bird Survey Report, a total of five cactus wren territories were mapped during the focused surveys; refer to Figure 5, Cactus Wren Results, of the Focused Bird Survey Report. No attempts were made to find cactus wren nests, although one nest was incidentally found outside of any apparently active territories. Although no nests were found in the territories, all five territories fledged young. Of these, Territory 5 is the only one that had an obvious instance of post-breeding dispersal into a new area during the surveys, with all other families utilizing the same territories that they had evidently nested in. Refer to Focused Bird Survey Report Table 3, Cactus Wren Survey Results, for a more detailed summary of cactus wren activity in each territory during the surveys. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 167 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.4-5 Biological Resources Conclusion Based on the results of the Focused Bird Survey Report, at least five CAGN and five cactus wren territories were found to be present within the 500-foot survey area. Four CAGN pairs and all five cactus wren pairs successfully fledged young in 2020 as evidenced by firsthand observations during the surveys. Many of the territories were directly adjacent to, crossed over, or were at least in close proximity to proposed trail improvement areas. Of the nests that were found, the closest nest (CAGN Territory 2, Nest 1) was approximately 70 feet from the Canyon Loop Trail. Of the various proposed trail improvements, the project proposes to widen segments of the South Canyon Loop in the southern half of the survey area. This would result in loss of suitable habitat for sensitive species, particularly for CAGN. Based on the project plans, the proposed trail widening segment is approximately 1,942 feet (or approximately 0.4-mile). Based on field observations, this segment of the South Canyon Loop would be widened an additional one to two feet from its current width to a total of five feet. As stated, the cactus wren observed on-site is not believed to be the sensitive CCACW protected by the CDFW as a SSC. However, loss of vegetation directly supporting known populations of CAGN would constitute “take” under Section 9 of the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and would require an ITP under Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Federal ESA. As such, Mitigation Measure BIO-2 requires the City to obtain an ITP and submit a low-effect habitat conservation plan (HCP) to the USFWS to permit removal of habitat suitable for and/or used by CAGN on-site. Avoidance and minimization measures that may be required in a low-effect HCP for this project, subject to consultation with the USFWS, include, but are not limited to, preconstruction nesting surveys for CAGN and avoidance of any active nests or scheduling of work outside of the gnatcatcher nesting season, environmental training of all personnel who would be removing vegetation, biological monitoring during initial vegetation removal, closing and restoration of any extraneous trail sections to recreational use, and on-site restoration and preservation of coastal sage scrub communities within the survey area (i.e. in the vicinity of the impacts). To avoid indirect impacts and take of CAGN or cactus wren, it is recommended that all project-related construction occur outside of the general CAGN and cactus wren breeding season (February 15 – September 15). Timing project- related construction activities to be outside of this window of time would avoid impacts to CAGN or cactus wren nests. If it is not possible to construct the project outside of this time period, Mitigation Measure BIO-3 would require a nesting bird clearance survey be conducted within seven days prior to the start of construction activities within a 500-foot buffer from the project site. The survey should be conducted by a qualified biologist with demonstrable experience identifying CAGN and cactus wren nesting behavior and finding their nests, and who has been approved by the USFWS to conduct CAGN surveys. If an active nest is found during the survey, no project-related construction would be allowed within 500 feet of an active CAGN nest or 300 feet of an active cactus wren nest, or within an alternative safe distance as determined by the qualified biologist, until the nest is no longer active. Further, to reduce potential impacts to other nesting birds, Mitigation Measure BIO-4 would require a pre-construction nesting bird survey if construction cannot occur outside of the general avian nesting season (January 1 through August 31). If an active nest is found, a “no-disturbance” buffer is required around the active nest. The size of the “no- disturbance” buffer should be determined based on the judgement of the qualified biologist and level of activity and sensitivity of the species. Once the young have fledged and left the nest, or the nest otherwise becomes inactive under natural conditions, project activities within the “no-disturbance” buffer may occur following an additional survey by the qualified biologist to search for any new nests in the restricted area. Upon implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-2 through BIO-4, impacts to special-status wildlife species would be less than significant. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 168 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.4-6 Biological Resources Mitigation Measures: BIO-1 Prior to construction and during the appropriate blooming periods for special-status plant species with the potential to occur within the survey area, a qualified botanist shall conduct a focused rare plant survey in areas with suitable habitat to determine presence or absence of special-status plant species. The surveys shall be floristic in nature (i.e., identifying all plant species to the taxonomic level necessary to determine rarity), and shall be inclusive of, at a minimum, the areas proposed for trail improvements and those immediately surrounding those areas. The results of the survey shall be documented in a letter report. If individual or populations of special-status plant species are found within the areas proposed for disturbance, measures to avoid and minimize impacts shall be recommended. The surveys and reporting shall follow 2018 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and/or 2001 California Native Plant Society guidelines. Although not expected, if State- and/or Federally-listed plant species are present and avoidance is infeasible, consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or CDFW shall be required and an Incidental Take Permit(s) from the USFWS and/or CDFW shall be obtained prior to the commencement of project activities. BIO-2 In consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the City of Diamond Bar Parks and Recreation Department shall obtain an Incidental Take Permit and prepare a low-effect habitat conservation plan (HCP) to permit removal of habitat suitable for and/or used by sensitive wildlife species, particularly coastal California gnatcatchers (Polioptila californica californica) known to occur on-site. Avoidance and minimization measures that may be required in a low-effect HCP for the proposed project, subject to consultation with the USFWS, include, but are not limited to, preconstruction nesting surveys for coastal California gnatcatcher and avoidance of any active nests or scheduling of work outside of the gnatcatcher nesting season, environmental training for all construction personnel, biological monitoring during initial vegetation removal, closing and restoration of any extraneous trail sections or breeding habitat to recreational use, provisions for pets (leashed pets, removal of pet waste), locations of trash receptacles, and on-site restoration and preservation of coastal sage scrub communities within the survey area (i.e., in the vicinity of the impacts). BIO-3 Project construction, equipment staging, mobilization, grading, ground disturbance activities, and vegetation removal shall be completed outside the avian breeding season. The City of Diamond Bar shall not perform any project construction or activities or remove or otherwise disturb vegetation on the project site, or adjacent to the site, from February 15 to August 31, and as early as January 1, to avoid impacts to breeding/nesting birds and raptors. However, if avoidance of the avian breeding season is infeasible and if project-related construction activities are initiated during the nesting season for coastal California gnatcatcher (CAGN; Polioptila californica californica) and cactus wren (CACW; Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus) (February 15th through September 15th), a nesting bird clearance survey shall be conducted within seven days prior to the start of construction within a 500-foot buffer of the project site. The survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist with demonstrable experience identifying CAGN and CACW nesting behavior and finding their nests, and who has been approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to conduct a CAGN survey. If an active CAGN or CACW nest is found during the survey, no project-related construction shall be allowed within 500 feet of an active CAGN nest or 300 feet of an active CACW nest, or within an alternative safe distance as determined by the qualified biologist based on topography, visual shielding, nest progress, and the type of construction and associated disturbance, until the active nest has been determined by the qualified biologist to have failed or to have successfully gone to completion (i.e., the nestlings have fledged and are no longer reliant on the nest). Results of the nesting bird clearance survey, shall be compiled in a memorandum and submitted to the City and the USFWS for project records. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 169 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.4-7 Biological Resources BIO-4 The City of Diamond Bar shall protect special-status wildlife resources during construction. A qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction clearance survey prior to any ground disturbance and/or vegetation removal to search for special-status wildlife resources that may be present within the construction area. The biologist shall be thoroughly familiar with the habitat requirements and life histories of special-status species that could occur. The biologist shall submit survey results, including negative results, to CDFW following the survey and prior to the start of construction. If project-related activities are to be initiated during the general avian nesting season (January 1st through August 31st), a pre-construction nesting bird clearance survey shall be conducted within a 500-foot radius of the project footprint by a qualified biologist no more than 14 days prior to the start of any vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities. The qualified biologist shall survey all suitable nesting habitat at appropriate nesting times within the project’s development footprint, and areas within a biologically- defensible buffer zone surrounding the project’s development footprint. If no active nests are detected during the clearance survey, project activities may begin, and no additional avoidance and minimization measures would be required. If project activities are delayed or suspended for more than 7 days during the breeding season, surveys shall be repeated before work can resume. If an active nest is found, the bird species shall be identified and a “no-disturbance” buffer shall be established around the active nest. Buffers shall be clearly delineated and marked around the active nest site as directed by the qualified biologist. The buffer shall be 300 feet around active passerine (perching birds and songbirds) nests, 500 feet around active non-listed raptor nests, and 0.5-mile around active California Endangered Species Act (CESA)-listed bird nests. The qualified biologist shall advise workers of the sensitivity of the buffered areas, and workers shall not work, trespass, or engage in activities that would disturb nesting birds near or inside the buffer. The qualified biologist shall periodically monitor any active nests to determine if project-related activities occurring outside the “no-disturbance” buffer disturb the birds and if the buffer should be increased. Once the young have fledged and left the nest, or the nest otherwise becomes inactive under natural conditions, project activities within the “no-disturbance” buffer may occur following an additional survey by the qualified biologist to search for any new nests in the restricted area. A qualified biological monitor approved by CDFW shall be present during vegetation removal or grubbing activities. Any special-status wildlife that is found within the construction area shall be encouraged to move elsewhere or shall be physically moved out of harm’s way by the biologist if necessary. The biological monitor shall have the necessary state and/or federal permits or letters of permission from the wildlife agencies to relocate wildlife as necessary. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. According to the Biological Resources Assessment, the CNDDB identified seven special-status vegetation communities recorded within the vicinity of the survey area. Two of the seven special-status vegetation communities were observed during the field survey: California walnut woodland and southern coast live oak riparian forest. As shown on Figure 5, Vegetation Communities and Other Land Uses, of the Biological Resources Assessment, Disturbed California Walnut Groves habitat is located within the northern portion of the survey area, and Coast Live Oak Woodland and Forest habitat is located in the central, eastern, and southern portions of the survey area. The proposed trail improvements would occur on or directly adjacent to the existing trail path and thus, would not substantially impact these sensitive vegetation communities in the survey area. Further, 5.2.b Packet Pg. 170 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.4-8 Biological Resources Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-4 would require a qualified biologist to conduct focused rare plant surveys and nesting bird clearance surveys, and the City to prepare and implement a low-effect HCP and obtain an ITP from the USFWS prior to project construction to ensure project activities do not adversely impact special-status plant, wildlife, and/or vegetation communities. Thus, impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-4. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on State or Federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. There are three agencies that regulate activities within inland streams, wetlands, and riparian areas in California. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Regulatory Division regulates activities pursuant to Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA). Of the State agencies, the CDFW regulates activities under Sections 1600 et seq. of the CFGC, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) regulates activities pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA and/or Section 13263 of the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. One jurisdictional drainage feature is situated near the center of the survey area, in the canyon between the two loops of the existing Canyon Loop Trail that are proposed for improvements; refer to Figure 5, Vegetation Communities and Other Land Uses, of the Biological Resources Assessment. This feature is ephemeral, likely carrying flows only during rain events. It crosses the trail system twice but only as sheet flow, with no culvert passage evident under the trails. Some sparse mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia), which grows near a water source, is present on the western end of the drainage before it crosses the trail and flows down a pipe riser. However, the drainage is otherwise generally a dry ditch flowing under a coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) canopy, with a weedy understory. This drainage does not qualify as waters of the U.S. under the Corps but would still qualify as waters of the State under the regulatory authority of the Regional Board and as a jurisdictional streambed under CDFW. Nevertheless, since no trail improvements are proposed to occur within the drainage feature, regulatory permits from these agencies are not required, and no impacts would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 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? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Wildlife corridors and linkages are key features for wildlife movement between habitat patches. Wildlife corridors are generally defined as those areas that provide opportunities for individuals or local populations to conduct seasonal migrations, permanent dispersals, or daily commutes, while linkages generally refer to broader areas that provide movement opportunities for multiple keystone/focal species or allow for propagation of ecological processes (e.g., for movement of pollinators), often between areas of conserved land. The survey area is not located within any wildlife corridors, habitat conservation plans, reserves, or preserves according to the Los Angeles County General Plan or the Diamond Bar General Plan 2040. The survey area is surrounded by a mixture of developed and undeveloped land on all sides and is located in relatively close proximity to major regional open space areas including the Chino Hills, Puente Hills, and Tonner Canyon. Wildlife movement into or out of the site is likely reduced by the presence of residential development surrounding the survey area, but it is still possible that mammals may use the survey area minimally to move between local open spaces such as those mentioned above. Additionally, the survey area contains suitable habitat, such as coast live oaks, walnut groves, chaparral, and shrubs, including the bare ground and disturbed areas, to support a variety of nesting bird species. Potentially occurring 5.2.b Packet Pg. 171 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.4-9 Biological Resources common native birds are not protected by the Federal or California ESA, however many native species are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and Fish and Wildlife Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3511, and 3513, which prohibit take, possession, or destruction of birds, their nests, or eggs (in particular, raptor species). Construction activities associated with the project could potentially impact nesting birds, including CAGN and CACW, within the project’s development footprint and immediate vicinity, which could result in a potentially significant impact. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-3 and BIO-4 would require pre- construction nesting bird clearance surveys if construction cannot occur outside of the general avian nesting season (January 1st through August 31st) or CAGN and CACW-specific nesting season (February 15th through September 15th). In the event that active nests are discovered, a “no-disturbance” buffer would be required under such active nests and no construction would be allowed to occur within the buffer until a qualified biologist has determined the nest is no longer active. Project impacts in this regard would be reduced to less than significant levels with mitigation incorporated. Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measures BIO-3 and BIO-4. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Less Than Significant Impact. Chapter 22.38, Tree Preservation and Protection, of the Municipal Code protects native oak, walnut, sycamore, and willow trees; trees of significant historical value; any trees required to be preserved or relocated as a condition of approval for a discretionary permit; any tree required to be planted as a condition of approval for a discretionary permit; and a stand of trees, the nature of which makes each tree dependent upon the others for survival. Both coast live oak and southern California black walnuts located on-site are protected under Chapter 22.38 of the Municipal Code. If the proposed trail improvements would require removal or pruning of any on-site coast live oak or southern California black walnuts, an application for a tree removal and/or tree pruning permit would be required prior to construction activities, which may also require the preparation and submittal of an arborist report. Thus, compliance with Chapter 22.38 of the Municipal Code would ensure the project does not conflict with the City’s tree preservation policies, and impacts would be less than significant in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 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 Impact. According to the Biological Resources Assessment, the project site is not located within the boundaries of any Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any conservation plans and no impacts would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 172 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.4-10 Biological Resources This page intentionally left blank. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 173 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.5-1 Cultural Resources 4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5?  b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5?  c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?  The information presented in this analysis is based on the Cultural Resources Assessment for the Canyon Loop Trail Project, City of Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, California (Cultural Resources Assessment), prepared by Cogstone (dated July 2020); refer to Appendix C, Cultural Resources Assessment. a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5? No Impact. The Cultural Resources Assessment included a field survey and a record search of the California Historical Resources Inventory System (CHRIS) at the South Central Coast Information Center (SCCIC). The CHRIS record search was conducted to identify previously recorded cultural resources and previously conducted cultural resources studies within a 0.5-mile radius of the project site. Sources of the record search include the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), California Historical Landmarks (CHL), and California Points of Historical Interest (CPHI). A search of the Sacred Lands File (SLF) was also requested through the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). Additionally, the record search included a review of available historic-era maps and aerial photographs. The results of the record search indicated that nine studies have been completed previously within the project site, and ten additional cultural resource investigations have been completed previously within a 0.5-mile radius of the project site. The project site is also within the study area of five overview reports that discuss large portions of Los Angeles County. The results of these studies indicate that two cultural resources have been previously recorded within a 0.5- mile radius. However, no cultural resources have been previously recorded within the project site. The two cultural resources include P-19-002805/CA-LAN-2805, a prehistoric lithic site located between 0.25- and 0.5-mile from the project area, and P-19-101010, a prehistoric isolate consisting of a mano located 0.25-mile from the project area. Additionally, the pedestrian field survey consisted of walking the Canyon Loop Trail and observing conditions on either side of the trail where accessible. One cultural isolate (2020-07-02-LF-01) was observed during the field survey, consisting of remnants of an automobile along the eastern portion of the trail. The resource is two sections of the same vehicle spread about 60 meters apart. The first section, located further downslope to the northwest, is most of the vehicle chassis with the car dashboard still intact. The chassis extends to the rear bumper, which is also intact, however the car’s cabin has been detached and is located upslope approximately 60 yards to the southwest. The dashboard consists of a portion of the steering column (no steering wheel), the glove box port and other instrumentation port, and chrome dashboard accent. A portion of the front vehicle frame extends downslope into existing vegetation; it is unclear whether the hood and front bumper are still intact. Part of the body is visible and is painted a dull, baby blue color. The rear bumper is present and has a slightly rusted chrome plating. The second half of the vehicle consists of the rear portion of the cabin and trunk. Visible portions of the body have the same dull, baby blue paint color. The trunk 5.2.b Packet Pg. 174 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.5-2 Cultural Resources lid is rusted, but mostly intact and slightly ajar. The rest of the body section not obscured by vegetation appears to be the passenger side rear quarter panel and possibly the passenger side panel as well. Surrounding vegetation growth indicates the vehicle has been there for an extended period of time. Based on the shape of the rear quarter panel fender and style of the dashboard and glove box, it is likely an early 1950s Chevrolet Deluxe. Refer to Figures 10, Automobile trunk and rear quarter panel/fender, view east, and Figure 11, Dashboard remnants of vehicle, facing northeast, of the Cultural Resources Assessment for photographs of the cultural isolate. Cultural isolates are rarely significant. In this case, the isolate consists of two large portions of an automobile with associated smaller fragments. Given that Chevrolet Deluxe were mass produced in the 1950s, there are examples of this vehicle in working condition today, and this example has lost its original integrity, this cultural isolate does not yield important new information to the historical understanding of the project area or cultural isolate. The resource was documented in a California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 series forms and is included in Appendix E, DPR 523 Form, of the Cultural Resources Assessment. However, this cultural isolate (2020-07-02-LF-01) is recommended as not eligible for listing on the NRHP or CRHR, and no further cultural resources evaluation is warranted. As such, given that no historic resources are located within the project site, project implementation would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. No impacts would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. As detailed in the Cultural Resources Assessment, no archaeological remains or prehistoric cultural resources were identified within the project site during the field survey. However, based on the results of the records search, the project site is anticipated to have moderate sensitivity for archaeological resources. Primary components of the proposed trail improvements involve grading of the trail to widen it and construction of several retaining walls, staircases, drainage crossings, and shade structures. Thus, project construction has the potential to adversely impact previously undiscovered archaeological resources along and adjacent to the existing trail. In the unlikely event that archaeological resources are encountered during ground-disturbing construction activities, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would require all project construction efforts to halt until an archaeologist examines the find, evaluates the archaeological significance of the find, and recommends a course of action. With implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, and impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measures: CUL-1 If previously unidentified cultural resources are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work in the immediate area shall halt and a qualified archaeologist, defined as an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology, shall be contacted by the City of Diamond Bar Parks and Recreation Director, or designated designee, immediately to evaluate the find. If necessary, the evaluation may require preparation of a treatment plan and archaeological testing for California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) eligibility. If the discovery proves to be eligible for the CRHR and cannot be avoided by project activities, additional work, such as data recovery excavation, may be warranted to mitigate any significant impacts to historical resources. In the event that an identified cultural resource is of Native American origin, the qualified archaeologist shall consult with the City of 5.2.b Packet Pg. 175 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.5-3 Cultural Resources Diamond Bar Parks and Recreation Department staff to implement Native American consultation procedures. c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is an existing, unpaved trail within the Summitridge Park Trail System, and is surrounded predominantly by undeveloped open space. The trail undergoes varying topography, ranging in elevation from approximately 970 to 1,275 feet above mean sea level, sloping uphill from west to east. Given the topography and existing use, it is not anticipated that human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, would be encountered during ground-disturbing activities. Nevertheless, if human remains are found, those remains would require proper treatment, in accordance with applicable laws. State of California Public Resources Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5-7055 describe the general provisions for human remains. Specifically, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 describes the requirements if any human remains are accidentally discovered during excavation of a site. As required by State law, the requirements and procedures set forth in Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code would be implemented, including notification of the County Coroner, notification of the Native American Heritage Commission and consultation with the individual identified by the Native American Heritage Commission to be the “most likely descendant.” If human remains are found during ground-disturbing activities, activities must stop in the vicinity of the find and any area that is reasonably suspected to overlay adjacent remains until the County Coroner has been called out, and the remains have been investigated and appropriate recommendations have been made for the treatment and disposition of the remains. Following compliance with existing State regulations, which detail the appropriate actions necessary in the event human remains are encountered, impacts in this regard would be considered less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 176 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.5-4 Cultural Resources This page intentionally left blank. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 177 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.6-1 Energy 4.6 ENERGY Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?  b. Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?  REGULATORY FRAMEWORK Diamond Bar General Plan 2040 The Community Health and Sustainability Element of the Diamond Bar General Plan 2040 (General Plan) addresses the ways in which the City’s physical environment can influence the long-term health and sustainability of the community, including the topics of environmental justice, active lifestyles, social connection, public health and human services, and climate change. The Community Health and Sustainability Element of the General Plan focuses on the relationship between the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) and subsequent General Plan goals and policies to meet the City’s greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals. Included in the General plan and CAP GHG reduction goals are goals to help the City promote energy efficiency and conservation within the community. The following goals and policies from the General Plan Community Health and Sustainability Element would be applicable to the project: Goals CHS-G-13 Promote energy efficiency and conservation in the community. Policies CHS-P-35 Use the City’s CAP as a platform when outlining and implementing measures to improve energy conservation and increase renewable energy use in existing and new development. CHS-P-40 Require the inclusion, where feasible, of provisions for energy-efficient modes of transportation and fixed facilities that establish public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian modes as safe, efficient, and desirable alternatives. CHS-P-43 Explore participating in new high efficiency technology programs such as LED lighting for City facilities, safety lighting in parks and other public spaces, and LED street lighting conversion for all City-owned street lights. SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA CEQA Guidelines Appendix F Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines is an advisory document that assists environmental document preparers in determining whether a project will result in the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy. The 5.2.b Packet Pg. 178 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.6-2 Energy analysis in Response 4.6(a) relies upon Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines, which includes the following criteria to determine whether this threshold of significance is met:  Criterion 1: The project’s energy requirements and its energy use efficiencies by amount and fuel type for each stage of the project including construction, operation, maintenance and/or removal. If appropriate, the energy intensiveness of materials may be discussed.  Criterion 2: The effects of the project on local and regional energy supplies and on requirements for additional capacity.  Criterion 3: The effects of the project on peak and base period demands for electricity and other forms of energy.  Criterion 4: The degree to which the project complies with existing energy standards.  Criterion 5: The effects of the project on energy resources.  Criterion 6: The project’s projected transportation energy use requirements and its overall use of efficient transportation alternatives. Quantification of the project’s energy usage is presented and addresses Criterion 1. The discussion on construction- related energy use focuses on Criteria 2, 4, and 5. The discussion on operational energy relates to Criteria 2 through 6. a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Less Than Significant Impact. Project-Related Sources of Energy Consumption This analysis focuses on three sources of energy that are relevant to the proposed project: electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuel for vehicle trips associated with new development and for project construction. The analysis of operational electricity/natural gas usage is based on the California Emissions Estimator Model version 2016.3.2 (CalEEMod) modeling results for the project, which quantifies energy use for occupancy. The results of the CalEEMod modeling are included in Appendix A, Air Quality/GHG/Energy Data. The amount of construction fuel consumption was estimated using the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB’s) Emissions Factor 2017 (EMFAC2017) computer program which provides projections for typical daily fuel usage in Los Angeles County. The estimated construction fuel consumption is based on the project’s construction equipment list timing/phasing and hours of duration for construction equipment, as well as vendor, hauling, and construction worker trips. The proposed project would widen the South Canyon Loop of the existing Canyon Loop Trail, as well as construct improvements such as retaining walls, stairs, draining crossings, wayfinding sings, shade structures, and benches. The project would not result in increased vehicle trips to and from the project site and therefore would not result in operational vehicle-related energy consumption. The project’s primary source of energy consumption (i.e., vehicle fuel consumption) would occur from the use of construction equipment on-site and mobile trips to and from the project site by construction workers and vendors during construction. The project’s estimated construction energy consumption is summarized in Table 4.6-1, Construction Energy Consumption. As shown in Table 4.6-1, the project’s construction fuel consumption would increase Los Angeles County’s consumption by 0.0008 percent (CEQA Appendix F – Criterion 1). 5.2.b Packet Pg. 179 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.6-3 Energy Table 4.6-1 Construction Energy Consumption Energy Type Project Annual Energy Consumption1,2 Los Angeles County Annual Energy Consumption3 Percentage Increase Countywide3 Fuel Consumption Construction (Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicle) Fuel Consumption4 4,185 gallons 535,546,509 gallons 0.0008% Notes: 1. As modeled in CalEEMod version 2016.3.2. 2. The project would not involve new buildings, increased vehicular trips, and result in minimal electricity and natural gas consumption compared to existing conditions. As such, the project would not result in annual energy, natural gas, or operational fuel consumption. 3. The project increases in automotive fuel consumption are compared with the projected Countywide fuel consumption in 2021, as calculated from the California Air Resources Board EMFAC2017. 4. Project fuel consumption calculated based on CalEEMod results. Refer to Appendix A for assumptions used in this analysis. Construction-Related Energy Consumption Project construction would consume energy in two general forms: (1) the fuel energy consumed by construction vehicles and equipment; and (2) bound energy in construction materials, such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes, and manufactured or processed materials such as lumber and glass. Fossil fuels used for construction vehicles and other energy-consuming equipment would be used during site clearing, grading, and construction. Fuel energy consumed during construction would be temporary and would not represent a significant demand on energy resources. As indicated in Table 4.6-1, the project’s fuel consumption from construction would be approximately 4,185 gallons, which would increase fuel use in the County by 0.0008 percent. As such, construction would have a nominal effect on the local and regional energy supplies (CEQA Appendix F – Criterion 2). Some incidental energy conservation would occur during construction through compliance with State requirements that equipment not in use for more than five minutes be turned off. Project construction equipment would also be required to comply with the latest U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and California Air Resources Board (CARB) engine emissions standards. These emissions standards require highly efficient combustion systems that maximize fuel efficiency and reduce unnecessary fuel consumption. Due to increasing transportation costs and fuel prices, contractors and owners have a strong financial incentive to avoid wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy during construction (CEQA Appendix F – Criterion 4). Significant reductions in energy inputs for construction materials can be achieved by selecting green building materials composed of recycled materials that require less energy to produce than non-recycled materials.1 The integration of green building materials can help reduce environmental impacts associated with the extraction, transport, processing, fabrication, installation, reuse, recycling, and disposal of these building industry source materials.2 The project-related incremental increase in the use of energy bound in construction materials such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes and manufactured or processed materials (e.g., lumber and gas) would not substantially increase demand for energy compared to overall local and regional demand for construction materials. It is noted that construction fuel use is temporary and would cease upon completion of construction activities. There are no unusual project characteristics that would necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less energy-efficient than at comparable 1 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, Green Building Materials, https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/greenbuilding/materials#Material, accessed July 8, 2020. 2 Ibid. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 180 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.6-4 Energy construction sites in the region or State. Therefore, fuel energy and construction materials consumed during construction would not represent a significant demand on energy resources (CEQA Appendix F - Criterion 5). Therefore, construction fuel consumption would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than other similar development projects of this nature. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard. Operational Energy Consumption As a trail improvement project, project operations would not involve new buildings or uses which would introduce new permanent stationary or mobile sources of emissions within the project area compared to existing conditions. The project would not result in increased vehicular trips to and from the project site and would not generate new operational emissions. The project would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or any consumption of building energy. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard (CEQA Appendix F – Criterion 2 through Criterion 6). Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. b) Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Less Than Significant Impact. The City’s Community Health and Sustainability Element of the General Plan lists goals and policies to help the City reduce its energy usage. Table 4.6-2, Project Energy Use General Plan Consistency Analysis, shows the project’s consistency with the applicable General Plan energy efficiency Goals and Policies. As shown in Table 4.6-2, the project would be consistent with the General Plan Goal CHS-G-13; as well as Policies CHS- P-35, CHS-P-40, and CHS-P-43. Therefore, the project would help promote the energy efficiency Goal and Policies found within the General Plan and would not conflict with State or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Further, As discussed in Response 4.6(a), project operations would not result in increased operational electricity, natural gas, or operational fuel consumption compared to existing conditions. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impacts associated with renewable energy or energy efficiency plans. Table 4.6-2 Project Energy Use General Plan Consistency Analysis General Plan Goals and Policies Consistency Analysis Goal CHS-G-13: Promote energy efficiency and conservation in the community. Policy CHS-P-35: Use the City’s CAP as a platform when outlining and implementing measures to improve energy conservation and increase renewable energy use in existing and new development. Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the project would be consistent with the City’s CAP Policies and Actions. As such, the project would be consistent with this General Plan Policy. Policy CHS-P-40: Require the inclusion, where feasible, of provisions for energy-efficient modes of transportation and fixed facilities that establish public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian modes as safe, efficient, and desirable alternatives. Consistent. The project consists of trail improvements to the Canyon Loop Trail. These improvements include widening the trail, improving draining, and providing recreational amenities (shade structures, staircase, etc.); refer to Section 2.0. The widening of the trail, shade structures, and staircase would help the Canyon Loop Trail become more walkable and would incentivize nearby residents to utilize the trail. These trail improvements would help the City promote energy-efficient modes of transportation and thus would be consistent with this General Plan Policy. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 181 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.6-5 Energy Table 4.6-2 [cont’d] Project Energy Use General Plan Consistency Analysis General Plan Goals and Policies Consistency Analysis Policy CHS-P-43: Explore participating in new high efficiency technology programs such as LED lighting for City facilities, safety lighting in parks and other public spaces, and LED street lighting conversion for all City-owned street lights. Consistent. The project consists of trail improvements to the Canyon Loop Trail. These improvements include shade structures, benches, signs, and stairs with handrails; refer to Section 2.0. The project improvements to the Canyon Loop Trail would not conflict with the City’s goal of incorporating high efficiency safety lighting in parks and other public places. As such, the project would be consistent with this General Plan Policy. Source: City of Diamond Bar, Diamond Bar General Plan 2040, adopted December 17, 2019. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 182 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.6-6 Energy This page intentionally left blank. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 183 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.7-1 Geology and Soils 4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 1) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.  2) Strong seismic ground shaking?  3) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?  4) Landslides?  b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?  c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?  d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the California Building Code (2001), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?  e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?  f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature?  a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 1) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. No Impact. Southern California, including the project area, is subject to the effects of seismic activity due to the active faults that traverse the area. Active faults are defined as those that have experienced surface displacement within Holocene time (approximately the last 11,000 years) and/or are in a State-designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. According to the General Plan EIR, there are no active faults within the City and the project site is not situated within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. As such, the proposed trail improvements would not increase the potential for human loss, injury, or death as a result of fault rupture. No impacts would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 184 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.7-2 Geology and Soils 2) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact. The southern California region has numerous active seismic faults that can result in potential earthquake and seismic-related hazards. Seismic activity poses two types of potential hazards for people and structures, categorized either as primary or secondary hazards. Primary hazards are caused by the direct interaction of seismic energy with the ground. Examples include ground rupture, ground shaking, ground displacement, subsidence, and uplift from earth movement. Secondary hazards are consequences of the shaking, such as ground failure (lurch cracking, lateral spreading, and slope failure), liquefaction, water waves (seiches), movement on nearby faults (sympathetic fault movement), dam failure, and fires. According to the General Plan EIR, although there are no active faults within the City, there are four potentially active local faults in the area, including the Whittier-Elsinore, San Jose, Central Avenue, and Walnut Creek faults, which have the potential to cause local hazardous damage in Diamond Bar. Further, the Whittier-Elsinore fault, located approximately six miles southwest of the project site, is classified as an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and is capable of generating substantial ground shaking (e.g., earthquakes with a magnitude of 7 or higher). The proposed project involves trail improvements along an existing trail and would not affect subsurface geology or the probability of a seismic event, nor would it include the development of any habitable structures or other facilities that could experience substantial hazards during a seismic event. Additionally, the design and construction of the proposed trail improvements would be required to comply with the California Building Code and Title 15, Building and Construction Safety, of the Municipal Code. Compliance with the existing seismic safety requirements of the California Building Code and Title 15 of the Municipal Code, would minimize risks pertaining to seismic ground shaking the event of an earthquake. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 3) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? No Impact. Liquefaction and seismically-induced settlement or ground failure is generally related to strong seismic shaking events where the groundwater table occurs at a relatively shallow depth (generally within 50 feet of the ground surface) or where lands are underlain by loose, cohesionless deposits. Liquefaction generally results in the loss of shear strength of a soil, which occurs due to the increase of pore water pressure caused by the rearrangement of soil particles induced by shaking or vibration. During liquefaction, soil strata typically behave similar to a heavy fluid. According to Figure 3.6-4, Liquefaction and Landslide Hazards, of the General Plan EIR, the project site is not located within a liquefaction zone. As such, no impact would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 4) Landslides? Less Than Significant Impact. According to the Figure 3.6-4, Liquefaction and Landslide Hazards, of the General Plan EIR, a small portion of the project site is located within an earthquake-induced landslide zone. However, the proposed project would involve trail improvements and would not involve the construction of habitable structures or a change in land use that could result in substantial risks to landslides. Rather, the proposed improvements include retaining walls, cobblestone swales, and drainage crossings, which would help stabilize soils and reduce soil erosion, thereby decreasing landslide hazards in the project area. As such, less than significant impact would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 185 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.7-3 Geology and Soils b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact. Construction activities could potentially result in soil erosion or loss of topsoil due to ground-disturbing activities required to install the trail improvements. However, due to the scope and duration (four months) of project construction, substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil is not anticipated. Further, the proposed improvements include retaining walls, cobblestone swales, and drainage crossings, which would help stabilize soils and reduce erosion compared to existing conditions. The project would also be subject to the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit, which would require preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for approval by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to construction. The SWPPP would require implementation of best management practices (BMPs) to minimize sedimentation from stormwater runoff and winds; refer to Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality. Further, the project would also be subject to the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) Rule 403, which establishes requirements for dust control during construction activities. Thus, following conformance with NPDES Construction General Permit requirements and SCAQMD Rule 403, impacts concerning substantial soil erosion and loss of topsoil would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in an on-site or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Responses 4.7(a)(3), 4.7(a)(4), and 4.7(d) regarding project impacts related to liquefaction, landslides, and expansive soils. Lateral Spreading The General Plan EIR defines lateral spreading as lateral displacement of gently sloping, saturated soil masses as a result of earthquake-induced liquefaction. The magnitude of lateral spreading displacement depends on earthquake magnitude, distance between the site and the seismic event, thickness of the liquefied layer, ground slope, average particle size of the materials comprising the liquefied layer, and the standard penetration rates of the materials. According to the United States Department of Agriculture, the project site is underlain by Gaviota Chumash Rock outcrop complex (20 to 55 percent slopes), with minimal (five percent) clay content.1 As the project site mainly consists of steep slopes and sandy soil, lateral spreading is not anticipated to occur on-site. Subsidence Subsidence occurs when a large portion of land is displaced or compressed vertically, typically due to human activities, such as the withdrawal of groundwater, oil, or natural gas. No groundwater, oil, or natural gas extraction occurs on- site or in the project vicinity. Thus, the potential for subsidence to occur on-site is low. Collapse Soil collapse is a phenomenon where the soils undergo a significant decrease in volume upon increase in moisture content, with or without an increase in external loads. Buildings, structures, and other improvements may be subject to excessive settlement-related distress when compressible soils or collapsible soils are present. As stated above, the 1 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey, http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx, accessed July 10, 2020. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 186 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.7-4 Geology and Soils project site mainly consists of sandy soil with minimal clay content and is currently a hard packed unpaved trail. The potential for soil collapse is low. Additionally, the project would not involve the construction of habitable structures or a change in land use that could result in substantial geologic risks associated with lateral spreading, subsidence, or collapse. The proposed trail improvements are minimal and would not exacerbate any existing geologic hazards in the project area. Further, the proposed trail improvement features design and construction would comply with the California Building Code and Title 15 of the Municipal Code regulations pertaining to grading and construction. Compliance with these regulations would minimize the potential for hazards due to lateral spreading, subsidence, or collapse. Given that the proposed project consists of a trail improvements and would not introduce new habitable structures, impacts related to unstable soils would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating direct or indirect substantial risks to life or property? Less Than Significant Impact. Expansive soils are those that undergo volume changes as moisture content fluctuates, swelling substantially when wet or shrinking when dry. Soil expansion can damage structures by cracking foundations, causing settlement, and distorting structural elements. According to the United States Department of Agriculture, the project site is underlain by Gaviota Chumash Rock outcrop complex (20 to 55 percent slopes). Components of this soil type are generally “very low” in water storage and “high” in drainage and runoff; thus, it is not typically considered expansive. Further, construction of the proposed trail improvements would be required to comply with the California Building Code and Title 15 of the Municipal Code. Compliance with these regulations would minimize the potential for hazards due to expansive soils. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No Impact. No septic tanks or alternative wastewater systems would be constructed as part of the project. No impacts would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. According to the General Plan EIR, there is one vertebrate fossil locality within the City, located approximately 2.8 miles northeast of the project site. Further, according to the General Plan, shallow excavations into younger Quaternary Alluvium deposits (mainly in low lying terrain areas such as Brea Canyon and San Jose Creek) are not likely to yield paleontological resources, and deeper excavations that extend down into older Quaternary deposits or into the Puente Formation would have the potential to encounter paleontological resources. The proposed trail improvements would involve grading to minimal depths, primarily for the trail widening along the South Canyon Loop and installation of stairs and gabion retaining walls. As the project would not involve substantial grading, paleontological resources are not expected to be encountered during construction. Nonetheless, in the unlikely event that paleontological resources are encountered during project construction, Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would require all project construction activities to halt until a paleontologist identifies the paleontological significance of the find and recommends a course of action. Thus, following implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, impacts would be less than significant. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 187 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.7-5 Geology and Soils Mitigation Measures: GEO-1 If evidence of subsurface paleontological resources is found during construction, excavation and other construction activity in that area shall cease and the construction contractor shall contact the City of Diamond Bar Community Development Director. With direction from the Community Development Director, a paleontologist certified by the County of Los Angeles shall evaluate the find prior to resuming grading in the immediate vicinity of the find. If warranted, the paleontologist shall prepare and complete a standard Paleontological Resources Mitigation Program for the salvage and curation of the identified resources. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 188 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.7-6 Geology and Soils This page intentionally left blank. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 189 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.8-1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 4.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?  b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?  GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE California is a substantial contributor of global greenhouse gases (GHGs), emitting over 420 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e) per year.1 Methane (CH4) is also an important GHG that potentially contributes to global climate change. GHGs are global in their effect, which is to increase the earth’s ability to absorb heat in the atmosphere. As primary GHGs have a long lifetime in the atmosphere, accumulate over time, and are generally well- mixed, their impact on the atmosphere is mostly independent of the point of emission. Every nation emits GHGs and as a result makes an incremental cumulative contribution to global climate change; therefore, global cooperation will be required to reduce the rate of GHG emissions enough to slow or stop the human-caused increase in average global temperatures and associated changes in climatic conditions. The impact of human activities on global climate change is apparent in the observational record. Air trapped by ice has been extracted from core samples taken from polar ice sheets to determine the global atmospheric variation of CO2, CH4, and nitrous oxide (N2O) from before the start of industrialization (approximately 1750), to over 650,000 years ago. For that period, it was found that CO2 concentrations ranged from 180 to 300 parts per million (ppm). For the period from approximately 1750 to the present, global CO2 concentrations increased from a pre-industrialization period concentration of 280 ppm to 379 ppm in 2005, with the 2005 value far exceeding the upper end of the pre-industrial period range. As of March 2020, the highest monthly average concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was recorded at 416 ppm.2 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK AND SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA Federal The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) constructed several emission trajectories of GHGs needed to stabilize global temperatures and climate change impacts. It concluded that a stabilization of GHGs at 400 to 450 ppm carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e)3 concentration is required to keep global mean warming below 2 degrees Celsius (ᵒC), which in turn is assumed to be necessary to avoid dangerous climate change. 1 California Air Resources Board, California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2017, https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/2000_2017/ghg_inventory_trends_00-17.pdf, accessed July 8, 2020. 2 Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Carbon Dioxide Concentration at Mauna Loa Observatory, https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/, accessed July 8, 2020. 3 Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (CO2e) – A metric measure used to compare the emissions from various greenhouse gases based upon their global warming potential. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 190 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.8-2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions State Various Statewide and local initiatives to reduce the State’s contribution to GHG emissions have raised awareness that, even though the various contributors to and consequences of global climate change are not yet fully understood, global climate change is under way, and there is a real potential for severe adverse environmental, social, and economic effects in the long term. Assembly Bill 32 (California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006). California passed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32; California Health and Safety Code Division 25.5, Sections 38500 - 38599). AB 32 establishes regulatory, reporting, and market mechanisms to achieve quantifiable reductions in GHG emissions and establishes a cap on Statewide GHG emissions. AB 32 requires that Statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. AB 32 specifies that regulations adopted in response to AB 1493 should be used to address GHG emissions from vehicles. However, AB 32 also includes language stating that if the AB 1493 regulations cannot be implemented, then the California Air Resources Board (CARB) should develop new regulations to control vehicle GHG emissions under the authorization of AB 32. Executive Order S-3-05. Executive Order S-3-05 set forth a series of target dates by which Statewide emissions of GHGs would be progressively reduced, as follows:  By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels;  By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; and  By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. Senate Bill 32. Signed into law on September 2016, SB 32 codifies the 2030 GHG reduction target in Executive Order B-30-15 (40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030). The bill authorizes CARB to adopt an interim GHG emissions level target to be achieved by 2030. CARB Scoping Plan. On December 11, 2008, CARB adopted the Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan), which functions as a roadmap to achieve GHG reductions in California required by AB 32 through subsequently enacted regulations. The Scoping Plan contains the main strategies California will implement to reduce GHG emissions by 174 million metric tons (MT), or approximately 30 percent, from the State’s projected 2020 emissions level of 596 million MT CO2e under a business as usual (BAU)4 scenario. This is a reduction of 42 million MT CO2e, or almost ten percent, from 2002 to 2004 average emissions, but requires the reductions in the face of population and economic growth through 2020. The Scoping Plan calculates 2020 BAU emissions as the emissions that would be expected to occur in the absence of any GHG reduction measures. The 2020 BAU emissions estimate was derived by projecting emissions from a past baseline year using growth factors specific to each of the different economic sectors (e.g., transportation, electrical power, commercial and residential, industrial, etc.). CARB used three-year average emissions, by sector, for 2002 to 2004 to forecast emissions to 2020. The measures described in the Scoping Plan are intended to reduce the projected 2020 BAU to 1990 levels, as required by AB 32. AB 32 requires CARB to update the Scoping Plan at least once every five years. CARB adopted the first major update to the Scoping Plan on May 22, 2014. The updated Scoping Plan identifies the actions California has already taken to reduce GHG emissions and focuses on areas where further reductions could be achieved to help meet the 2020 target established by AB 32. The Scoping Plan update also looks beyond 2020 toward the 2050 goal, established in Executive 4 “Business as Usual” refers to emissions that would be expected to occur in the absence of GHG reductions; refer to http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/bau.htm. Note that there is significant controversy as to what BAU means. In determining the GHG 2020 limit, CARB used the above as the “definition.” It is broad enough to allow for design features to be counted as reductions. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 191 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.8-3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Order S-3-05, and observes that “a mid-term statewide emission limit will ensure that the State stays on course to meet our long-term goal.” In December 2017, CARB approved the California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan (2017 Scoping Plan): The Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target. This update focuses on implementation of a 40 percent reduction in GHGs by 2030 compared to 1990 levels. To achieve this, the updated 2017 Scoping Plan draws on a decade of successful programs that addresses the major sources of climate changing gases in every sector of the economy. Regional South Coast Air Quality Management District Thresholds At this time, there is no absolute consensus in the State of California among CEQA lead agencies regarding the analysis of global climate change and the selection of significance criteria. In fact, numerous organizations, both public and private, have released advisories and guidance with recommendations designed to assist decision-makers in the evaluation of GHG emissions given the current uncertainty regarding when emissions reach the point of significance. Lead agencies may elect to rely on thresholds of significance recommended or adopted by State or regional agencies with expertise in the field of global climate change. The SCAQMD has formed a GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group (Working Group) to provide guidance to local lead agencies on determining significance for GHG emissions in their CEQA documents. As of the last Working Group meeting (Meeting No. 15) held in September 2010, the SCAQMD is proposing to adopt a tiered approach for evaluating GHG emissions for development projects where SCAQMD is not the lead agency.5 With the tiered approach, the project is compared with the requirements of each tier sequentially and would not result in a significant impact if it complies with any tier. Tier 1 excludes projects that are specifically exempt from SB 97 from resulting in a significant impact. Tier 2 excludes projects that are consistent with a GHG reduction plan that has a certified final CEQA document and complies with AB 32 GHG reduction goals. Tier 3 excludes projects with annual emissions lower than a screening threshold. For all non-industrial projects, the SCAQMD is proposing a screening threshold of 3,000 metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) per year. SCAQMD concluded that projects with emissions less than the screening threshold would not result in a significant cumulative impact. Tier 4 consists of three options. Under the Tier 4 first option, the SCAQMD initially outlined that the project would be excluded if design features and/or mitigation measures resulted in emissions 30 percent lower than business as usual emissions. However, the Working Group did not provide a recommendation for this approach. Under the Tier 4 second option, the Working Group folded this into the third option. Under the Tier 4 third option, the project would be excluded if it was below an efficiency-based threshold of 4.8 MTCO2e per service population (SP) per year or 3.0 MTCO2e per SP for post-2020 projects.6 Tier 5 would exclude projects that implement off-site mitigation (GHG reduction projects) or purchase offsets to reduce GHG emission impacts to less than the proposed screening level. 5 The most recent SCAQMD GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group meeting was held on September 2010. 6 The project-level efficiency-based threshold of 4.8 MTCO2e per SP per year is relative to the 2020 target date. The SCAQMD has also proposed efficiency-based thresholds relative to the 2035 target date to be consistent with the GHG reduction target date of SB 375. GHG reductions by the SB 375 target date of 2035 would be approximately 40 percent. Applying this 40 percent reduction to the 2020 targets results in an efficiency threshold for plans of 4.1 MTCO2e per SP per year and an efficiency threshold at the project level of 3.0 MTCO2e/year. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 192 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.8-4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Local Diamond Bar General Plan 2040 The Community Health and Sustainability Element of the City of Diamond 2040 General Plan (General Plan) describes the City’s goals in reducing the rapid effects of climate change. The Community Health and Sustainability Element of the General Plan focuses on the relationship between the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) and subsequent General Plan Goals and Policies to meet the City’s GHG reduction goals. The following Goals and Policies from the Community Health and Sustainability Element would be applicable to the project: Goals CHS-G-11 Promote initiatives that enhance sustainability by reducing the community’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, protecting natural open spaces which provide CO2 sequestration, and fostering green development patterns, buildings, sites, and landscapes. Policies CHS-P-55 Encourage the protection and enhancement of areas identified as healthy functioning ecosystems that provide the ecological, cultural, public health and safety, and economic value of ecosystem services, or benefits. CHS-P-57 Encourage water conservation, drought-tolerant landscaping and the use of greywater and reclaimed and recycled water, where appropriate, with a view to reducing water use. City of Diamond Bar Climate Action Plan The City’s CAP was adopted on December 17, 2019 and is designed to provide discrete actions to operationalize the General Plan policies that help with GHG reduction. The CAP outlines Diamond Bar’s overall strategy to reduce GHG emissions and identifies specific implementation measures the City will undertake and quantifies their impacts, in order to comply with State directives for reducing GHGs. AB 32 and the 2017 Scoping Plan seek to bring California to a low carbon future, reducing emissions to no more than six MTCO2e per capita by 2030 and no more than two MTCO2e per capita by 2050. The AB 32 Scoping Plan also directs local governments to assist the state in meeting California’s emissions goals. The GHG emission targets proposed for the City’s CAP are based on the goals established by EO S-3-05 and SB 32, following the CAP guidelines established in the 2017 Scoping Plan. The horizon year for analysis in the proposed CAP is 2040, corresponding with the General Plan update horizon. Thus, the CAP will include targets of six MTCO2e per capita per year by 2030 and four MTCO2e per capita per year by 2040 (derived from the Scoping Plan target of two MTCO2e per capita per year in 2050). It provides a community-based policy framework to address community-wide GHG emissions sources. Specifically, the CAP is designed to:  Translate high-level objectives and quantified goals into a realistic, understandable set of implementation actions;  Demonstrate that significant reductions in GHG emissions are attainable through local actions;  Inspire community members to work collectively to achieve these reductions;  Dovetail with General Plan policies that are required to address climate change impacts and adaptation, including those for land use, transportation, building design, and infrastructure; and  Provide a predictable approach to mitigation strategies for the compliance of future development projects with CEQA. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 193 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.8-5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions To be conservative, the City’s adopted CAP target threshold of four MTCO2e per capita (i.e. service population for projects) per year for the year 2040 was adopted for this analysis. This threshold was adopted to show project compliance with the General Plan buildout year of 2040 and is the lowest threshold listed in the CAP. a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Less Than Significant Impact. Project-related GHG emissions would include emissions from construction activities. Construction-related emissions have been quantified and compared to the CAP GHG threshold. The project’s anticipated GHG emissions are identified in Table 4.8-1, Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions. GHG emissions for the proposed project were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model version 2016.3.2 software (CalEEMod). CalEEMod is a statewide model designed to quantify GHG emissions from land use projects. The model quantifies direct GHG emissions from construction and operation as well as indirect GHG emissions, such as GHG emissions from energy use, solid waste disposal, vegetation, and water use. Table 4.8-1 Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions Source CO2 N2O CH4 Total Metric Tons of CO2e Metric tons/year Metric tons/year Metric tons of CO2e1,2 Metric tons/year Metric tons of CO2e1,2 Construction Emissions2,4 Year 1 53.09 0.01 0.33 0.00 0.00 53.42 Total Emissions)2 53.09 0.01 0.33 0.00 0.00 53.42 Total Emissions (amortized over 30 years)2,5 2.79 <0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 2.81 Project Emissions per Capita/year3 2.81 MTCO2e per capita/year CAP Threshold 4.0 MTCO2e per capita/year Is Threshold Exceeded? No Notes: 1. CO2 Equivalent values calculated using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Website, Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator, https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator, accessed October 11, 2018. 2. Totals may be slightly off due to rounding. Due to rounding, the results given by the equation calculations used in the Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator may not return the exact results shown in CalEEMod. 3. The project consists of trail improvements to the Canyon Loop Trail. Since it is unknown how many individuals would access this trail in a year, an extremely conservative service population of one was selected. It is anticipated that more than one individual would use the canyon loop trail within a year and thus project emissions would be lower than the calculated 1.78 MTCO2e per capita/year. 4. The project consists of many trail improvements; refer to Section 2.0, Project Description. These trail improvements would not change or increase the existing operational emissions, as the improvements would not include additional water, solid waste, energy, or mobile sources or uses. 5. The project construction emissions were amortized over a 19-year period (2021 to 2040) to show the yearly project emissions in correlation with the General Plan Horizon year 2040 and the 2040 CAP Threshold. Source: Refer to Appendix A, Air Quality/GHG/Energy Data for detailed model input/output data. Construction of the project would emit GHG emissions as indicated in Table 4.8-1. In total, project construction would result in approximately 53.42 MTCO2e (2.81 MTCO2e over 19 years). It was conservatively assumed that the service population or “capita” of the project is one individual. Thus, the project would emit 2.81 MTCO2e per capita per year (2.81 MTCO2e divided by one individual). This is highly conservative as significantly more than one individual is likely to use the Canyon Loop trail within a year, which would lower the project’s yearly per capita emissions. As such, the project would not exceed the CAP’s threshold of four MTCO2e per capita per year for the year 2040. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 194 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.8-6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions The trail improvements would not include additional operational area, water, solid waste, or energy uses. Furthermore, the trail improvements would not cause an increase of mobile trips compared to existing conditions. Therefore, operational GHG emissions generated by the project over the long-term would be nominal. Overall, GHG emissions generated by construction and operation of the project would be minimal and less than the City’s CAP threshold. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Less Than Significant Impact. On December 17, 2019, the City adopted it’s 2040 General Plan and CAP. The City’s CAP includes community-wide policies and actions to reduce the City’s GHG emissions; in-line with the 2017 Scoping Plan. This includes emission thresholds to help the City meet the 2017 Scoping Plan GHG emission targets for the years 2030 and 2040. Table 4.8-2, Project CAP Consistency Analysis, discusses how the project would comply with the goals and policies found within the City’s CAP. In addition, the CAP GHG reduction policies and actions are directly correlated with the General Plan Goals and Policies. Therefore, a project’s compliance with the CAP would mean the project complies with the General Plan, and vice versa. Furthermore, as described above, the project would not exceed the CAP’s 2040 GHG threshold. As shown in Table 4.8-2 the project would be consistent with the City’s CAP Policies and Goals. Thus, a less than significant impact would occur in this regard. Table 4.8-2 Project CAP Consistency Analysis Policies and Actions Consistency Analysis Pedestrian Improvements and Increased Connectivity While most streets in the City have sidewalks, the suburban layout with winding roads and high-speed arterials with narrow sidewalks and spread out crossings can present a difficult pedestrian environment. The General Plan includes policies that create more walkable, livable neighborhoods by expanding the multi-modal transportation system and creating a safe, pedestrian-oriented environment Consistent. The project consists of trail improvements to the Canyon Loop Trail. These improvements include widening the trail, improving draining, and providing recreational amenities (shade structures, staircase, etc.); refer to Section 2.0. The widening of the trail, shade structures, and staircase would help the Canyon Loop Trail become more walkable and would incentive nearby residents to utilize the trail. Thus, the project would meet the CAP and General Plan goal of becoming more walkable, with livable neighborhoods, and creating a safe, pedestrian-oriented environment. The General Plan provides strategies for maximizing multi- modal accessibility to and connectivity within mixed use areas, including the Metrolink Station and new Town Center. Components of the strategy serve to improve connectivity between the proposed mixed use areas and the City’s existing neighborhoods; provide new jobs, housing, and entertainment opportunities in compact, walkable environments; support multiple modes of transit, car travel, walking and bicycling; and increase accessibility to and from surrounding cities. The General Plan also includes a number of other improvements to enhance connectivity for bicycles, pedestrians, and transit in Diamond Bar Consistent. As described above, the project would include improvements to the Canyon Loop trail which would incentive nearby residents of the City to utilize the trail. These improvements would enhance connectivity for pedestrians by providing a wider trail with more shade structures and would allow individuals to traverse a portion of the City (from Meandering Creek Drive on the western side to Peak Court on the eastern side), without the reliance of automobiles. Thus, the project would be consistent with this goal. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 195 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.8-7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Table 4.8-2 [cont’d] Project CAP Consistency Analysis Policies and Actions Consistency Analysis Bikeway System Improvements The City has made an effort to expand the ease of alternative transportation options for residents, recognizing both health and environmental benefits. The General Plan recommends the enhancement of the existing bicycle network with the implementation of 1.76 miles of new Class I and II, 22.95 miles of new Class III bike paths, and 22.95 miles of new Class IV bike paths. In total, the recommended enhancements will create a total of 45.58 miles of new bike paths, to result in a total of 48.3 miles of bike paths. Consistent. The project would be consistent with this goal as the widening of the Canyon Loop Trail would allow for more bicycles to access the trail in a safe manner. Furthermore, the project would help promote the City’s General Plan Goal CHS-G-11 by protecting a natural open space which provides CO2 sequestration and is also a usable landscape for residents to cycle along. Traffic Calming The General Plan includes policies for “calming” traffic to make streets safer and more comfortable for pedestrian travel. Traffic calming devices include roundabouts, corner bulb-outs, speed cushions, surface textures, raised pavement, road narrowing, and other devices that encourage people to drive more slowly or to walk or bike instead of using a vehicle, especially for short trips in and around residential neighborhoods. Consistent. The project would not include any additional mobile trips nor require additional roadway features to be created. As such the project would not conflict with the traffic calming goals found within the CAP. The project would also allow individuals to traverse a portion of the City (from Meandering Creek Drive on the western side to Peak Court on the eastern side), without the reliance of automobiles. Electric Vehicle Infrastructure The General Plan recommends that the City establish requirements to provide dedicated parking and charging stations for electric vehicles and support the use of clean fuel and “climate friendly” vehicles by residents, businesses, and City government activities. The General Plan recommends Diamond Bar to seek funding opportunities for the installation of electric vehicle charging stations throughout the City and to convert the City fleet to zero emissions vehicles over time. Consistent. The project would not include any additional parking or mobile trips and thus would not conflict with this CAP goal. Parking Facilities and Policies To promote “right sizing” of parking facilities, the General Plan calls for the amendment of parking regulations in the Municipal Code to require lower parking minimums for developments with a mix of uses with different peak parking needs, as well as developments that implement enforceable residential parking demand reduction measures, such as parking permit and car share programs. Additional strategies recommended by the General Plan include consolidation of parking lots, preferential carpool parking, park-n-ride facilities, parking pricing, and bicycle parking. General Plan policies also encourage designing parking facilities to minimize impacts on pedestrian, bicycles, and transit. Consistent. The project would not include any additional parking or mobile trips and thus would not conflict with this CAP goal. Transportation Improvements Transit service can provide an alternative to automobile travel and is a critical mode of transportation for those who cannot drive (such as the elderly, youth, or disabled) or do not have access to a vehicle. Given that the majority of Diamond Bar is of a suburban, low-density character, the General Plan prioritizes providing high-quality service between employment Consistent. The project consists of trail improvements to the Canyon Loop Trail, which does not include additional vehicle trips, and thus would not conflict with the transportation improvement goals found within the CAP. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 196 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.8-8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Table 4.8-2 [cont’d] Project CAP Consistency Analysis Policies and Actions Consistency Analysis centers and mixed-use destinations along the spines of the City, supplemented with features such as park-n-rides and pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure to create multi-modal transportation nodes. This Chapter’s policies also support Metrolink ridership by improving bus, bicycle, and pedestrian connections to the station and by introducing Transit-Oriented Mixed-Use development around the station. Coordination with Metrolink and Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) to provide more frequent service to increase Metrolink’s convenience and ridership amongst Diamond Bar residents would further increase transit ridership and reduce GHG emissions associated with automobile usage. Source: City of Diamond Bar, Climate Action Plan 2040, adopted December 17, 2019. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 197 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.9-1 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 4.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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 one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?  d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?  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 or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?  f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?  g. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?  a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less Than Significant Impact. Short-term construction activities for the proposed project would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. With the exception of utilizing gasoline, diesel fuels, and solvents for construction equipment, no other hazardous materials would be transported to or from the project site, or be utilized in the construction process. Fuels and solvents for construction would be stored and utilized pursuant to existing regulatory requirements. Therefore, short-term construction impacts would be less than significant in this regard. As a recreational trail facility, the project would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during long-term operations. Project implementation would improve existing amenities on the trail and would not change the project site’s current land use. No habitable structures or new land uses requiring hazardous materials would be constructed. Thus, implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impact in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 198 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.9-2 Hazards and 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? Less Than Significant Impact. Short-Term Construction Impacts One of the means through which human exposure to hazardous substances could occur is through accidental release. Incidents that result in an accidental release of hazardous substances into the environment can cause contamination of soil, surface water, and groundwater, in addition to any toxic fumes that might be generated. Human exposure of contaminated soil, soil gas, or water can have potential health effects based on a variety of factors, such as the nature of the contaminant and the degree of exposure. During project construction, there is a possibility of accidental release of hazardous substances such as petroleum- based fuels or hydraulic fluid used for construction equipment. The level of risk associated with the accidental release of hazardous substances is not considered significant due to the small volume and low concentration of hazardous materials anticipated during construction. The construction contractor would be required to use standard construction controls and safety procedures that would avoid and minimize the potential for accidental release of such substances into the environment. Standard construction practices would be observed such that any materials released are appropriately contained and remediated as required by local, State, and Federal law. Upon compliance with all applicable regulations, impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Long-Term Operational Impacts As noted in Response 4.9(a), project implementation would improve existing amenities on the Canyon Loop Trail and would not change the project site’s current land use. Therefore, the project would not involve a change in use which would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Long-term impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. There are no existing or proposed schools located within 0.25-mile of the project site. The nearest school is the Pantera Elementary School, located approximately 0.5-mile to the northeast at 801 Pantera Drive. As such, no impacts would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No Impact. Government Code Section 65962.5 requires the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and State Water Resources Control Board to compile and update a regulatory sites listing (per the criteria of the Section). The California Department of Health Services is also required to compile and update, as appropriate, a list of all public drinking water wells that contain detectable levels of organic contaminants and that are subject to water analysis pursuant to Section 116395 of the Health and Safety Code. Section 65962.5 requires the local enforcement agency, 5.2.b Packet Pg. 199 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.9-3 Hazards and Hazardous Materials as designated pursuant to Section 18051 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), to compile, as appropriate, a list of all solid waste disposal facilities from which there is a known migration of hazardous waste. The project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.1 As such, no impacts would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 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 or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The closest public airport to the project site is the Brackett Field Airport, located approximately 5.8 miles to the north in the City of La Verne. According to the Brackett Field Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, the Brackett Field Airport influence area extends approximately 2.7 miles from the airport runways.2 Given the distance to the project site, no impacts associated with airport safety or noise hazards would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. The proposed trail improvement project would not impair emergency access in the site vicinity. Similar to existing conditions, emergency access to the site at project completion would be provided via multiple points of access within the Summitridge Park Trail System and via adjacent roadways in the residential neighborhoods to the east and west of the Canyon Loop Trail. Through widening and improvement of the trail, access and mobility would be improved, resulting in a beneficial impact in this regard. As such, project implementation would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan and no impacts would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? No Impact. The project involves trail improvement features, such as widening trail segments, installing shelters and benches, and constructing retaining walls, fences, stairs, and drainage crossings, and would not introduce any new habitable structures or facilities that could expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. No impacts would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 1 California Environmental Protection Agency, Cortese List Data Resources, http://calepa.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/CorteseList/, accessed June 1, 2020. 2 Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission, Brackett Field Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, http://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/upl/project/brackett_alucp_final.pdf, December 9, 2015. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 200 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.9-4 Hazards and Hazardous Materials This page intentionally left blank. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 201 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.10-1 Hydrology and Water Quality 4.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?  b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?  c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: 1) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site?  2) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?  3) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?  4) Impede or redirect flood flows?  d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?  e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?  a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality? Less Than Significant Impact. As authorized by the Clean Water Act, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program controls water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States. The NPDES permit program is administered by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). There are nine RWQCBs, which are responsible for development and enforcement of water quality objectives and implementation plans. The project site is located in the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles RWQCB. Impacts related to water quality typically range over three different periods: 1) during the earthwork and construction phase, when the potential for erosion, siltation, and sedimentation would be the greatest; 2) following construction, prior to the establishment of ground cover, when the erosion potential may remain relatively high; and 3) following completion of the project, when impacts related to sedimentation would decrease markedly, but those associated with urban runoff would increase. Short-Term Construction The proposed project involves trail improvements along the existing Canyon Loop Trail. Construction activities associated with the project have the potential to produce minimal quantities of typical pollutants such as nutrients, 5.2.b Packet Pg. 202 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.10-2 Hydrology and Water Quality heavy metals, toxic chemicals, and waste materials. Impacts to stormwater quality may occur from construction, and increased pollutant loadings could occur immediately off-site. The proposed project would be required to comply with the requirements of a Construction General Permit under the NPDES program. A Construction General Permit requires the development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP is required to contain a site map that depicts the construction site perimeter, existing and proposed buildings, lots, roadways, storm water collection and discharge points, general topography both before and after construction, and drainage patterns across the project site. The SWPPP is also required to include best management practices (BMPs) proposed to minimize stormwater runoff and overall water quality. The project’s construction activity would be subject to the NPDES General Construction Permit, as discussed above, because it involves vegetation removal, clearing, grading, and disturbances to the ground, and a construction site with soil disturbance greater than 1.0 acre. The project would be required to obtain applicable permits from the Los Angeles RWQCB pertaining to waste discharge requirements. More specifically, as part of project’s compliance with NPDES requirements, the City would be required to submit a Notice of Intent to the Los Angeles RWQCB providing notification of intent to comply with the General Construction Permit. The SWPPP is required to outline the erosion, sediment, and non-stormwater BMPs proposed to minimize the discharge of pollutants at the construction site. These BMPs would include measures to contain runoff from vehicle washing at the construction site, prevent sediment from disturbed areas from entering the storm drain system using structural controls (e.g., sand bags at inlets), and cover and contain stockpiled materials to prevent sediment and pollutant transport. Implementation of the BMPs would ensure runoff and discharges during the project’s construction activities do not violate applicable water quality standards. Compliance with NPDES requirements would reduce short-term construction-related impacts in this regard to a less than significant level. Long-Term Operations The project site is unpaved and generally drains from east to west into Diamond Bar Creek, which drains into the San Jose Creek, then San Gabriel River, San Pedro Bay, and ultimately, the Pacific Ocean. The project proposes improvements such as gabion retaining walls, stairs with handrails and cobblestone swales, and drainage crossings, all of which would help reduce soil erosion and loss of topsoil along the trail compared to existing conditions. The project would maintain the trail in its natural surface condition, and no substantive change in the amount of impervious surface would occur. Therefore, the project would reduce stormwater runoff and improve associated water quality. Long-term operational impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? No Impact. The project involves trail improvements along an existing trail and would not introduce any new uses that would substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. At project completion, the existing trail would remain unpaved and groundwater recharge and percolation into the earth would continue to occur, similar to existing conditions. As such, no impacts would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 203 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.10-3 Hydrology and Water Quality c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: 1) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not result in a substantial alteration to existing drainage patterns. As stated in Response 4.10(a), the project would comply with the requirements of the Construction General Permit under the NPDES program, which would require the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP and associated BMPs to minimize erosion and siltation during construction activities. Further, at project completion, the trail would be improved with gabion retaining walls, stairs with cobblestone swales, and drainage crossings, among other improvements, which would stabilize soils, reduce erosion, and improve drainage in the project area. As such, project implementation would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern on-site in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 2) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Responses 4.10(a) and 4.10 (c)(1). Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 3) 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? Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Responses 4.10(a) and 4.10(c)(1). The project does not propose any new uses that could create or contribute runoff water into existing stormwater drainage systems in the project area. Similar to existing conditions, the trail would remain unpaved at project completion. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 4) Impede or redirect flood flows? Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Responses 4.10(a), 4.10 (c)(1), and 4.10(c)(3). Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 204 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.10-4 Hydrology and Water Quality d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? No Impact. Flood Hazard According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the project area, the project site is located outside of the 100-year flood hazard area.1 As such, no impacts would occur in this regard. Tsunami A tsunami is a great sea wave, commonly referred to as a tidal wave, produced by a significant undersea disturbance such as tectonic displacement of a sea floor associated with large, shallow earthquakes. The project site is located approximately 26 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean and is approximately 1,000 feet above mean sea level so as not to be subject to tsunami impacts. As such, no impacts would occur in this regard. Seiche A seiche is a standing wave in an enclosed or partially enclosed body of water. The project site is not located near any lakes or other major bodies of enclosed water. As such, no impacts would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Less Than Significant Impact. As stated, the project site is located within the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles RWQCB. The Water Quality Control Plan – Los Angles Region (Basin Plan) establishes water quality standards for water quality standards for compliance in the Los Angeles Basin, including the City, and is the basis for the Los Angeles RWQCB’s regulatory programs. As discussed in Response 4.10(a), the project’s impacts associated with water quality would be less than significant. As such, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Basin Plan. The 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) requires local public agencies and groundwater sustainability agencies in high- and medium-priority basins to develop and implement groundwater sustainability plans (GSPs) or prepare an alternative to a GSP. The project site is not located within a SGMA-designated priority basin.2 Therefore, there is no groundwater sustainability plan applicable for the project. As indicated in Response 4.10(b), the proposed project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge. As such, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a sustainable groundwater management plan. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 1 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map #06071C9330H, August 28, 2008, https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search#searchresultsanchor, accessed July 14, 2020. 2 California Department of Water Resources, SGMA Basin Prioritization Dashboard, https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bp2018- dashboard/p1/, accessed July 14, 2020. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 205 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.11-1 Land Use and Planning 4.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a. Physically divide an established community?  b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?  a) Physically divide an established community? No Impact. The proposed project involves trail improvements along the existing Canyon Loop Trail within the Summitridge Park Trail System. The improvements would facilitate on-site access/mobility and safety, improve drainage, and reduce erosion. No new land uses would be introduced that could have the potential to physically divide an established community. Nearby established residential communities to the east and west of the Canyon Loop Trail would not be impacted by the trail improvements. As such, development of the proposed project would not physically divide an established community, and no impacts would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No Impact. The project site is designated and zoned by the General Plan and Zoning Map as Open Space and Low Density Residential (RL), respectively. As the project would not change the use on-site, the project would be consistent with the site’s existing land use designation and zoning, and would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. No impacts would result in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 206 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.11-2 Land Use and Planning This page intentionally left blank. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 207 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.12-1 Mineral Resources 4.12 MINERAL RESOURCES Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact 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) 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? No Impact. The California Department of Conservation’s Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA) identifies a range of Mineral Resource Zones (MRZs) within California based on geologic and economic factors that identify the potential importance of mineral deposits in a particular area. According to the California Geological Survey, the project site is identified as MRZ-3, which identifies areas containing mineral deposits, the significance of which cannot be evaluated from available data.1 Based on the General Plan EIR, no mineral resources are identified in the City’s planning area. No mineral extraction operations currently occur at or nearby the project site. As such, no impacts would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 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? No Impact. Refer to Response 4.12(a), above. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 1 California Geological Survey, Updated Mineral Land Classification Map for Portland Cement Concrete-Grade Aggregate in the Claremont-Upland Production -Consumption (P-C) Region, Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties, California, Special Report 202 – Plate 1, ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/sr/SR_202/, 2007. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 208 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.12-2 Mineral Resources This page intentionally left blank. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 209 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.13-1 Noise 4.13 NOISE Would the project result in: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in in the vicinity of the project excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?  b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?  c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or 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?  Sound is mechanical energy transmitted by pressure waves in a compressible medium such as air and is characterized by both its amplitude and frequency (or pitch). The human ear does not hear all frequencies equally. In particular, the ear deemphasizes low and very high frequencies. To better approximate the sensitivity of human hearing, the A- weighted decibel scale (dBA) has been developed. On this scale, the human range of hearing extends from approximately 3 dBA to around 140 dBA. Noise is generally defined as unwanted or excessive sound, which can vary in intensity by over one million times within the range of human hearing; therefore, a logarithmic scale, known as the decibel scale (dB), is used to quantify sound intensity. Noise can be generated by a number of sources, including mobile sources such as automobiles, trucks, and airplanes, and stationary sources such as construction sites, machinery, and industrial operations. Noise generated by mobile sources typically attenuates (is reduced) at a rate between 3 dBA and 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance. The rate depends on the ground surface and the number or type of objects between the noise source and the receiver. Hard and flat surfaces, such as concrete or asphalt, have an attenuation rate of 3 dBA per doubling of distance. Soft surfaces, such as uneven or vegetated terrain, have an attenuation rate of about 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance. Noise generated by stationary sources typically attenuates at a rate between 6 dBA and about 7.5 dBA per doubling of distance. There are a number of metrics used to characterize community noise exposure, which fluctuate constantly over time. One such metric, the equivalent sound level (Leq), represents a constant sound that, over the specified period, has the same sound energy as the time-varying sound. Noise exposure over a longer period of time is often evaluated based on the Day-Night Sound Level (Ldn). This is a measure of 24-hour noise levels that incorporates a 10-dBA penalty for sounds occurring between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. The penalty is intended to reflect the increased human sensitivity to noises occurring during nighttime hours, particularly at times when people are sleeping and there are lower ambient noise conditions. Two of the primary factors that reduce levels of environmental sounds are increasing the distance between the sound source to the receiver and having intervening obstacles such as walls, buildings, or terrain features between the sound source and the receiver. Factors that act to increase the loudness of environmental sounds include moving the sound source closer to the receiver, sound enhancements caused by reflections, and focusing caused by various meteorological conditions. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 210 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.13-2 Noise REGULATORY FRAMEWORK State The State Office of Planning and Research (OPR) General Plan Noise Element Guidelines (2017) include recommended exterior and interior noise level standards for local jurisdictions to identify and prevent the creation of incompatible land uses due to noise. Table 4.13-1, Noise and Land Use Compatibility, shows the compatibility of various land uses with a range of environmental noise levels in terms of the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). Table 4.13-1 Noise and Land Use Compatibility Land Use Category Community Noise Exposure (Ldn or CNEL, dBA) Normally Acceptable Conditionally Acceptable Normally Unacceptable Clearly Unacceptable Residential - Low Density, Single-Family, Duplex, Mobile Homes 50 - 60 55 - 70 70-75 75-85 Residential - Multiple Family 50 - 65 60 - 70 70 - 75 70 – 85 Transient Lodging - Motel, Hotels 50 - 65 60 - 70 70 - 80 80 – 85 Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing Homes 50 - 70 60 - 70 70 - 80 80 – 85 Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters NA 50 - 70 NA 65 – 85 Sports Arenas, Outdoor Spectator Sports NA 50 - 75 NA 70 – 85 Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks 50 - 70 NA 67.5 - 75 72.5 – 85 Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation, Cemeteries 50 - 70 NA 70 - 80 80 – 85 Office Buildings, Business Commercial and Professional 50 - 70 67.5 - 77.5 75 - 85 NA Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture 50 - 75 70 - 80 75 - 85 NA NA: Not Applicable Normally Acceptable – Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements. Conditionally Acceptable – New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning, will normally suffice. Normally Unacceptable – New construction or development should be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Clearly Unacceptable – New construction or development should generally not be undertaken. Source: State of California Office of Planning and Research, General Plan Guidelines, October 2017. Local Diamond Bar General Plan 2040 The Diamond Bar General Plan 2040 (General Plan) Public Safety Element includes the following goals and policies applicable to the proposed project: Goals PS-G-10: Protect public health and welfare by enforcing the City’s noise ordinance, and impose mitigation measures on future development and uses to prevent significant degradation of the future acoustic environment. Policies PS-P-45: Use the noise and land use compatibility matrix (Table 7-1; Table 4.13-2) and Projected Noise Contours map (Figure 7-12) as criteria to determine the acceptability of a given proposed land use, including the improvement/construction of streets, railroads, freeways, and highways. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 211 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.13-3 Noise PS-P-48: Maintain interior and exterior noise-related development standards through the Diamond Bar Noise Control Ordinance. PS-P-49: Ensure that detailed site-specific noise analysis, including the identification of noise mitigation measures, be prepared for all development proposals located where project noise exposure would be other than normally or conditionally acceptable as specified in Table 7-1 (Table 4.13-2). With mitigation, development should meet the allowable exterior and interior noise exposure standards established in the Noise Control Ordinance. PS-P-50: Evaluate the land use compatibility of any proposed development project prior to approval to avoid locating loud developments near noise sensitive receptors. When walls over six feet in height are necessary to mitigate noise, a berm/ wall combination with heavy landscaping, a terraced wall heavily landscaped, or other similar innovative wall design technique shall be used to minimize visual impacts. Table 4.13-2, General Plan Land Use/Noise Compatibility Matrix, identifies the General Plan’s acceptable interior and exterior noise standards for various land use categories within the City. Table 4.13-2 General Plan Land Use/Noise Compatibility Matrix Land Use Categories Maximum Exterior Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) or Day-Night Level (Ldn), dB1 Maximum Interior CNEL Normally Acceptable Conditionally Acceptable Normally Unacceptable Clearly Unacceptable Rural, Single-Family, Multiple Family Residential 50 - 55 55 – 65 65 – 75 75 - 85 40 School Classrooms 50 - 55 55 – 65 65 – 75 75 - 85 40 School Playgrounds 50 – 60 N/A 60 – 75 75 – 85 N/A Libraries 50 – 60 60 – 70 70 – 80 80 – 85 40 Hospitals, Convalescent Facilities Living Areas 50 – 60 60 – 70 70 – 80 80 – 85 40 Hospitals, Convalescent Facilities Sleeping Areas 50 – 60 60 – 65 65 – 75 75 – 85 35 Recreation: Quiet, Passive Areas 50 – 55 55 – 65 65 – 85 N/A 40 Recreation: Noisy, Active Areas 50 – 65 N/A 65 – 75 75 - 85 N/A Commercial and Industrial 50 – 65 65 – 70 70 – 80 80 - 85 N/A Office Areas 50 – 65 65 – 70 70 – 80 80 - 85 45 N/A: Not Applicable Normally Acceptable – Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements. Outdoor areas are suitable for normal outdoor activities for this land use. Conditionally Acceptable – New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air- conditioning, will normally suffice. Normally Unacceptable – New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Clearly Unacceptable – New construction or development should generally not be undertaken. Nature of the Noise environment where the CNEL or Ldn level is:  Below 55 dB: relatively quiet suburban or urban areas, no arterial streets within 1 block, no freeways within ¼ mile.  55-65 dB: most somewhat noisy urban areas, near but not directly adjacent to high volumes of traffic.  65-75 dB: very noisy urban areas near arterials, freeways or airports.  75+ dB: extremely noisy urban areas adjacent to freeways or under airport traffic patterns. Hearing damage with constant exposure outdoors. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 212 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.13-4 Noise Table 4.13-2 [cont’d] General Plan Community Noise Compatibility Matrix Land Use Categories Maximum Exterior Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) or Day-Night Level (Ldn), dB1 Maximum Interior CNEL Normally Acceptable Conditionally Acceptable Normally Unacceptable Clearly Unacceptable Notes: N/A: Not Applicable 1. The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) and Day-Night Noise Level (Ldn) are measures of the 24-hour noise environment. They represent the constant A-weighted noise level that would be measured if all the sound energy received over the day was averaged. In order to account for the greater sensitivity of people to noise at night, the CNEL weighting includes a 5-decibel penalty on noise between 7:00 pm and 10:00 pm and a 10-decibel penalty on noise between 10:00 pm and 7:00 am of the next day. The Ldn includes only the 10-decibel weighting for late-night noise events. For practical purposes, the two measures are equivalent for typical urban noise environments. Source: City of Diamond Bar, Diamond Bar General Plan 2040, adopted December 17, 2019. Diamond Bar Municipal Code The Diamond Bar Municipal Code (Municipal Code) regulations with respect to noise are included in Municipal Code Section 8.12, Division 3, Noise Control. Applicable noise restrictions are discussed below: Section 8.12.380(4) – Exemption from exterior noise standards. The following activities are exclusively regulated by the prohibitions of subdivision III of this division: a. Construction; b. Stationary nonemergency signaling devices; c. Emergency signaling devices; d. Refuse collection vehicles; e. Residential air conditioning or refrigeration equipment; and f. Forced-air blowers. Subdivision III. – Specific Noise Restrictions Section 8.12.720. – Construction Noise (a) Operating or causing the operation of any tools or equipment used in construction, drilling, repair, alteration or demolition work between weekday hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., or at any time on Sundays or holidays, such that the sound therefrom creates a noise disturbance across a residential or commercial real-property line, except for emergency work of public service utilities or by variance issued by the health officer is prohibited. (b) Noise restrictions at affected structures. The contractor shall conduct construction activities in such a manner that the maximum noise levels at the affected buildings will not exceed those listed in the following schedule: (1) At residential structures, the following: a. Mobile equipment. Maximum noise levels for nonscheduled, intermittent, short- term operation (less than ten days) of mobile equipment: Single-family Residential Multifamily Residential Semi-residential/Commercial Daily, except Sundays and legal holidays, 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. 75 dBA 80 dBA 85 dBA Daily, 8:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. and all day Sunday and legal holidays 60 dBA 64 dBA 70 dBA 5.2.b Packet Pg. 213 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.13-5 Noise b. Stationary equipment. Maximum noise level for repetitively scheduled and relatively long-term operation (periods of ten days or more) of stationary equipment: Single-family Residential Multifamily Residential Semi-residential/Commercial Daily, except Sundays and legal holidays, 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. 60 dBA 65 dBA 70 dBA Daily, 8:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. and all day Sunday and legal holidays 50 dBA 55 dBA 60 dBA (c) All mobile or stationary internal-combustion-engine powered equipment or machinery shall be equipped with suitable exhaust and air-intake silencers in proper working order. Municipal Code regulations associated with vibrations are included in Municipal Code Section 8.12.840, Vibration. Section 8.12.840 – Vibration. Operating or permitting the operation of any device that creates vibration which is above the vibration perception threshold of any individual at or beyond the property boundary of the source if on private property, or at 150 feet (46 meters) from the source if on a public space or public right-of-way is prohibited. The perception threshold shall be a motion velocity of 0.01 in/sec over the range of one to 100 Hertz. EXISTING CONDITIONS The project site is designated as Open Space in the General Plan. Surrounding sensitive receptors in proximity of the project site include single-family residential uses located to the east and west. The nearest residential property is located approximately 80 feet west of the proposed project construction limits. The existing noise environment is predominately characterized by neighborhood noise and vehicle traffic. a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in in the vicinity of the project excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. It is difficult to specify noise levels which are acceptable to everyone, what is annoying to one individual may be acceptable to another. However, standards usually address the needs of most of the general population and can be based on documented complaints in response to documented noise levels or based on studies of the ability of people to sleep, talk, or work under various noise conditions. All such studies recognize that individual responses vary considerably. Short-Term (Construction) Impacts Construction activities are generally temporary and have a short duration, resulting in periodic increases in the ambient noise environment. The project’s construction activities would span a four-month period, beginning spring 2021. Typical noise levels generated by construction equipment are shown in Table 4.13-3, Maximum Noise Levels Generated by Construction Equipment. Operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve one or two minutes of full power operation followed by three to four minutes at lower power settings. Other primary sources of acoustical disturbance would be due to random incidents, which would last less than one minute (such as dropping large pieces of equipment). 5.2.b Packet Pg. 214 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.13-6 Noise Table 4.13-3 Maximum Noise Levels Generated by Construction Equipment Type of Equipment Acoustical Use Factor1 Lmax at 50 Feet (dBA) Concrete Saw 20 90 Concrete Mixer Truck 40 79 Concrete Saw 20 90 Backhoe 40 78 Dozer 40 82 Truck 40 88 Paver 50 77 Roller 20 80 Tractor 40 84 Note: 1. Acoustical Use Factor (percent): Estimates the fraction of time each piece of construction equipment is operating at full power (i.e., its loudest condition) during a construction operation. Source: Federal Highway Administration, Roadway Construction Noise Model (FHWA-HEP-05-054), January 2006. The proposed project would widen the South Canyon Loop of the existing Canyon Loop Trail, as well as construct improvements such as retaining walls, stairs, draining crossings, wayfinding sings, shade structures, and benches. Residential properties are located to the east and west of the project site. The closest residential uses, located on Meandering Creek Drive, are situated approximately 80 feet from construction of the wayfinding sign, 230 feet from grading activities associated with retaining wall/stair improvements, and 280 feet from grading activities associated with trail widening. The remaining proposed improvements (i.e., retaining walls, stairs, draining crossings, wayfinding sings, shade structures, and benches) would occur further than 280 feet from the nearest sensitive receptor. It is anticipated that the wayfinding sign would be installed with hand tools (e.g., shovel and clamshell digger). As such, construction activities associated with installation of the wayfinding sign would not generate perceptible noise levels at the nearest sensitive receptor. Construction noise modeling was performed using the Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) developed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). This program enables the prediction of construction noise levels for a variety of construction operations. This program was used to identify construction noise levels at nearby sensitive uses. Table 4.13-4, Construction Noise Levels by Construction Activity, shows the highest noise levels generated during each phase of construction. Table 4.13-4 Construction Noise Levels by Construction Activity Construction Activity Distance from Construction Activity1 Estimated Noise Level at Nearest Receptor (dBA)2 Grading 230 56.8 Grading 280 55.1 Notes: 1. Distance from nearest residential use to proposed construction activities are based on site plans. 2. Estimated noise levels account for the existing solid masonry walls at the nearby residential receptors. Source: Federal Highway Administration, Roadway Construction Noise Model (FHWA-HEP-05-054), January 2006; refer to Appendix D, Noise Data. As shown in Table 4.13-4, the highest noise levels are predicted to occur during the grading phase when construction noise levels could reach 56.8 dBA at the nearest residential uses. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 8.12.720, the City prohibits construction noise exceeding 60 dBA during daytime hours (i.e., between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 5.2.b Packet Pg. 215 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.13-7 Noise p.m. on weekdays and Saturday, and at no time on Sundays or Federal holidays) for single-family residential uses.1 As depicted in Table 4.13-4, construction noise levels would not exceed 60 dBA at the nearest sensitive receptors. Further, the construction duration would be short-term in nature (i.e., 4 months) and would not occur over an extended period of time. Notwithstanding, implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would ensure that construction-related noise levels at nearby residents are reduced to the maximum extent practicable. Mitigation Measure NOI-1 requires several best practices to reduce construction noise levels at nearby receptors, including requiring construction equipment to be furnished with properly operating and maintained mufflers and other State-required noise attenuation devices, among others. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard. Long-Term (Operational) Impacts Operation of the proposed project would not introduce any new noise-generating sources. Under existing conditions, employees visit the site to perform inspections and maintenance. Following project construction, the routine maintenance and inspection visits would continue. There would not be an increase in vehicular trips to the project area beyond what currently occurs. Therefore, no long-term noise impacts would result with implementation of the proposed project. Mitigation Measures: NOI-1 Prior to the initiation of construction, the City of Diamond Bar Director of Public Works, or authorized agents (such as the City’s Public Works Manager/Assistant City Engineer) acting within the scope of the particular duties delegated to them, shall ensure that all project plans and specifications stipulate that:  All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers and other State-required noise attenuation devices.  A construction notice shall be mailed to residents within a 500-foot radius of the project and shall indicate the dates and duration of construction activities, as well as provide a City of Diamond Bar staff contact name and a telephone number where residents can inquire about the construction process and register complaints.  Construction haul routes shall be designed to avoid noise sensitive uses to the maximum extent feasible (e.g., residences etc.).  During construction, stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers.  Construction equipment staging areas shall be located away from adjacent sensitive receptors.  Pursuant to City of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 8.12.720, all construction activities associated with the proposed project shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and on Saturdays. Construction on Sundays and Federal holidays shall be prohibited. b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. Project construction can generate varying degrees of groundborne vibration, depending on the construction equipment used and the type of activity. Construction equipment operation would 1 Although Municipal Code Section 8.12.720 allows nighttime construction noise levels up to 50 dBA for single-family residential uses, the project does not propose nighttime construction. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 216 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.13-8 Noise generate groundborne vibrations which decrease with distance from the source. The effect on buildings located near the construction site often varies depending on soil type, ground strata, and construction characteristics of the receiver building(s). The results from vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibration at moderate levels, to slight damage at the highest levels. Ground-borne vibrations from construction activities rarely reach levels that damage structures. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has published standard vibration velocities for construction equipment operations. The types of construction vibration impacts include human annoyance and building damage. Human annoyance occurs when construction vibration rises significantly above the threshold of human perception for extended periods of time. Building damage can be cosmetic or structural. Consistent with the FTA’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (September 2018), Municipal Code Section 8.12.840 has stipulated that no ground vibration shall be allowed that produces a peak particle velocity (PPV) greater than or equal to 0.01 inches-per-second (inch/second) at or beyond the property boundary of the source. Table 4.13-5, Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment, identifies typical vibration levels for construction equipment. Table 4.13-5 Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment Approximate peak particle velocity at 230 feet (inch/second) Approximate peak particle velocity at 280 feet (inch/second) Loaded trucks 0.0032 0.0020 Small bulldozer/Tractors 0.0001 0.0001 Notes: 1. Calculated using the following formula: PPV equip = PPVref x (25/D)1.5 where: PPV (equip) = the peak particle velocity in in/sec of the equipment adjusted for the distance PPV (ref) = the reference vibration level at 25 feet in in/sec D = the distance from the equipment to the receiver Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018. As illustrated in Table 4.13-5, based on the FTA data, vibration velocities from typical heavy construction equipment operations that would be used during project construction range from 0.0001 to 0.0032 inch/second PPV at 230 feet from the source of activity and 0.0001 to 0.0020 inch/second PPV at 280 feet from the source of activity. As such, vibration levels during project construction would not exceed the City’s 0.01 inch/second PPV threshold. In addition, according to the FTA’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (September 2018), ground- borne noise occurs when vibration radiates through a building interior and creates a low-frequency sound, often described as a rumble. The proposed project does not include train operations or equipment with the potential to generate groundborne vibration. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or 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? No Impact. The project is not located within an airport land use plan and there are no public or private airports or airstrips within two miles of the project site. The nearest airport to the project site is the Brackett Field Airport, located 5.2.b Packet Pg. 217 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.13-9 Noise approximately 5.8 miles to the north in the City of La Verne. Thus, project implementation would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. No impact would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 218 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.13-10 Noise This page intentionally left blank. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 219 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.14-1 Population and Housing 4.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a. Induce substantial population unplanned 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 people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?  a) Induce substantial unplanned 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)? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not involve the construction of any homes, businesses, or other uses that would result in direct or indirect population growth. Short-term temporary construction jobs would be created during construction and installation of the proposed trail improvements. However, given the temporary nature of the construction process and limited duration of construction (up to four months), it is anticipated that local construction workers would be employed and no new workers would relocate to Diamond Bar. Routine maintenance of the trail during project operations would also be conducted by existing City park staff and/or hired landscaping contractors. As such, less than significant impacts pertaining to unplanned population growth would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. As no housing is present on-site, the project would not displace residents or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impact would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 220 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.14-2 Population and Housing This page intentionally left blank. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 221 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.15-1 Public Services 4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: 1) Fire protection?  2) Police protection?  3) Schools?  4) Parks?  5) Other public facilities?  a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: 1) Fire protection? No Impact. The Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACoFD) provides fire and emergency medical services for the City. The LACoFD has three fire stations within Diamond Bar; the project site is served by Station 120 located at 1051 Grand Avenue, approximately 0.6-mile west of the site. The proposed trail improvements would not increase demand for fire protection and emergency medical services and thus, would not result in adverse physical impacts associated with the construction of any new or physically altered fire protection facilities. Additionally, no habitable structures or other land uses capable of substantially increasing the need for fire protection services are proposed. As such, no impacts would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 2) Police protection? No Impact. The City contracts with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (LASD) for police protection services. The LASD has more than 20 full-time personnel assigned to serve Diamond Bar. The Walnut/Diamond Bar Sheriff's Station is located approximately 2.65 miles to the northeast of the project site at 21695 East Valley Blvd in the City of Walnut. The proposed trail improvements would not increase the need for additional police protection services or involve construction of any new or physically altered police protection facilities. Further, no habitable structures or other land uses capable of substantially increasing the need for police protection services are proposed. As such, no impacts would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 222 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.15-2 Public Services 3) Schools? No Impact. The project site is located within the Walnut Valley Unified School District (WVUSD). Implementation of the proposed project would not result in an increase in residential population and thus, would not impact existing capacities and resources at WVUSD schools and facilities; refer to Section 4.14, Population and Housing. As such, no impact is anticipated in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 4) Parks? Less Than Significant Impact. The Summitridge Park is located approximately 0.3-mile south of the project site. The proposed trail improvements along the Canyon Loop Trail could attract new recreational users to the trail and Summitridge Park. However, as the project would not result in a direct increase in population, any increased use of park facilities from new recreational users to the Summitridge Park Trail System would be nominal; refer to Section 4.14. Further, the proposed trail improvement project would enhance the existing Canyon Loop Trail by providing enhanced and new amenities for trail users. Proposed trail improvements, including shelters and benches, retaining walls, drainage crossings, fencing, and signage, would improve soil stability, reduce erosion, improve drainage, facilitate ease of access and safety, and reduce disturbance to informal trail areas. As such, a less than significant impact would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 5) Other public facilities? No Impact. As detailed above in Responses 4.15(a)(1) through 4.15(a)(4), the proposed project would not result in any potentially significant impacts related to public services. The project does not involve construction of any new or physically altered public facilities, and no other public facilities are anticipated to be affected by the project. No impacts would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 223 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.16-1 Recreation 4.16 RECREATION Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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) 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? Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response 4.15(a)(4). Impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 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? Less Than Significant Impact. As detailed in Section 2.4, Project Characteristics, proposed trail improvements along the Canyon Loop Trail include widening portions of the trail; constructing retaining walls, stairs, drainage crossings, and fences; and installing new shade structures with benches and trash receptacles, perforated benches, and wayfinding signs. The proposed improvements would improve soil stability, reduce erosion, improve drainage, facilitate ease of access and safety, and reduce disturbance to informal trail areas. The project’s potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed trail improvements are analyzed throughout this Initial Study. Compliance with applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations would ensure project impacts are reduced to less than significant levels in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 224 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.16-2 Recreation This page intentionally left blank. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 225 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.17-1 Transportation 4.17 TRANSPORTATION Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadways, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?  b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?  c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?  d. Result in inadequate emergency access?  a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadways, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed trail improvements would occur along the existing Canyon Loop Trail and would not impact nearby roadways, transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. Roadways Construction activities would occur over approximately four months and include short-term traffic trips associated with the transfer of construction equipment, construction worker trips, and hauling trips for soil and construction material. Although construction traffic may have the potential to impact the local circulation system, the scope of construction activity at the site is expected to be limited and a relatively limited number of construction deliveries would occur. As detailed in Appendix A, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas/Energy Data, grading activities would require approximately 10 worker trips per day and construction activities would require approximately 20 worker and vendor trips per day. Thus, short-term construction traffic associated with the project would not adversely impact the local roadway network. Construction activities also would not require any temporary lane closures on adjacent roadways. As such, impacts in this regard would be less than significant. At project completion, the trail would be improved with new amenities but would operate similar to existing conditions. No new land uses are proposed that would generate additional vehicle trips. Therefore, long-term operational impacts would be less than significant. Transit, Bicycle, and Pedestrian Facilities Given that the project site is an existing trail within the Summitridge Park Trail System, there are no transit, bicycle, or pedestrian (i.e., sidewalks) in the project area. As stated, the temporary construction activities would generate a nominal number of trips associated with construction worker trips and vendors trips, and would not require any lane closures that could impact adjacent transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. At project completion, the trail would continue to operate similar to existing conditions and also would not impact transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities on adjacent roadways. Overall, impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 226 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.17-2 Transportation b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Less Than Significant Impact. In accordance with Senate Bill 743, the City recently adopted the City of Diamond Bar VMT Baselines and Thresholds of Significance (VMT Thresholds) on July 21, 2020 per City Council Resolution No. 2020-30. The Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Thresholds establish screening criteria and thresholds of significance in determining when a project would result in a significant transportation impact under CEQA. Based on the VMT Thresholds, land use projects with a VMT rate that exceeds 15 percent below the applicable baseline VMT rate would result in a significant project impact. Short-term construction trips and associated VMT would be nominal, and primarily be limited to those associated with construction worker trips and vendor trips traveling to and from the project site. Due to the limited scope and duration of construction, it is not expected that significant impacts related to VMT would occur. As such, impacts in regard to short-term construction would be less than significant in this regard. The proposed improvements along the Canyon Loop Trail would not involve any new land uses that would generate new vehicle trips and associated VMT. Additionally, the project would not generate any new trips for maintenance activities beyond existing conditions. Thus, operational impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Overall, the project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b). Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less Than Significant Impact. The project involves improvements along an existing trail and would not result in hazards on surrounding roadways due to geometric design features or incompatible uses. Further, no new land uses are proposed that would be incompatible with its existing use as a recreational trail. Thus, impacts would be less than significant in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. d) Result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. Refer to Response 4.9(f). Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 227 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.18-1 Tribal Cultural Resources 4.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: 1) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or  2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.  As of July 1, 2015, California Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) was enacted and expanded CEQA by establishing a formal consultation process for California tribes within the CEQA process. The bill specifies that any project 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.” Section 21074 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 (CRHR) or a local historic register, or if the lead agency chooses to treat the resource as a tribal cultural resource. On February 19, 2016, the California Natural Resources Agency proposed to adopt and amend regulations as part of AB 52 implementing Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations, CEQA Guidelines, to include consideration of impacts to tribal cultural resources pursuant to Government Code Section 11346.6. On September 27, 2016, the California Office of Administrative Law approved the amendments to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, and these amendments are addressed within this Initial Study. a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: 1) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k). 5.2.b Packet Pg. 228 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.18-2 Tribal Cultural Resources No Impact. According to the Cultural Resources Assessment, no historic resources listed or eligible for listing in a State or local register of historic resources are located within the project site. Thus, no impacts related to historic tribal cultural resources defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k) would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. In compliance with AB 52, the City distributed letters notifying each tribe that requested to be on the City’s list for the purposes of AB 52 of the opportunity to consult with the City regarding the proposed project; refer to Appendix E, AB 52 Documentation. The letters were distributed by certified mail on July 2, 2020. The tribes had 30 days to respond to the City’s request for consultation. The Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation responded on July 16, 2020 stating that the project is within the tribe’s ancestral tribal territory and requested consultation. No other tribes responded within the 30 days. Members of the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, and City staff consulted on August 6, 2020. During the consultation, the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation provided confidential information relevant to tribal cultural resources that may exist within the project area, and identified concerns that the project may affect such resources during ground disturbing activities. Based on feedback provided by the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, the City developed a range of mitigation measures (TCR-1 through TCR-3) to minimize impacts to potential tribal cultural resources. With implementation of these mitigation measures, impacts to tribal cultural resources would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: TCR-1 Prior to the commencement of any ground disturbing activity at the project site, the City of Diamond Bar shall retain a Native American monitor. The Native American monitor shall be selected from a tribe that has requested that a monitor be present, and in which the project site is within their ancestral region of occupation. The Native American monitor shall only be present on-site during the construction phases that involve ground-disturbing activities. Ground disturbing activities are defined as activities that may include, but are not limited to, grubbing, tree removals, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching. The Native American monitor shall complete daily monitoring logs that shall provide descriptions of the day’s activities, including construction activities, locations, soil, and any cultural materials identified. The on-site monitoring shall end when all ground-disturbing activities on the project site are completed, or when the Native American monitor has indicated that all upcoming ground-disturbing activities at the project site have little to no potential for impacting tribal cultural resources. TCR-2 In the event tribal cultural resources are discovered during project construction, construction activities shall cease in the immediate vicinity of the find (not less than the surrounding 50 feet) until the find can be assessed. All tribal cultural resources unearthed by project activities shall be evaluated by the Native American monitor and a qualified archaeologist if one is present. If the resources are Native American in origin, the affected tribe will retain it/them in the form and/or manner the tribe deems appropriate, for educational, cultural and/or historic purposes. Work may continue in other parts of the project site while evaluation and any required recovery activities take place. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may include 5.2.b Packet Pg. 229 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.18-3 Tribal Cultural Resources implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to remove the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. TCR-3 In the event human remains are encountered during project construction, said remains shall require proper treatment in accordance with Health and Safety Code 7050.5, which dictates that any discoveries of human skeletal material shall be immediately reported to the County Coroner and excavation halted until the coroner has determined the nature of the remains. If the coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, the coroner shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission and Public Resources Code (PRC) 5097.98 shall be followed. PRC 5097.98 requires identification of the “most likely descendent,” and that remains are investigated and that appropriate recommendations are made for treatment of the remains. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 230 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.18-4 Tribal Cultural Resources This page intentionally left blank. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 231 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.19-1 Utilities and Service Systems 4.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?  b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years?  c. 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?  d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?  e. Comply with Federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?  a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Impact. The project proposes trail improvements along the Canyon Loop Trail. The project does not propose any new land uses that would result in increased demand for water, wastewater treatment, storm drain, or dry utility services nor would it require the relocation or construction of new or expanded facilities. No impacts would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? No Impact. The proposed trail improvements would not substantially increase water demand during construction or operational activities. Although a nominal amount of water may be used during construction (e.g., for dust control), these activities would be minimal and temporary in nature and would have no impact on the City’s overall water supplies. No impact would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 232 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.19-2 Utilities and Service Systems c) 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? No Impact. The project would not introduce a new land use that could generate additional wastewater beyond existing conditions. No impacts would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project includes trail improvements and does not introduce any new land uses capable of generating solid waste beyond existing conditions. The project may require the disposal of debris during construction activities; however, construction debris associated with the project’s trail improvements would be one-time and would not have the capability to substantially affect the capacity of regional landfills. Further, the proposed trash receptacles along the Canyon Loop Trail would improve litter collection along the trail and would not adversely impact the capacity of regional landfills. Thus, impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. e) Comply with Federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No Impact. As stated, the project may generate a nominal amount of solid waste during construction activities, however, the proposed trail improvements would not generate any additional solid waste beyond existing conditions. As such, no impacts regarding conflict with Federal, State, and local solid waste management and reduction regulations would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 233 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.20-1 Wildfire 4.20 WILDFIRE If located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?  b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?  c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?  d. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?  a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less Than Significant Impact. The California Department of Forestry and Fire identifies the project site as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone within a Local Responsibility Area (LRA).1 Pursuant to the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000), the Los Angeles County 2019 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan (AHMP) was developed by the Los Angeles County Office of Emergency Management (OEM) to emphasize the need for State, tribal, and local entities to closely coordinate hazard mitigation planning and implementation efforts. Hazard mitigation efforts include identifying and profiling hazards, analyzing the people and facilities at risk, and developing mitigation actions to reduce or eliminate hazard risk. Implementation of the mitigation actions in the AHMP would include short- and long-term strategies that may involve planning, policy changes, programs, projects, and other activities. Although the AHMP planning area is for unincorporated Los Angeles County, the AHMP’s risk assessment includes Supervisorial Districts 1 through 5, which includes the City of Diamond Bar (Supervisorial District 4). Further, the Los Angeles County Operational Area designates disaster routes within the County, including Diamond Bar. According to the Disaster Route Maps, disaster routes in the City include State Route 60, State Route 57, Diamond Bar Boulevard, and Golden Springs Drive.2 As discussed in Response 4.9(f), the proposed trail improvement project would not impair emergency access in the site vicinity. Similar to existing conditions, emergency access to the site at project completion would be provided via multiple points of access within the Summitridge Park Trail System and via adjacent roadways in the residential neighborhoods to the east and west of the Canyon Loop Trail. As such, project implementation would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan and impacts would be less than significant impact. 1 California Department of Forestry and Fire, Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA As Recommended by CAL FIRE, Diamond Bar, September 2011, https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5815/diamond_bar.pdf, accessed May 28, 2020. 2 Los Angeles County Public Works, Disaster Route Maps – City of Diamond Bar, https://dpw.lacounty.gov/dsg/DisasterRoutes/map/Diamond%20Bar.pdf, July 7, 2008. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 234 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.20-2 Wildfire Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? Less Than Significant Impact. The project involves trail improvements, such as widening trail segments, installing shelters and benches, and constructing retaining walls, fences, stairs, and drainage crossings, and would not introduce any new habitable structures or facilities that could expose occupants to pollutant concentrations from wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. Existing slopes, prevailing winds, and other factors associated with wildfire risks also would not be exacerbated by project implementation. Thus, impacts would be less than significant in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? No Impact. The project involves trail improvement features and does not propose the installation or maintenance of infrastructure that could exacerbate existing fire risks. No impacts would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Less Than Significant Impact. The project would not introduce any new habitable structures or facilities that could expose people or structures to significant risks related to downslope or downstream flooding or landslides. Rather, the project involves constructing retaining walls, drainage crossings, and stairs with cobblestone swales along the Canyon Loop Trail, among other trail amenities, that would stabilize soils, reduce erosion, and improve drainage on-site. As such, impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 235 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.21-1 Mandatory Findings of Significance 4.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?  b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?  c. 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 degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed in Section 4.4, Biological Resources, the project site generally consists of natural vegetation with relatively undisturbed soils. The proposed project has the potential to impact special-status plant and wildlife species, special-status vegetation communities, and wildlife migratory corridors. As such, Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-4 would reduce such impacts to less than significant levels. Specifically, these mitigation measures would require a qualified biologist to conduct focused rare plant surveys and nesting bird clearance surveys, and the City to prepare and implement a low-effect habitat conservation plan and obtain an Incidental Take Permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service prior to project construction to ensure project activities do not adversely impact biological resources. Upon implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-4, the project is not anticipated to reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. Additionally, as analyzed in Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, and Section 4.18, Tribal Cultural Resources, no historic, archaeological, or tribal cultural resources occur on-site. Should previously undiscovered cultural or tribal cultural resources or human remains be uncovered during project ground-disturbing activities, implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and TCR-1 through TCR-3 would reduce the project’s potential effects to less than significant levels. Thus, the project would not eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory, and impacts in this regard would be less than significant. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 236 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.21-2 Mandatory Findings of Significance b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Cumulative impacts can occur as a result of the interactions of environmental changes from multiple projects that affect the same resources, transportation network, watershed, air basin, noise environment, or other environmental conditions. Such impacts could be short-term and temporary from overlapping construction impacts, or long-term due to permanent land use changes. As noted in Section 2.3, Project Background, the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan Public Facilities and Services Element and the Diamond Bar Parks and Recreation Master Plan, which details recommended improvements in the Summitridge Park Trail System. As such, the project would result in beneficial impacts in regard to recreational opportunities, safety, and access within the project area. The project would not result in substantial population growth within the area, either directly or indirectly; refer to Section 4.14, Population and Housing. While other projects and development in the project area (including further improvements in the Summitridge Park Trail System) are considered probable and foreseeable, environmental analysis of these future projects would be conducted on a project-by-project basis in accordance with CEQA. Although the project may incrementally affect other resources that were determined to be less than significant, the project’s contribution to these effects is not considered “cumulatively considerable,” in consideration of the relatively nominal project impacts and required mitigation measures. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. This Initial Study reviewed the proposed project’s potential impacts related to aesthetics, air quality, geology and soils, greenhouse gases, hydrology/water quality, noise, hazards and hazardous materials, traffic, among other disciplines. As concluded in this Initial Study, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in environmental impacts that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 237 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.22-1 References 4.22 REFERENCES The following references were utilized during preparation of this IS/MND. These documents are available for review at the City of Diamond Bar Parks and Recreation Department, 21810 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California 91765, or accessed at the indicated web page. 1. California Air Resources Board, California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2017, https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/2000_2017/ghg_inventory_trends_00-17.pdf, accessed July 8, 2020. 2. California Department of Conservation, A General Location Guide for Ultramafic Rocks in California – Areas More Likely to Contain Naturally Occurring Asbestos, August 2000. 3. California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, California Important Farmland Finder, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/, accessed May 22, 2020. 4. California Department of Conservation, State of California Williamson Act Contract Land, 2017. 5. California Department of Forestry and Fire, Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA As Recommended by CAL FIRE, Diamond Bar, September 2011, https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5815/diamond_bar.pdf, accessed May 28, 2020. 6. California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, Green Building Materials, https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/greenbuilding/materials#Material, accessed July 8, 2020. 7. California Department of Water Resources, SGMA Basin Prioritization Dashboard, https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bp2018-dashboard/p1/, accessed July 14, 2020. 8. California Environmental Protection Agency, Cortese List Data Resources, http://calepa.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/CorteseList/, accessed June 1, 2020. 9. California Geological Survey, Updated Mineral Land Classification Map for Portland Cement Concrete-Grade Aggregate in the Claremont-Upland Production -Consumption (P-C) Region, Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties, California, Special Report 202 – Plate 1, ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/sr/SR_202/, 2007. 10. City of Diamond Bar, Climate Action Plan 2040, December 17, 2019. 11. City of Diamond Bar, Diamond Bar Environmental Impact Report 2040 (State Clearinghouse No. 2018051066), November 2019. 12. City of Diamond Bar, Diamond Bar General Plan 2040, December 2019. 13. City of Diamond Bar, Diamond Bar Municipal Code, codified through Ordinance No. 01(2019), enacted January 15, 2019. 14. City of Diamond Bar, Diamond Bar Parks and Recreation Master Plan, July 2011. 15. Cogstone, Cultural Resources Assessment for the Canyon Loop Trail Project, City of Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, California, July 2020. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 238 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.22-2 References 16. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map #06071C9330H, August 28, 2008, https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search#searchresultsanchor, accessed July 14, 2020. 17. Federal Highway Administration, Roadway Construction Noise Model (FHWA-HEP-05-054), January 2006. 18. Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018. 19. Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission, Brackett Field Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, http://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/upl/project/brackett_alucp_final.pdf, December 9, 2015. 20. Los Angeles Cunty Public Works, Disaster Route Maps – City of Diamond Bar, https://dpw.lacounty.gov/dsg/DisasterRoutes/map/Diamond%20Bar.pdf, July 7, 2008. 21. Michael Baker International, Results of a Biological Resources Assessment of the Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project – City of Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, California, July 10, 2020. 22. Michael Baker International, Results of Coastal California Gnatcatcher and Cactus Wren Focused Surveys for the Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project in the City of Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, California, August 7, 2020. 23. Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Carbon Dioxide Concentration at Mauna Loa Observatory, https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/, accessed July 8, 2020. 24. State of California Office of Planning and Research, General Plan Guidelines, October 2017. 25. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey, http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx, accessed July 10, 2020. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 239 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.23-1 Report Preparation Personnel 4.23 REPORT PREPARATION PERSONNEL City of Diamond Bar (Lead Agency) 21810 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 909.839.7070 Greg Gubman, AICP, Community Development Director Ryan Wright, Parks and Recreation Director Michael Baker International 5 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 500 Santa Ana, California 92707 949.472.3505 Richard Beck, Principal-in-Charge Alan Ashimine, Project Manager Frances Yau, AICP, Senior Environmental Analyst Winnie Woo, Environmental Analyst Pierre Glaize, Air Quality/GHG/Noise/Energy Specialist Ryan Winkleman, CSE, Senior Biologist Faye Stroud, Graphic Artist Cogstone Resource Management, Inc. 1518 West Taft Avenue Orange, California, 92865 714.974.8300 Molly Valasik, MA, RPA, CFO/Principal Archaeologist Holly Duke, Supervisor/Archaeologist John Gust, PhD, RPA, Principal Investigator Logan Freeberg, GIS Supervisor 5.2.b Packet Pg. 240 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4.23-2 Report Preparation Personnel This page intentionally left blank. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 241 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 5-1 Inventory of Mitigation Measures 5.0 INVENTORY OF MITIGATION MEASURES AESTHETICS AES-1 To minimize construction-related impacts to scenic vistas and the visual character and quality of the project area, the project contractor shall ensure that all construction materials, heavy-duty equipment, and debris piles are staged and screened from public view in a designated construction staging area. Staging areas shall be approved and subject to periodic field inspections by the City of Diamond Bar Parks and Recreation Department, or responsible designee(s). BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES BIO-1 Prior to construction and during the appropriate blooming periods for special-status plant species with the potential to occur within the survey area, a qualified botanist shall conduct a focused rare plant survey in areas with suitable habitat to determine presence or absence of special-status plant species. The surveys shall be floristic in nature (i.e., identifying all plant species to the taxonomic level necessary to determine rarity), and shall be inclusive of, at a minimum, the areas proposed for trail improvements and those immediately surrounding those areas. The results of the survey shall be documented in a letter report. If individual or populations of special-status plant species are found within the areas proposed for disturbance, measures to avoid and minimize impacts shall be recommended. The surveys and reporting shall follow 2018 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and/or 2001 California Native Plant Society guidelines. Although not expected, if State- and/or Federally-listed plant species are present and avoidance is infeasible, consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or CDFW shall be required and an Incidental Take Permit(s) from the USFWS and/or CDFW shall be obtained prior to the commencement of project activities. BIO-2 In consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the City of Diamond Bar Parks and Recreation Department shall obtain an Incidental Take Permit and prepare a low-effect habitat conservation plan (HCP) to permit removal of habitat suitable for and/or used by sensitive wildlife species, particularly coastal California gnatcatchers (Polioptila californica californica) known to occur on-site. Avoidance and minimization measures that may be required in a low-effect HCP for the proposed project, subject to consultation with the USFWS, include, but are not limited to, preconstruction nesting surveys for coastal California gnatcatcher and avoidance of any active nests or scheduling of work outside of the gnatcatcher nesting season, environmental training for all construction personnel, biological monitoring during initial vegetation removal, closing and restoration of any extraneous trail sections or breeding habitat to recreational use, provisions for pets (leashed pets, removal of pet waste), locations of trash receptacles, and on-site restoration and preservation of coastal sage scrub communities within the survey area (i.e., in the vicinity of the impacts). BIO-3 Project construction, equipment staging, mobilization, grading, ground disturbance activities, and vegetation removal shall be completed outside the avian breeding season. The City of Diamond Bar shall not perform any project construction or activities or remove or otherwise disturb vegetation on the project site, or adjacent to the site, from February 15 to August 31, and as early as January 1, to avoid impacts to breeding/nesting birds and raptors. However, if avoidance of the avian breeding season is infeasible and if project-related construction activities are initiated during the nesting season for coastal California gnatcatcher (CAGN; Polioptila californica californica) and cactus wren (CACW; Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus) (February 15th through September 15th), a nesting bird clearance survey shall be 5.2.b Packet Pg. 242 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 5-2 Inventory of Mitigation Measures conducted within seven days prior to the start of construction within a 500-foot buffer of the project site. The survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist with demonstrable experience identifying CAGN and CACW nesting behavior and finding their nests, and who has been approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to conduct a CAGN survey. If an active CAGN or CACW nest is found during the survey, no project-related construction shall be allowed within 500 feet of an active CAGN nest or 300 feet of an active CACW nest, or within an alternative safe distance as determined by the qualified biologist based on topography, visual shielding, nest progress, and the type of construction and associated disturbance, until the active nest has been determined by the qualified biologist to have failed or to have successfully gone to completion (i.e., the nestlings have fledged and are no longer reliant on the nest). Results of the nesting bird clearance survey, shall be compiled in a memorandum and submitted to the City and the USFWS for project records. BIO-4 The City of Diamond Bar shall protect special-status wildlife resources during construction. A qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction clearance survey prior to any ground disturbance and/or vegetation removal to search for special-status wildlife resources that may be present within the construction area. The biologist shall be thoroughly familiar with the habitat requirements and life histories of special-status species that could occur. The biologist shall submit survey results, including negative results, to CDFW following the survey and prior to the start of construction. If project-related activities are to be initiated during the general avian nesting season (January 1st through August 31st), a pre-construction nesting bird clearance survey shall be conducted within a 500-foot radius of the project footprint by a qualified biologist no more than 14 days prior to the start of any vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities. The qualified biologist shall survey all suitable nesting habitat at appropriate nesting times within the project’s development footprint, and areas within a biologically- defensible buffer zone surrounding the project’s development footprint. If no active nests are detected during the clearance survey, project activities may begin, and no additional avoidance and minimization measures would be required. If project activities are delayed or suspended for more than 7 days during the breeding season, surveys shall be repeated before work can resume. If an active nest is found, the bird species shall be identified and a “no-disturbance” buffer shall be established around the active nest. Buffers shall be clearly delineated and marked around the active nest site as directed by the qualified biologist. The buffer shall be 300 feet around active passerine (perching birds and songbirds) nests, 500 feet around active non-listed raptor nests, and 0.5-mile around active California Endangered Species Act (CESA)-listed bird nests. The qualified biologist shall advise workers of the sensitivity of the buffered areas, and workers shall not work, trespass, or engage in activities that would disturb nesting birds near or inside the buffer. The qualified biologist shall periodically monitor any active nests to determine if project-related activities occurring outside the “no-disturbance” buffer disturb the birds and if the buffer should be increased. Once the young have fledged and left the nest, or the nest otherwise becomes inactive under natural conditions, project activities within the “no-disturbance” buffer may occur following an additional survey by the qualified biologist to search for any new nests in the restricted area. A qualified biological monitor approved by CDFW shall be present during vegetation removal or grubbing activities. Any special-status wildlife that is found within the construction area shall be encouraged to move elsewhere or shall be physically moved out of harm’s way by the biologist if necessary. The biological monitor shall have the necessary state and/or federal permits or letters of permission from the wildlife agencies to relocate wildlife as necessary. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 243 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 5-3 Inventory of Mitigation Measures CULTURAL RESOURCES CUL-1 If previously unidentified cultural resources are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work in the immediate area shall halt and a qualified archaeologist, defined as an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology, shall be contacted by the City of Diamond Bar Parks and Recreation Director, or designated designee, immediately to evaluate the find. If necessary, the evaluation may require preparation of a treatment plan and archaeological testing for California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) eligibility. If the discovery proves to be eligible for the CRHR and cannot be avoided by project activities, additional work, such as data recovery excavation, may be warranted to mitigate any significant impacts to historical resources. In the event that an identified cultural resource is of Native American origin, the qualified archaeologist shall consult with the City of Diamond Bar Parks and Recreation Department staff to implement Native American consultation procedures. GEOLOGY AND SOILS GEO-1 If evidence of subsurface paleontological resources is found during construction, excavation and other construction activity in that area shall cease and the construction contractor shall contact the City of Diamond Bar Community Development Director. With direction from the Community Development Director, a paleontologist certified by the County of Los Angeles shall evaluate the find prior to resuming grading in the immediate vicinity of the find. If warranted, the paleontologist shall prepare and complete a standard Paleontological Resources Mitigation Program for the salvage and curation of the identified resources. NOISE NOI-1 Prior to the initiation of construction, the City of Diamond Bar Director of Public Works, or authorized agents (such as the City’s Public Works Manager/Assistant City Engineer) acting within the scope of the particular duties delegated to them, shall ensure that all project plans and specifications stipulate that:  All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers and other State-required noise attenuation devices.  A construction notice shall be mailed to residents within a 500-foot radius of the project and shall indicate the dates and duration of construction activities, as well as provide a City of Diamond Bar staff contact name and a telephone number where residents can inquire about the construction process and register complaints.  Construction haul routes shall be designed to avoid noise sensitive uses to the maximum extent feasible (e.g., residences etc.).  During construction, stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers.  Construction equipment staging areas shall be located away from adjacent sensitive receptors.  Pursuant to City of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 8.12.720, all construction activities associated with the proposed project shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and on Saturdays. Construction on Sundays and Federal holidays shall be prohibited. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 244 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 5-4 Inventory of Mitigation Measures TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES TCR-1 Prior to the commencement of any ground disturbing activity at the project site, the City of Diamond Bar shall retain a Native American monitor. The Native American monitor shall be selected from a tribe that has requested that a monitor be present, and in which the project site is within their ancestral region of occupation. The Native American monitor shall only be present on-site during the construction phases that involve ground-disturbing activities. Ground disturbing activities are defined as activities that may include, but are not limited to, grubbing, tree removals, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching. The Native American monitor shall complete daily monitoring logs that shall provide descriptions of the day’s activities, including construction activities, locations, soil, and any cultural materials identified. The on-site monitoring shall end when all ground-disturbing activities on the project site are completed, or when the Native American monitor has indicated that all upcoming ground-disturbing activities at the project site have little to no potential for impacting tribal cultural resources. TCR-2 In the event tribal cultural resources are discovered during project construction, construction activities shall cease in the immediate vicinity of the find (not less than the surrounding 50 feet) until the find can be assessed. All tribal cultural resources unearthed by project activities shall be evaluated by the Native American monitor and a qualified archaeologist if one is present. If the resources are Native American in origin, the affected tribe will retain it/them in the form and/or manner the tribe deems appropriate, for educational, cultural and/or historic purposes. Work may continue in other parts of the project site while evaluation and any required recovery activities take place. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to remove the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. TCR-3 In the event human remains are encountered during project construction, said remains shall require proper treatment in accordance with Health and Safety Code 7050.5, which dictates that any discoveries of human skeletal material shall be immediately reported to the County Coroner and excavation halted until the coroner has determined the nature of the remains. If the coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, the coroner shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission and Public Resources Code (PRC) 5097.98 shall be followed. PRC 5097.98 requires identification of the “most likely descendent,” and that remains are investigated and that appropriate recommendations are made for treatment of the remains. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 245 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 6-1 Consultant Recommendation 6.0 CONSULTANT RECOMMENDATION Based on the information and environmental analysis contained in the Initial Study, we recommend that the City of Diamond Bar prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project. We find that the proposed project could have a significant effect on a number of environmental issues, but that mitigation measures have been identified that reduce such impacts to a less than significant level. We recommend that the second category be selected for the City’s determination (see Section 7.0, Lead Agency Determination). October 2020 Date Alan Ashimine, Project Manager Michael Baker International 5.2.b Packet Pg. 246 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 6-2 Consultant Recommendation This page intentionally left blank. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 247 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 7-1 Lead Agency Determination 7.0 LEAD AGENCY DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed use COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. _ I find that although the proposal could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in Section 4 have been added. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.  I find that the proposal MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. _ I find that the proposal MAY have a significant effect(s) 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, if the effect is a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated.” An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. _ Signature: Title: Community Development Director Printed Name: Greg Gubman, AICP Agency: City of Diamond Bar Date: 5.2.b Packet Pg. 248 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 7-2 Lead Agency Determination This page intentionally left blank. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 249 PART II – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 5.2.b Packet Pg. 250 5.2.b Packet Pg. 251 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 2-1 Responses to Comments 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS During the public review period, correspondence was received on the IS/MND from a number of public agencies and interested parties. The following is a list of the agencies and parties that submitted correspondence related to the IS/MND during the public review period: Comment Letter No. Person, Firm, or Agency Letter Dated 1 Erinn Wilson-Olgin, Environmental Program Manager I California Department of Fish and Wildlife November 13, 2020 2 C. Robin Smith Sierra Club November 16, 2020 3 Robert A. Hamilton, President Hamilton Biological, Inc. November 16, 2020 Although the CEQA Guidelines do not require a Lead Agency to prepare written responses to comments received (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15088), the City has elected to prepare the following written responses with the intent of conducting a comprehensive and meaningful evaluation of the proposed project. The number designations in the responses below are correlated to the bracketed and identified portions of each comment letter. Responses may include text changes to clarify/amplify or correct information in the Draft IS/MND, as requested by the Lead Agency or due to environmental points raised in the comments. A response to a comment requiring revisions to the Draft IS/MND presents the relevant Draft IS/MND text in a box, with new text indicated by underlining and deleted text indicated by strike through, as shown in the following example. Deleted text Added text 5.2.b Packet Pg. 252 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 2-2 Responses to Comments This page intentionally left blank. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 253 State of California – Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director South Coast Region 3883 Ruffin Road San Diego, CA 92123 (858) 467-4201 www.wildlife.ca.gov November 13, 2020 Mr. Ryan Wright City of Diamond Bar 21810 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 RWright@DiamondBarCA.gov Subject: Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project, City of Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County Dear Mr. Wright: The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) has reviewed the above-referenced Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project (Project). Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding those activities involved in the Project that may affect California fish and wildlife. Likewise, we appreciate the opportunity to provide comments regarding those aspects of the Project that CDFW, by law, may be required to carry out or approve through the exercise of its own regulatory authority under the Fish and Game Code. CDFW’s Role CDFW is California’s Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources and holds those resources in trust by statute for all the people of the State [Fish & Game Code, §§ 711.7, subdivision (a) & 1802; Public Resources Code, § 21070; California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, § 15386, subdivision (a)]. CDFW, in its trustee capacity, has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species (Id., § 1802). Similarly, for purposes of CEQA, CDFW is charged by law to provide, as available, biological expertise during public agency environmental review efforts, focusing specifically on projects and related activities that have the potential to adversely affect state fish and wildlife resources. CDFW is also submitting comments as a Responsible Agency under CEQA (Public Resources Code, § 21069; CEQA Guidelines, § 15381). CDFW expects that it may need to exercise regulatory authority as provided by the Fish and Game Code, including lake and streambed alteration regulatory authority (Fish & Game Code, § 1600 et seq.). Likewise, to the extent implementation of the Project as proposed may result in “take”, as defined by State law, of any species protected under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish & Game Code, § 2050 et seq.), or state-listed rare plant pursuant to the Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA; Fish & Game Code, §1900 et seq.), CDFW recommends the Project proponent obtain appropriate authorization under the Fish and Game Code. COMMENT LETTER 1 1-1 5.2.b Packet Pg. 254 Mr. Ryan Wright City of Diamond Bar November 13, 2020 Page 2 of 19 Project Description and Summary Objective: The City of Diamond Bar’s Parks and Recreational Department (City) proposes several trail improvement features along the approximately 1.29-mile Canyon Loop Trail within the Summitridge Park Trail system in Diamond Bar. Over the course of four months, the following Project components are planned: x The existing trail along most of the South Canyon Loop would be widened to approximately five feet and remain a natural, unpaved surface. The southern portion of the Canyon Loop trail is roughly 1,942 feet. This Project proposes widening that segment by 1-2 feet from its current width; x Gabion retaining walls would be provided in five areas along the South Canyon Loop to stabilize soils and reduce erosion; x Stairs with handrails and cobblestone swales would be provided in six areas along the South Canyon Loop to facilitate ease of access and safety and improve drainage; x Six drainage crossings are proposed along the South Canyon Loop; x Two shade structures with benches and trash receptacles would be provided along the South Canyon Loop and one shade structure with benches and trash receptacles would be provided along the North Canyon Loop at identified view points; x Lodge pole fences with “Trail Closed” signs mounted on the fences would be installed in five areas along the South Canyon Loop to restrict trail users from entering informal trail areas off the existing Canyon Loop trail; x A perforated bench is proposed on the west end of the South Canyon Loop; x A wayfinding sign would be installed on the eastern and western end of the Canyon Loop Trail; x Interpretive signage in various locations that promote awareness of the presence of sensitive biological habitat and species (including the coastal California gnatcatcher and cactus wren), and indicate that the trail was implemented in a manner to minimize impacts to biological resources; and x Long-term, routine maintenance of the project components above. Location: The Project site is the existing Canyon Loop Trail, which is part of the Summitridge Park Trail System. Summitridge Park is bounded by residential developments to the east and west, Grand Ave. to the south, and open space to the north. It is situated within the central portion of the City of Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County. Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) associated with the Project are: 8701-059-904. Comments and Recommendations CDFW offers the comments and recommendations below to assist the City in adequately identifying, avoiding and/or mitigating the Project’s significant, or potentially significant, direct and indirect impacts on fish and wildlife (biological) resources. 1-1 Cont. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 255 Mr. Ryan Wright City of Diamond Bar November 13, 2020 Page 3 of 19 Project Description and Related Impact Shortcoming Comment #1: Impacts from increased trail usage Issue: The Project is being proposed as a result of increased hiking traffic on the Summitridge Trail System. With improved facilities and a widened trail, capacity is expected to increase. Specific Impacts: Project activities, such as trail widening and the installation of benches or shade structures, are likely to accommodate (and subsequently lead to) increased hiker frequency and duration on the Canyon Loop Trail. Why impacts would occur: Elevated hiker usage is likely to create direct and indirect impacts to local wildlife species through the loss of potential habitat. An increase in the number of hikers has potential to impact sensitive wildlife species and their habitat through a variety of ways: x increased numbers of people and dogs using the trail system x loss of habitat due to erosion from footpaths x increased noise levels x increased trash or pet waste x introduction of unnatural food sources via trash and trash receptacles x introduction of invasive species from other sites The area of influence that the trail has upon the surrounding habitat is being increased. Evidence impacts would be significant: Outdoor recreation has the potential to disturb wildlife, resulting in energetic costs, impacts to animals’ behavior and fitness, and avoidance of otherwise suitable habitat. Studies have shown that outdoor recreation is the second leading cause of the decline of federally threatened and endangered species on public lands (Losos et al. 1995), and fourth leading cause on all lands (Czech et al. 2000). As a result, natural resource managers are becoming increasingly concerned about impacts of recreation on wildlife (Knight and Gutzwiller 1995). Recreational trails can fragment the habitat that they pass through. Clearing additional vegetation to widen a thin (0.5-2 m) trail may have further negative impacts on wildlife (Holmes 2005). These negative impacts generally result from the expansion of the area of influence that a trail has on its surrounding open space. Trails can create artificial boundaries or areas of avoidance for wildlife as they bring outsiders into areas that would otherwise be unvisited. Along with these perceived outsiders, in this case hikers, comes a new set of perceived threats to local wildlife in the form of visual, auditory, and olfactory cues that remain along the trail well after recreational usage. If habitat is available, wildlife may move to areas farther from trails, beyond the areas of influence, to avoid recreation-related disturbance (Reed et al. 2019). However, the greater the proportion of a protected area occupied by trails, the fewer options there are for wildlife to move outside of those areas of influence. There are simply fewer opportunities for wildlife to retreat from nearby recreational users in an already shrinking habitat. 1-2 5.2.b Packet Pg. 256 Mr. Ryan Wright City of Diamond Bar November 13, 2020 Page 4 of 19 The higher the level of recreation in protected areas, the greater the potential there is for the effects of trails and their use to extend beyond habitat loss and individual-level effects (behavioral and physiological) on wildlife. This may transition into population- and community- level effects, including depletion of floral and faunal populations, alteration of the trophic community structures, and reduction of biodiversity (CDFW 2015). With increased recreational usage of trails through open spaces, comes increased exposure of wildlife to humans. Habituated urban wildlife is less likely to avoid contact with humans, which may increase the probability of human-wildlife conflicts and of attraction to anthropogenic food sources; both are considered problematic in many urban areas (Whittaker and Knight 1998; George and Crooks 2006). Wildlife habituation to humans may also increase wildlife aggression toward humans, or render wildlife more vulnerable to predators, poaching, or roadkill (Whitaker and Knight 1998; George and Crooks 2006; Marzano and Dandy 2012). Furthermore, habituation of wildlife may impact their reproductive success. Habituation of adult individuals may also be associated with negative consequences for their offspring as habituation of adults does not necessarily lead to immediate habituation of juveniles (Reilly et al. 2017). Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s): Mitigation Measure #1: CDFW recommends setting aside conserved acreage of sensitive vegetation communities in a manner that is isolated and free from influence by recreational usage. These conserved areas should be oriented to provide refugia for species that may be flushed or relocated by the presence of trails. For proposed preservation and/or restoration, the environmental document should include measures to protect the targeted habitat values in perpetuity from direct and indirect negative impacts. The objective should be to offset the Project-induced qualitative and quantitative losses of wildlife habitat values. Issues that should be addressed include, but are not limited to, restrictions on access, proposed land dedications, monitoring and management programs, control of illegal dumping, water pollution, and increased human intrusion. An appropriate non- wasting endowment should be provided for the long-term monitoring and management of mitigation lands. CDFW recommends that mitigation occur at a state-approved bank or via an entity that has been approved to hold and manage mitigation lands pursuant to Assembly Bill 1094 (2012), which amended Government Code sections 65965-65968. Under Government Code section 65967(c), the lead agency must exercise due diligence in reviewing the qualifications of a governmental entity, special district, or nonprofit organization to effectively manage and steward land, water, or natural resources on mitigation lands it approves. Mitigation Measure #2: Educational materials and signage should be made available to trail users to keep aware of the impacts that human disturbance brings to open spaces. Hikers should be made aware of the impacts that they have on surrounding habitat (such as noise or smells), particularly during breeding seasons. Mitigation Measure #3: CDFW recommends the City install appropriate public information signage at trailheads to: 1) educate and inform the public about wildlife present in the area; 2) advise on proper avoidance measures to reduce human-wildlife conflicts; 3) advise on proper use of open space trails in a manner respectful to wildlife; and, 4) provide local contact information to report injured or dead wildlife. Signage should be written in the language(s) understandable to all those likely to recreate and use the trails. Signage should not be made of 1-2 Cont. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 257 Mr. Ryan Wright City of Diamond Bar November 13, 2020 Page 5 of 19 materials harmful to wildlife such as spikes or glass. The City should provide a long-term maintenance plan to repair and replace the signs. Mitigation Measure #4: Restrictions on types of activities allowed in some areas, such as prohibiting dogs or restricting use to trails near active breeding habitat, will aid in minimizing disturbance. Pets should be kept on leash and on trails at all times. Hikers should be encouraged to clean up after their dogs and discourage animal waste as it tends to lead to wildlife avoidance. Mitigation Measure #5: Trash receptacles should be placed only at trailheads to avoid creating an unnatural food source that may attract nuisance wildlife and to minimize waste in core habitat areas. Recommendation #1: Understanding wildlife responses to recreation and the area of influence of human activities may help managers judge whether wildlife populations are experiencing stress due to interactions with humans, and may aid in tailoring recreation plans to minimize long-term effects to wildlife from disturbance. In an environmental document, CDFW recommends including an analysis of recreational usage of the Summitridge trail system in which current levels of traffic (hiker, biker, and dog) is compared to the expected increase in traffic as a result of trail improvements. Recommendation #2: People are often not aware of how their activities affect wildlife, even if they see animals respond to their actions (Stalmaster and Kaiser 1998). By emphasizing how human activities affect wildlife, people can associate their actions with either benefitting or harming animal populations and begin to develop a conservation ethic (Miller et al. 2001). With improved educational materials and outreach efforts, recreational users are more likely to support restrictions if they understand how wildlife will benefit. Comment #2: Impacts to Sensitive Vegetation Communities Issue: Figure 5: Vegetation Communities and Other Land Uses from the MND is a map of the vegetation communities found on the Project site. It shows that the Canyon Loop Trail runs through the following Sensitive Natural Communities, including their respective rarity rankings according to California Native Plant Society (CNPS): x Coast Live Oak Woodland and Forest (Quercus agrifolia) – S4 x California sagebrush – black sagebrush scrub (Artemisia californica – Salvia mellifera) – S3 x Coast prickly pear scrub (Opuntia littoralis) – S3 x Black sage scrub (Salvia mellifera) – S4 x Scrub oak chapparal (Quercus berberidifolia) – S4 Specific impacts: The Project proposes work along the Canyon Loop Trail through Sensitive Natural Communities but does not include the potential acreage of impacts resulting from Project activities. The expansion of the southern portion of the Canyon Loop Trail by 1-2 feet in width from currently condition is estimated to be about 0.4 miles long. With a lack of specificity regarding acres impacted, potential loss of a sensitive vegetation community not previously known or identified in the Project site may occur. 1-2 Cont. 1-3 5.2.b Packet Pg. 258 Mr. Ryan Wright City of Diamond Bar November 13, 2020 Page 6 of 19 Why impacts would occur: Project implementation includes grading, vegetation clearing, trail construction, trail maintenance, and other activities. This may result in permanent loss and potentially decline or local extirpation of a sensitive plant community. Evidence impacts would be significant: CDFW considers plant communities, alliances, and associations with a statewide ranking of S1, S2, S3 and S4 as sensitive and declining at the local and regional level (Sawyer et al. 2008). An S3 ranking indicates there are 21 to 80 occurrences of this community in existence in California, S2 has 6 to 20 occurrences, and S1 has less than 6 occurrences. Impacts to sensitive vegetation communities should be considered significant under CEQA unless they are clearly mitigated below a level of significance. Inadequate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures for impacts to sensitive plant species will result in the Project continuing to have a substantial adverse direct, indirect, and cumulative effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s): Mitigation Measure #1: CDFW recommends mapping vegetation communities. Surveys should be conducted by a qualified botanist with appropriate experience and knowledge of southern California flora. Surveys should follow CDFW's Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities (CDFW 2018). Surveys should be completed prior to implementing Project related ground disturbing activities. Mitigation Measure #2: If the Project cannot feasibly avoid impacts to sensitive vegetation communities, either during Project activities or over the life of the Project, the City should mitigate for impacts at no less than 5:1 for impacts to S3 ranked communities and 7:1 for S2 communities. Recommendation #1: In 2007, the State Legislature required CDFW to develop and maintain a vegetation mapping standard for the state (Fish & G. Code, § 1940). This standard complies with the National Vegetation Classification System, which utilizes alliance and association- based classification of unique vegetation stands. CDFW utilizes vegetation descriptions found in the Manual of California Vegetation (MCV) (CNPS 2020; Sawyer et al. 2008). To determine the rarity ranking of vegetation communities on the Project site, the MCV alliance/association community names should be provided as CDFW only tracks rare natural communities using this classification system. This would allow CDFW to appropriately comment on potential impacts to sensitive plants and vegetation communities. Comment #3: Impacts to Nesting Birds Issue: Page 4.4-5 of the MND summarizes the results of the focused bird surveys conducted for the Project. The results indicate that this particular open space is actively used, high quality habitat for multiple listed bird species. Within the study area are observations of coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica, CAGN) and coastal cactus wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicappilus sandiegensis), both California Species of Special Concern (SSC). Page 4.4-5 states, “[b]ased on the results of the Focused Bird Survey Report, at least five CAGN and five cactus wren territories were found to be present within the 500-foot survey 1-3 Cont. 1-4 5.2.b Packet Pg. 259 Mr. Ryan Wright City of Diamond Bar November 13, 2020 Page 7 of 19 area. Four CAGN pairs and all five cactus wren pairs successfully fledged young in 2020 as evidenced by firsthand observations during the surveys.” Specific impact: Project construction and related activities may result in increased nesting mortality due to nest abandonment or decreased feeding frequency. The Project may result in temporal or permanent loss of bird nesting habitat. Why impacts would occur: Construction activities, continued usage of trails, and routine maintenance during the breeding season for nesting birds could result in the loss of fertile eggs or nestlings or otherwise lead to nest abandonment. Impacts could result from noise disturbances, increased human activity, dust, ground disturbing activities (e.g., staging, access, excavation, and grading), and vibrations caused by heavy equipment. The Project as proposed would clear vegetation that could provide bird nesting habitat (e.g., ground cover and shrubs). The temporal or permanent loss of vegetation may substantially impact birds that could return to the Project site year after year (Figueira et al. 2020; Haas 1998). Site fidelity exhibited across the avian taxa reflects the benefits associated with previous knowledge of a particular location, likely improving territory acquisition, foraging efficiency, potential breeding partners, and predator avoidance (Figueira et al. 2020). Evidence impacts would be significant: Nests of all birds and raptors are protected under State laws and regulations, including Fish and Game Code, sections 3503 and 3503.5. Take or possession of migratory nongame birds designated in the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50, § 10.13) is prohibited under Fish and Game Code section 3513. The loss of occupied habitat or reductions in the number of sensitive and special status bird species, either directly or indirectly through nest abandonment or reproductive suppression, would constitute a significant impact absent appropriate mitigation. Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s): Mitigation Measure #1: CDFW recommends modifying Mitigation Measure BIO-3 in the MND to fully avoid impacts to nesting birds by conditioning the environmental document to provide the following language: “Project construction, equipment staging, mobilization, grading, ground disturbance activities, and vegetation removal should be completed outside the avian breeding season. The City should not perform any Project construction or activities or remove or otherwise disturb vegetation on the project site, or adjacent to the site, from February 15 to August 31, and as early as January 1, to avoid impacts to breeding/nesting birds and raptors.” Mitigation Measure #2: If avoidance is not feasible, a qualified biologist should complete a survey for nesting bird activity within a 500-foot radius of the Project footprint. Surveys should begin no more than 14 days prior to the start of Project ground disturbing activities and should be repeated for the duration of Project activities that occur during the bird nesting season. Nesting bird surveys should be conducted at appropriate nesting times and concentrate on potential roosting or perch sites. If Project activities are delayed or suspended for more than 7 days during the breeding season, surveys should be repeated before work can resume. Mitigation Measure #3: If nesting birds or raptors are identified, a qualified biologist should determine the nesting status and set up species-appropriate no-work buffers for construction activities. CDFW recommends the following minimum no-disturbance buffers be implemented: 300 feet around active passerine (perching birds and songbirds) nests, 500 feet around active 1-4 Cont. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 260 Mr. Ryan Wright City of Diamond Bar November 13, 2020 Page 8 of 19 non-listed raptor nests and 0.5 mile around active CESA-listed bird nests. No Project activities should be allowed inside these buffers until the qualified biologist has determined that the birds have fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest or parental care for survival. These buffers should be increased if needed to protect the nesting birds. Buffers should be clearly delineated and marked around the active nest site as directed by the qualified biologist. Temporary fencing and signage should be maintained for the duration of the Project as determined by the qualified biologist. A qualified biologist should advise workers of the sensitivity of the buffered areas. Workers should be advised not to work, trespass, or engage in activities that would disturb nesting birds near or inside the buffer. Comment #4: Impacts to Reptiles Issue: According to page 4.4-3 of the MND, coastal whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri) and red-diamond rattlesnake (Crotalus ruber), both SSC, were found on the Project site during habitat assessments and focused surveys. These observations are supported by a review of California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), which shows a cluster of historic records of these species throughout the southern half of the Project site. Specific impact: Project ground disturbing activities such as grading and grubbing may result in habitat destruction, causing the death or injury of adults, juveniles, eggs, or hatchlings. In addition, the Project may remove habitat by eliminating vegetation that may support foraging and breeding habitat. Why impact would occur: Project implementation includes grading, vegetation clearing, and other activities that may result in direct mortality, population declines, or local extirpation of Special Status reptile species. Evidence impact would be significant: CEQA provides protection not only for state and federally listed species, but for any species including but not limited to SSC which can be shown to meet the criteria for State listing. These SSC meet the CEQA definition of rare, threatened or endangered species (CEQA Guidelines, § 15065). Take of SSC could require a mandatory finding of significance by the Lead Agency, (CEQA Guidelines, § 15065). Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s): Mitigation Measure #1: Due to potentially suitable habitat within the Project site, prior to vegetation removal and/or grading, qualified biologists familiar with the reptile species behavior and life history should conduct specialized surveys to determine the presence/absence of SSC. Surveys should be conducted during active season when the reptiles are most likely to be detected. Survey results, including negative findings, should be submitted to CDFW prior to initiation of Project activities. Mitigation Measure #2: To further avoid direct mortality, CDFW recommends that a qualified biological monitor approved by CDFW be on-site during ground and habitat disturbing activities to move out of harm’s way special status species that would be injured or killed by grubbing or Project-related grading activities. It should be noted that the temporary relocation of on-site wildlife does not constitute effective mitigation for the purposes of offsetting Project impacts associated with habitat loss. If the Project requires species to be removed, disturbed, or 1-4 Cont. 1-5 5.2.b Packet Pg. 261 Mr. Ryan Wright City of Diamond Bar November 13, 2020 Page 9 of 19 otherwise handled, we recommend that the Project clearly identify that the designated entity should obtain all appropriate state and federal permits. Comment #5: Impacts to Streams Issue: Page 4.4-7 of the MND acknowledges the ephemeral nature of the on-site drainage, likely carrying flows during rain events, and recognizes that the streambed is “jurisdictional streambed under CDFW”. The trail system crosses this drainage a number of times and six drainage crossings are proposed along the South Canyon Loop to improve drainage and reduce erosion. Project related activities have the potential to impact riparian resources and are likely subject to notification for a Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSA). Specific impacts: The Project may result in the loss of streams and associated watershed function and biological diversity. Grading and construction activities will likely alter the topography, and thus the hydrology, of the Project site. Why impacts would occur: Ground disturbing activities from grading and filling, water diversions and dewatering would physically remove or otherwise alter existing streams or their function and associated riparian habitat on the Project site. Downstream streams and associated biological resources beyond the Project development footprint may also be impacted by Project related releases of sediment and altered watershed effects resulting from Project activities. Evidence impacts would be significant: The Project may substantially adversely affect the existing stream pattern of the Project site through the alteration or diversion of a stream, which absent specific mitigation, could result in substantial erosion or siltation on site or off site of the Project. Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s): Mitigation Measure #1: The Project may result in the alteration of streams. For any such activities, the Project applicant (or “entity”) must provide written notification to CDFW pursuant to section 1600 et seq. of the Fish and Game Code. Based on this notification and other information, CDFW determines whether a Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSA) with the applicant is required prior to conducting the proposed activities. A notification package for a LSA may be obtained by accessing CDFW’s web site at www.wildlife.ca.gov/habcon/1600. CDFW’s issuance of an LSA for a project that is subject to CEQA will require CEQA compliance actions by CDFW as a Responsible Agency. As a Responsible Agency, CDFW may consider the CEQA document of the Lead Agency for the Project. However, the DEIR does not meet CDFW’s standard at this time. To minimize additional requirements by CDFW pursuant to section 1600 et seq. and/or under CEQA, the CEQA document should fully identify the potential impacts to the stream or riparian resources and provide adequate avoidance, mitigation, monitoring and reporting commitments for issuance of the LSA. Mitigation Measure #2: Any LSA permit issued for the Project by CDFW may include additional measures protective of streambeds on and downstream of the Project. The LSA may include further erosion and pollution control measures. To compensate for any on-site and off-site impacts to riparian resources, additional mitigation conditioned in any LSA may include the 1-5 Cont. 1-6 5.2.b Packet Pg. 262 Mr. Ryan Wright City of Diamond Bar November 13, 2020 Page 10 of 19 following: avoidance of resources, on-site or off-site creation, enhancement or restoration, and/or protection and management of mitigation lands in perpetuity. Filing Fees The Project, as proposed, would have an impact on fish and/or wildlife, and assessment of filing fees is necessary. Fees are payable upon filing of the Notice of Determination by the Lead Agency and serve to help defray the cost of environmental review by CDFW. Payment of the fee is required in order for the underlying Project approval to be operative, vested, and final. (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14, § 753.5; Fish & Game Code, § 711.4; Pub. Resources Code, § 21089). Conclusion We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Project to assist the City of Diamond Bar in adequately analyzing and minimizing/mitigating impacts to biological resources. CDFW requests an opportunity to review and comment on any response that the City has to our comments and to receive notification of any forthcoming hearing date(s) for the Project [CEQA Guidelines; § 15073(e)]. If you have any questions or comments regarding this letter, please contact Andrew Valand, Environmental Scientist, at Andrew.Valand@wildlife.ca.gov or (562) 342-2142. Sincerely, Erinn Wilson-Olgin Environmental Program Manager I Ec: CDFW Victoria Tang, Los Alamitos – Victoria.Tang@wildlife.ca.gov Andrew Valand, Los Alamitos – Andrew.Valand@wildlife.ca.gov Felicia Silva, Los Alamitos – Felicia.Silva@wildlife.ca.gov Ruby Kwan-Davis, Los Alamitos – Ruby.Kwan-Davis@wildlife.ca.gov Frederic Rieman, Los Alamitos – Frederic.Rieman@wildlife.ca.gov Susan Howell, San Diego – Susan.Howell@wildlife.ca.gov CEQA Program Coordinator, Sacramento – CEQAcommentletters@wildlife.ca.gov State Clearinghouse – State.Clearinghouse@opr.ca.gov 1-6 Cont. 1-7 1-8 5.2.b Packet Pg. 263 Mr. Ryan Wright City of Diamond Bar November 13, 2020 Page 11 of 19 References: California Department of Fish and Wildlife [CDFW]. 2015. California State Wildlife Action Plan, 2015 Update: A Conservation Legacy for Californians. Edited by Armand G. Gonzales and Junko Hoshi, PhD. Prepared with assistance from Ascent Environmental, Inc., Sacramento, CA. California Department of Fish and Wildlife [CDFW]. March 20,2018. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (see https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Plants). Czech, B., P. R. Krausman, and P. K. Devers. 2000. Economic associations among causes of species endangerment in the United States. BioScience 50:593–601. Dyett & Bhatia. September 2019. Diamond Bar Environmental Impact Report 2040. Public Review Draft. September 2019. Figueira L. et al. 2020. Effects of breeding and molt activity on songbird site fidelity, The Auk, https://doi.org/10.1093/auk/ukaa053. George, S.L., and K. R. Crooks. 2006. Recreation and large mammal activity in an urban nature reserve. Biological Conservation 133.1 (2006):107–117. Haas, C. 1998. Effects of Prior Nesting Success on Site Fidelity and Breeding Dispersal: An Experimental Approach, The Auk, Volume 115, Issue 4, 1 October 1998, Pages 929–936. Hamilton, Robert. February 2019. Biological Resources Report for Open Space & Conservation Element Diamond Bar General Plan Update. Holmes, Aaron L.; Geupel, Geoffrey R. 2005. Effects of trail width on the densities of four species of breeding birds in chaparral. In: Ralph, C. John; Rich, Terrell D., editors 2005. Bird Conservation Implementation and Integration in the Americas: Proceedings of the Third International Partners in Flight Conference. 2002 March 20-24; Asilomar, California, Volume 1 Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-191. Albany, CA: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: p. 610-612. Knight, R. L., and K. J. Gutzwiller, editors. 1995. Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through management and research. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA. Losos, E., J. Hayes, A. Phillips, D. Wilcove, and C. Alkire. 1995. Taxpayer-subsidized resource extraction harms species. BioScience 45:446–455. Lucas, E. 2020. A review of trail-related fragmentation, unauthorized trails, and other aspects of recreation ecology in protected areas. California Fish and Wildlife, Recreation Special Issue; 95-125. Marzano, M., and N. Dandy. 2012. Recreationist behaviour in forests and the disturbance to wildlife. Biodiversity and Conservation 21: 2967–2986. 1-9 5.2.b Packet Pg. 264 Mr. Ryan Wright City of Diamond Bar November 13, 2020 Page 12 of 19 Miller, S. G., R. L. Knight, and C. K. Miller. 1998. Influence of recreational trails on breeding bird communities. Ecological Applications 8(1): 162-169. National Research Council. 1995. Science and the Endangered Species Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/4978 Reed, S. E., C. L. Larson, and K. R. Crooks. 2019. Effects of human use of NCCP Reserves on reptile and mammal species in San Diego. Wildlife Conservation Society Agreement No / LAG #: P1582100. Reilly, M. L., M. W. Tobler, D. L. Sonderegger, and P. Beier. 2017. Spatial and temporal response of wildlife to recreational activities in the San Francisco Bay ecoregion. Biological Conservation 207:117–126. Sawyer, J.O., Keeler Wolf, T., and Evens J.M. 2008. A manual of California Vegetation, 2nd ed. ISBN 978 0 943460 49 9. Stalmaster, M. V., and J. L. Kaiser. 1998. Effects of recreational activity on wintering bald eagles. Wildlife Monographs 137. Taylor, A. R., and R. L. Knight. 2003. Wildlife responses to recreation and associated visitor perceptions. Ecological Applications 13(4): 951-963. Whittaker, D., and R. L. Knight. 1998. Understanding wildlife responses to humans. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26:312–317. 1-9 Cont. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 265 State of California – Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director South Coast Region 3883 Ruffin Road San Diego, CA 92123 (858) 467-4201 www.wildlife.ca.gov CDFW recommends the following language to be incorporated into a future environmental document for the Project. Biological Resources Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible Party MM-BIO-1 – Sensitive Vegetation Avoidance The City shall set aside conserved acreage of sensitive vegetation communities in a manner that is isolated and free from influence by recreational usage. These conserved areas shall be oriented to provide refugia for species that may be flushed or relocated by the presence of trails. For proposed preservation and/or restoration, the final environmental document shall include measures to protect the targeted habitat values in perpetuity from direct and indirect negative impacts. The objective shall be to offset the Project-induced qualitative and quantitative losses of wildlife habitat values. Issues that shall be addressed include, but are not limited to, restrictions on access, proposed land dedications, monitoring and management programs, control of illegal dumping, water pollution, and increased human intrusion. An appropriate non-wasting endowment shall be provided for the long-term monitoring and management of mitigation lands. Off-site mitigation shall occur at a state-approved bank or via an entity that has been approved to hold and manage mitigation lands pursuant to Assembly Bill 1094 (2012), which amended Government Code sections 65965-65968. Under Government Code section 65967(c), the lead agency must exercise due diligence in reviewing the qualifications of a governmental entity, special district, or nonprofit organization to effectively manage and steward land, water, or natural resources on mitigation lands it approves. Prior to construction City of Diamond Bar 1-105.2.bPacket Pg. 266 Mr. Ryan Wright City of Diamond Bar November 13, 2020 Page 14 of 19 MM-BIO-2 – Educational Materials Educational materials and signage shall be made available to trail users to keep aware of the impacts that human disturbance brings to open spaces. Hikers shall be made aware of their impacts to surrounding habitat (such as noise or smells), particularly during breeding seasons. Prior to construction City of Diamond Bar MM-BIO-3 – Informational Signage The City shall install appropriate public information signage at trailheads to: 1) educate and inform the public about wildlife present in the area; 2) advise on proper avoidance measures to reduce human-wildlife conflicts; 3) advise on proper use of open space trails in a manner respectful to wildlife; and, 4) provide local contact information to report injured or dead wildlife. Signage shall be written in the language(s) understandable to all those likely to recreate and use the trails. Signage shall not be made of materials harmful to wildlife such as spikes or glass. The City shall provide a long-term maintenance plan to repair and replace the signs. Prior to construction City of Diamond Bar MM-BIO-4 – Pet Policy Pets shall be kept on leash and on trails at all times. Hikers shall be encouraged to clean up after their dogs and discourage animal waste as it tends to lead to wildlife avoidance. Prior to construction City of Diamond Bar MM-BIO-5 – Placement of Trash Receptacles Trash receptacles shall be placed only at trailheads to avoid creating an unnatural food source that may attract nuisance wildlife and to minimize waste in core habitat areas. Prior to construction City of Diamond Bar MM-BIO-6 – Sensitive Vegetation Surveys Vegetation surveys shall be conducted by a qualified botanist with appropriate experience and knowledge of southern California flora. Surveys shall follow CDFW's Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities (CDFW 2018). Surveys shall be completed prior to implementing Project related ground disturbing activities. Prior to construction City of Diamond Bar 1-10Cont.5.2.bPacket Pg. 267 Mr. Ryan Wright City of Diamond Bar November 13, 2020 Page 15 of 19 MM-BIO-7 – Sensitive Vegetation Replacement If the Project cannot feasibly avoid impacts to sensitive vegetation communities, either during Project activities or over the life of the Project, the City shall mitigate for impacts at no less than 5:1 for impacts to S3 ranked communities and 7:1 for S2 communities. Prior to construction City of Diamond Bar MM-BIO-8 – Nesting Bird Season The City shall modify Mitigation Measure BIO-3 in the MND to fully avoid impacts to nesting birds by conditioning the environmental document to provide the following language: “Project construction, equipment staging, mobilization, grading, ground disturbance activities, and vegetation removal shall be completed outside the avian breeding season. The City shall not perform any Project construction or activities or remove or otherwise disturb vegetation on the project site, or adjacent to the site, from February 15 to August 31, and as early as January 1, to avoid impacts to breeding/nesting birds and raptors.” Prior to construction City of Diamond Bar MM-BIO-9 – Nesting Bird Surveys If avoidance is not feasible, a qualified biologist shall complete a survey for nesting bird activity within a 500-foot radius of the Project footprint. Surveys shall begin no more than 14 days prior to the start of Project ground disturbing activities and shall be repeated for the duration of Project activities that occur during the bird nesting season. Nesting bird surveys shall be conducted at appropriate nesting times and concentrate on potential roosting or perch sites. If Project activities are delayed or suspended for more than 7 days during the breeding season, surveys shall be repeated before work can resume. Prior to construction City of Diamond Bar 1-10Cont.5.2.bPacket Pg. 268 Mr. Ryan Wright City of Diamond Bar November 13, 2020 Page 16 of 19 MM-BIO-10 – Nesting Bird Avoidance Buffers If nesting birds or raptors are identified, a qualified biologist shall determine the nesting status and set up species-appropriate no-work buffers. The following minimum no-disturbance buffers shall be implemented: 300 feet around active passerine (perching birds and songbirds) nests, 500 feet around active non-listed raptor nests and 0.5 mile around active CESA-listed bird nests. No Project activities shall be allowed inside these buffers until the qualified biologist has determined that the birds have fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest or parental care for survival. These buffers shall be increased if needed to protect the nesting birds. Buffers shall be clearly delineated and marked around the active nest site as directed by the qualified biologist. Temporary fencing and signage shall be maintained for the duration of the Project as determined by the qualified biologist. A qualified biologist shall advise workers of the sensitivity of the buffered areas. Workers shall be advised not to work, trespass, or engage in activities that would disturb nesting birds near or inside the buffer. Prior to construction City of Diamond Bar MM-BIO-11 – Reptile Surveys Prior to vegetation removal and/or grading, qualified biologists familiar with the reptile species behavior and life history shall conduct specialized surveys to determine the presence/absence of Species of Special Concern (SSC). Surveys shall be conducted during active season when the reptiles are most likely to be detected. Survey results, including negative findings, shall be submitted to CDFW prior to initiation of Project activities. Prior to construction City of Diamond Bar 1-10Cont.5.2.bPacket Pg. 269 Mr. Ryan Wright City of Diamond Bar November 13, 2020 Page 17 of 19 MM-BIO-12 – Moving Out of Harm’s Way A qualified biological monitor, approved by CDFW, shall be on-site during ground and habitat disturbing activities to move out of harm’s way special status species that would be injured or killed by grubbing or Project-related grading activities. It shall be noted that the temporary relocation of on-site wildlife does not constitute effective mitigation for the purposes of offsetting Project impacts associated with habitat loss. If the Project requires species to be removed, disturbed, or otherwise handled, the Project shall clearly identify that the designated entity shall obtain all appropriate state and federal permits. Prior to construction City of Diamond Bar MM-BIO-13 – Notification for Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement Project applicant (or “entity”) must provide written notification to CDFW pursuant to section 1600 et seq. of the Fish and Game Code. Based on this notification and other information, CDFW determines whether a Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSA) with the applicant is required prior to conducting the proposed activities. A notification package for a LSA may be obtained by accessing CDFW’s web site at www.wildlife.ca.gov/habcon/1600. CDFW’s issuance of an LSA for a project that is subject to CEQA will require CEQA compliance actions by CDFW as a Responsible Agency. As a Responsible Agency, CDFW may consider the CEQA document of the Lead Agency for the Project. However, the DEIR does not meet CDFW’s standard at this time. To minimize additional requirements by CDFW pursuant to section 1600 et seq. and/or under CEQA, the CEQA document shall fully identify the potential impacts to the stream or riparian resources and provide adequate avoidance, mitigation, monitoring and reporting commitments for issuance of the LSA. Prior to construction City of Diamond Bar 1-10Cont.5.2.bPacket Pg. 270 Mr. Ryan Wright City of Diamond Bar November 13, 2020 Page 18 of 19 MM-BIO-14 – Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement Components Any LSA permit issued for the Project by CDFW may include additional measures protective of streambeds on and downstream of the Project. The LSA may include further erosion and pollution control measures. To compensate for any on-site and off-site impacts to riparian resources, additional mitigation conditioned in any LSA may include the following: avoidance of resources, on-site or off-site creation, enhancement or restoration, and/or protection and management of mitigation lands in perpetuity. Prior to construction City of Diamond Bar Recommendations REC-BIO-1 – Analysis of Recreational Usage Understanding wildlife responses to recreation and the area of influence of human activities may help managers judge whether wildlife populations are experiencing stress due to interactions with humans, and may aid in tailoring recreation plans to minimize long-term effects to wildlife from disturbance. In a subsequent environmental document, CDFW recommends including an analysis of recreational usage of the Summitridge trail system in which current levels of traffic (hiker, biker, and dog) is compared to the expected increase in traffic as a result of trail improvements. REC-BIO-2 – Education & Outreach People are often not aware of how their activities affect wildlife, even if they see animals respond to their actions (Stalmaster and Kaiser 1998). By emphasizing how human activities affect wildlife, people can associate their actions with either benefitting or harming animal populations and begin to develop a conservation ethic (Miller et al. 2001). With improved educational materials and outreach efforts, recreational users are more likely to support restrictions if they understand how wildlife will benefit. REC-BIO-3 – National Vegetation Classification System In 2007, the State Legislature required CDFW to develop and maintain a vegetation mapping standard for the state (Fish & G. Code, § 1940). This standard complies with the National Vegetation Classification System, which utilizes alliance and association-based classification of unique vegetation stands. 1-10Cont.5.2.bPacket Pg. 271 Mr. Ryan Wright City of Diamond Bar November 13, 2020 Page 19 of 19 CDFW utilizes vegetation descriptions found in the Manual of California Vegetation (MCV) (CNPS 2020; Sawyer et al. 2008). To determine the rarity ranking of vegetation communities on the Project site, the MCV alliance/association community names shall be provided as CDFW only tracks rare natural communities using this classification system. This would allow CDFW to appropriately comment on potential impacts to sensitive plants and vegetation communities. 1-10Cont.5.2.bPacket Pg. 272 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 2-22 Responses to Comments RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER NO. 1 Erinn Wilson-Olgin, Environmental Program Manager I California Department of Fish and Wildlife November 13, 2020 1-1 This comment provides introductory language regarding the role of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and a summary of the project description. This comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the environmental analysis within the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), and no further response is required. 1-2 This comment provides background information on the adverse effects that human recreation can have on wildlife, and provides five “recommended potentially feasible mitigation measures” to minimize wildlife risk from the presumed increase in recreation that would result from the trail widening. CDFW’s recommended Mitigation Measure #1 requests that the City of Diamond Bar set aside conserved acreage of sensitive vegetation communities that will mitigate for the loss of on-site habitat. The lands proposed for preservation and/or restoration should be shielded in perpetuity from direct and indirect effects of human recreation, and CDFW recommends that such mitigation occur at a state-approved bank or other approved entity that can manage mitigation lands. The City of Diamond Bar agrees with the necessity of mitigating for the loss of lands associated with this trail widening and is currently investigating options between conservation banks and on-site restoration. As noted within Mitigation Measure BIO-2 of the IS/MND, the City of Diamond Bar would be required to obtain an Incidental Take Permit and prepare a habitat conservation plan (HCP) to mitigate for impacts to sensitive habitat. The Incidental Take Permit and HCP, and consultations to be conducted with CDFW, would include provisions for preservation and restoration of lands in perpetuity. Thus, CDFW’s recommended Mitigation Measure #1 has been accounted for in the IS/MND, and no further mitigation is necessary. CDFW’s recommended Mitigation Measures #2 and #3 recommend that the City of Diamond Bar provide educational materials and signage along the trail to educate users on the biological resources that are present in the area. Mitigation Measure #3 also states that the City should provide a long-term maintenance plan to repair and replace the signs. As noted within Section 2.0, Project Description, of the IS/MND, the project is proposed to include interpretive signage in various locations that promotes awareness of the presence of sensitive biological habitat and species (including the coastal California gnatcatcher and cactus wren). This proposed signage would be maintained by the City routinely and regularly, as currently occurs with existing signage along the trail. These project features accommodate CDFW’s recommended Mitigation Measures #2 and #3, and no mitigation is necessary. CDFW’s recommended Mitigation Measure #4 (regarding restrictions on uses/pets) and Mitigation Measure #5 (regarding placement of trash receptacles) can be accommodated within the HCP to be prepared for the proposed project, and through required consultations with CDFW. To that end, Mitigation Measure BIO-2 of the IS/MND has been modified to include provisions in this regard. The Final IS/MND has incorporated the following changes: 5.2.b Packet Pg. 273 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 2-23 Responses to Comments 1-3 This comment describes impacts and mitigation to sensitive vegetation communities that have been mapped on the project and provides two “recommended potentially feasible mitigation measures” to mitigate for vegetation loss. CDFW’s recommended Mitigation Measure #1 recommends that a qualified botanist map all vegetation communities on-site prior to ground disturbance. Mapping of vegetation communities at the alliance level already occurred during initial environmental studies conducted for the project in 2020. This mapping was included as part of the IS/MND. As such, no further response is necessary. CDFW’s recommended Mitigation Measure #2 states that if the project cannot avoid impacts to sensitive vegetation communities, the City should mitigate for the loss of vegetation at no less than 5:1 for S3 ranked communities and 7:1 for S2 ranked communities. S3 ranked communities found on-site include California sagebrush – black sagebrush scrub and coast prickly pear scrub. As noted above in Response 1-2, the City would be required to obtain an Incidental Take Permit and prepare an HCP to mitigate for impacts to sensitive habitat. Through further consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and CDFW, provisions for preservation and restoration of lands in perpetuity at a ratio to be determined through discussions with the resource agencies. Thus, CDFW’s recommended Mitigation Measure #2 has been accounted for in the IS/MND, and no further mitigation is necessary. 1-4 This comment addresses impacts to nesting birds and recommends three (3) “recommended potentially feasible mitigation measures.” CDFW recommended Mitigation Measure #1 recommends modifying the project’s existing Mitigation Measure BIO-3 in the MND to include the following language: “Project construction, equipment staging, mobilization, grading, ground disturbance activities, and vegetation removal should be completed outside the avian breeding season. The City should not perform any Project construction or activities or remove or otherwise disturb vegetation on the project site, or adjacent to the site, from February 15 to August 31, and as early as January 1, to avoid impacts to breeding/nesting birds and raptors.” This language is acceptable and has been added to Mitigation Measure BIO-3 in the Final IS/MND. Draft IS/MND Page 4.4-6: BIO-2 In consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the City of Diamond Bar Parks and Recreation Department shall obtain an Incidental Take Permit and prepare a low- effect habitat conservation plan (HCP) to permit removal of habitat suitable for and/or used by sensitive wildlife species, particularly coastal California gnatcatchers (Polioptila californica californica) known to occur on-site. Avoidance and minimization measures that may be required in a low-effect HCP for the proposed project, subject to consultation with the USFWS, include, but are not limited to, preconstruction nesting surveys for coastal California gnatcatcher and avoidance of any active nests or scheduling of work outside of the gnatcatcher nesting season, environmental training for all construction personnel, biological monitoring during initial vegetation removal, closing and restoration of any extraneous trail sections or breeding habitat to recreational use, provisions for pets (leashed pets, removal of pet waste), locations of trash receptacles, and on-site restoration and preservation of coastal sage scrub communities within the survey area (i.e., in the vicinity of the impacts). 5.2.b Packet Pg. 274 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 2-24 Responses to Comments CDFW recommended Mitigation Measure #2 recommends that “If avoidance is not feasible, a qualified biologist should complete a survey for nesting bird activity within a 500-foot radius of the Project footprint. Surveys should begin no more than 14 days prior to the start of Project ground disturbing activities and should be repeated for the duration of Project activities that occur during the bird nesting season. Nesting bird surveys should be conducted at appropriate nesting times and concentrate on potential roosting or perch sites. If Project activities are delayed or suspended for more than 7 days during the breeding season, surveys should be repeated before work can resume.” This language is acceptable and has been added to Mitigation Measure BIO-4 in the Final IS/MND. CDFW recommended Mitigation Measure #3 recommends avoidance buffers of minimum 300 feet for nesting passerines, 500 feet for active nests of non-listed raptors, and 0.5 mile around active nests of CESA-listed birds. No disturbance would be allowed within the buffer until a qualified biologist determines the nest(s) is no longer active. The biologist would increase the buffer as necessary and would delineate it with fencing and signage. This language is acceptable and has been added to Mitigation Measure BIO-4 in the Final IS/MND. Draft IS/MND Page 4.4.6: BIO-3 Project construction, equipment staging, mobilization, grading, ground disturbance activities, and vegetation removal shall be completed outside the avian breeding season. The City of Diamond Bar shall not perform any project construction or activities or remove or otherwise disturb vegetation on the project site, or adjacent to the site, from February 15 to August 31, and as early as January 1, to avoid impacts to breeding/nesting birds and raptors. However, if avoidance of the avian breeding season is infeasible and if project-related construction activities are initiated during the nesting season for coastal California gnatcatcher (CAGN; Polioptila californica californica) and cactus wren (CACW; Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus) (February 15th through September 15th), a nesting bird clearance survey shall be conducted within seven days prior to the start of construction within a 500-foot buffer of the project site. The survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist with demonstrable experience identifying CAGN and CACW nesting behavior and finding their nests, and who has been approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to conduct a CAGN survey. If an active CAGN or CACW nest is found during the survey, no project-related construction shall be allowed within 500 feet of an active CAGN nest or 300 feet of an active CACW nest, or within an alternative safe distance as determined by the qualified biologist based on topography, visual shielding, nest progress, and the type of construction and associated disturbance, until the active nest has been determined by the qualified biologist to have failed or to have successfully gone to completion (i.e., the nestlings have fledged and are no longer reliant on the nest). Results of the nesting bird clearance survey shall be compiled in a memorandum and submitted to the City and the USFWS for project records. BIO-4 If project-related activities are to be initiated during the general avian nesting season (January 1st through August 31st), a pre-construction nesting bird clearance survey shall be conducted within a 500-foot radius of the project footprint by a qualified biologist no more than three14 days prior to the start of any vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities. The qualified biologist shall survey all suitable nesting habitat at appropriate nesting times within the project’s development footprint, and areas within a biologically-defensible buffer zone surrounding the project’s development footprint. If no active nests are detected during the clearance survey, project activities may begin, and no additional avoidance and minimization measures would be required. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 275 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 2-25 Responses to Comments 1-5 This comment addresses impacts to reptiles and provides two (2) “recommended potentially feasible mitigation measures.” This comment also mistakenly states that red-diamond rattlesnake (Crotalus ruber) was found on site during project surveys conducted in 2020. This is incorrect; although this species has been recorded on these trails numerous times (as shown in the CNDDB), it was not incidentally detected during any surveys conducted for the project in 2020. The comment is correct that coastal whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri) was found on-site in 2020. CDFW recommended Mitigation Measure #1 recommends that a qualified biologist(s) familiar with reptile behavior and life history should conduct specialized surveys prior to vegetation removal and/or grading to determine the presence or absence of species designated as species of special concern by the CDFW, including red-diamond rattlesnake and coastal whiptail. Survey results, including negative findings, would be submitted to CDFW prior to the initiation of project activities. Language requiring a pre-construction clearance survey has been added to Mitigation Measure BIO-4. Mitigation Measure #2 recommends that a qualified biological monitor be on-site during ground and habitat disturbing activities to move any special-status species out of harm’s way, and that the monitor possess all appropriate state and federal permits. Language requiring an appropriately qualified biological monitor during vegetation removal and grubbing has been added to Mitigation Measure BIO-4. If project activities are delayed or suspended for more than 7 days during the breeding season, surveys shall be repeated before work can resume. If an active nest is found, the bird species shall be identified and a “no-disturbance” buffer shall be established around the active nest. Buffers shall be clearly delineated and marked around the active nest site as directed by the qualified biologist. The size of the “no- disturbance” buffer shall be determined based on the judgement of the qualified biologist and level of activity and sensitivity of the species. The buffer shall be 300 feet around active passerine (perching birds and songbirds) nests, 500 feet around active non-listed raptor nests, and 0.5-mile around active California Endangered Species Act (CESA)-listed bird nests. The qualified biologist shall advise workers of the sensitivity of the buffered areas, and workers shall not work, trespass, or engage in activities that would disturb nesting birds near or inside the buffer. The qualified biologist shall periodically monitor any active nests to determine if project-related activities occurring outside the “no-disturbance” buffer disturb the birds and if the buffer should be increased. Once the young have fledged and left the nest, or the nest otherwise becomes inactive under natural conditions, project activities within the “no-disturbance” buffer may occur following an additional survey by the qualified biologist to search for any new nests in the restricted area. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 276 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 2-26 Responses to Comments 1-6 This comment addresses impacts to streams and provides two (2) “recommended potentially feasible mitigation measures.” These mitigation measures are based on the misconception that the project will have impacts to features that are under CDFW jurisdiction. As noted in the IS/MND, although there is a jurisdictional feature within the project site, it will not be affected at all by the project or any of its construction. No trail improvements are proposed anywhere near this feature and no construction will occur anywhere in its vicinity. As such, no further response is necessary and no mitigation is required in this regard. 1-7 The City of Diamond Bar will provide payment of the project’s Notice of Determination (NOD) CDFW filing fee as required under the California Fish and Game Code. Draft IS/MND Page 4.4-6: BIO-4 The City of Diamond Bar shall protect special-status wildlife resources during construction. A qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction clearance survey prior to any ground disturbance and/or vegetation removal to search for special-status wildlife resources that may be present within the construction area. The biologist shall be thoroughly familiar with the habitat requirements and life histories of special-status species that could occur. The biologist shall submit survey results, including negative results, to CDFW following the survey and prior to the start of construction. If project-related activities are to be initiated during the general avian nesting season (January 1st through August 31st), a pre-construction nesting bird clearance survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than three days prior to the start of any vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities. The qualified biologist shall survey all suitable nesting habitat within the project’s development footprint, and areas within a biologically-defensible buffer zone surrounding the project’s development footprint. If no active nests are detected during the clearance survey, project activities may begin, and no additional avoidance and minimization measures would be required. If an active nest is found, the bird species shall be identified and a “no-disturbance” buffer shall be established around the active nest. The size of the “no-disturbance” buffer shall be determined based on the judgement of the qualified biologist and level of activity and sensitivity of the species. The qualified biologist shall periodically monitor any active nests to determine if project-related activities occurring outside the “no- disturbance” buffer disturb the birds and if the buffer should be increased. Once the young have fledged and left the nest, or the nest otherwise becomes inactive under natural conditions, project activities within the “no-disturbance” buffer may occur following an additional survey by the qualified biologist to search for any new nests in the restricted area. A qualified biological monitor approved by CDFW shall be present during vegetation removal or grubbing activities. Any special-status wildlife that is found within the construction area shall be encouraged to move elsewhere or shall be physically moved out of harm’s way by the biologist if necessary. The biological monitor shall have the necessary state and/or federal permits or letters of permission from the wildlife agencies to relocate wildlife as necessary. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 277 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 2-27 Responses to Comments 1-8 This comment provides a conclusion to the comment letter and provides contact information for the commenter. The commenter will be provided a response and notified of public hearings for the project as necessary under CEQA and the City’s public noticing requirements. No further response is required. 1-9 This portion of the comment letter provides references used by the commenter. No response is necessary. 1-10 This comment summarizes the recommended mitigation measures provided by CDFW. Refer to Responses 1-2 through 1-6, above. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 278 November 16, 2020 Mr. Ryan Wright City of Diamond Bar 21810 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 RWright@DiamondBarCA.gov RE: Public Comments: Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project, City of Diamond Bar Dear Mr. Wright: The Diamond Bar - Pomona Valley Sierra Club Task Force is locally focused on natural wildlife habitats, open spaces and watersheds. Since 2016, we have been privileged to serve Diamond Bar residents, through environmental literacy education, modeling ecological integrity and oversight in the conservation efforts of city natural resources. We are grateful for the opportunity to comment on the “Canyon Loop Trail” IS/MND project. However, at this moment, we regret to say, the proposed IS/MND is inadequate and appears illegitimate based upon the data provided by Hamilton Biological report and the elements called out in the CDFW commentary, November 2020. It appears to be an illegitimate project because there is no evidence of former CEQA permit applications for the area. Here, is perhaps one reason why? The 2011 City of Diamond Bar, Parks & Recreation Master Plan, adopted July 19, 2011, appears to have facilitated piecemeal trail making and landscape maintenance projects in city open spaces, which have resulted in cumulative environmental impacts. On Pages 13, 14, Section 1 of this document, explains CEQA categorical exemptions (which conflict with actual findings in the field.) (Exhibit A) Through the years, city numerous trail and park projects have proceeded with categorical exemptions. Work, performed by unskilled labor, has caused cumulative environmental negative impacts. As it’s supposed in the document, the 2011 Parks & Recreation masterplan itself, may be exempt from CEQA, but each component of the plan, like building a trail, surely cannot be exempt from CEQA. October 14, 2019, the city attempted the Canyon Loop project with a categorical exemption, to which the Sierra Club intervened and called for proper environmental review. (See Exhibit B) Therefore the trail project IS/MND was performed in 2020. We are grateful for the improvement, however the critical elements needed are still wanting: best field practices based on protocol surveys and biological conservation mitigation methods. The COMMENT LETTER 2 2-1 2-2 5.2.b Packet Pg. 279 technical details of these requirements are explained in the California Dept. Fish Wildlife IS/MND comments and the Hamilton Biological comments, dated November 2020. (Exhibit C + D) If the Canyon Loop project accepts and adheres to the guidelines from the CDFW and especially the Hamilton Biological comments, we think the project will be heading in a good direction and could also attain authentic sustainability. Performing landscape maintenance or trail building on Diamond Bar open space areas which are host to natural communities, using CEQA guidelines and skilled field workers who are trained in recognizing biological conditions, are an investment in the quality of California natural landscapes and will enhance the cultural value of the city. Diamond Bar landscape budgets may be greatly reduced by conserving and restoring natural plant communities. Degrading or converting natural habitats to ornamental (invasive) landscape plantings actually increases maintenance services and costs. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Project and are available to assist the City of Diamond Bar in adequately analyzing and minimizing/mitigating impacts to biological resources. We also request an opportunity to receive notification of any forthcoming hearing date(s) for the Project. Respectfully C. Robin Smith Diamond Bar - Pomona Valley Sierra Club Task Force . eMail: DBPVSierraClubTaskForce@gmail.com 909-861-9920 Resources: Exhibit A City of Diamond Bar Parks & Recreation Masterplan 2011 Exhibit B Hamilton Biological Letter October 14, 2019 Exhibit C California Dept. Fish Wildlife Canyon Loop Project Comments Exhibit D Hamilton Biological Canyon Loop Comments Nov. 16, 2020 Cc: Morgan Goodwin, Sr. Director, Sierra Club, Angeles Chapter Greg Gubman, Community Development Director, City of Diamond Bar Erin Wilson, California Dept. Fish Wildlife Chris Medak, United States Dept. Fish Wildlife 2-2 Cont. 2-3 2-4 2-5 5.2.b Packet Pg. 280 H AMILTON B IOLOGICAL October 14, 2019 Greg Gubman Director of Community Development City of Diamond Bar 21810 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 SUBJECT: CEQA REVIEW, CANYON LOOP TRAIL PROJECT CITY OF DIAMOND BAR Dear Mr. Gubman, Working on behalf of a consortium of Diamond Bar residents, including Diamond Bar Preservation Foundation, Responsible Land Use, and the Diamond Bar/Pomona Valley Sierra Club Task Force, Hamilton Biological, Inc., (hereafter “Hamilton Biological”) has reviewed a City Council Study Session Report for the Canyon Loop Trail Conceptual Design, “a project to make improvements to the Canyon Loop Multi-Use Trail, which is a 1.29-mile trail loop within the City’s Open Space area north of the Diamond Bar Cen- ter.” Proposed actions include such activities as realigning parts of the trail, installing steps, and creating rest areas and amenities such as benches, shade structures, and trash receptacles. As you know, Hamilton Biological specializes in third-party review of tech- nical biological reports and CEQA documentation, and I have been involved with re- viewing and providing input into the forthcoming update to the City of Diamond Bar General Plan. As part of my review of issues related to the General Plan update, I observed that the City appears to be inadequately analyzing — under CEQA and other relevant statutes, such as the California Fish and Game Code and federal Endangered Species Act — the potential adverse effects of actions that the City has undertaken in recent years. In my cover letter to you, dated February 21, 2019 (Subject: Biological Resources Report for Open Space & Conservation Element, Diamond Bar General Plan Update) I provided examples of two examples of recent projects that the City undertook, apparently without CEQA re- view. It is my understanding that the City claimed a Categorical Exemption for those recent projects, and that the City is now claiming a Categorical Exemption for the pro- posed Canyon Loop Trail improvement project. This letter (1) discusses the conditions under which a CEQA Lead Agency may claim a Categorical Exemption (2) reviews the two examples of improper use of the Categorical Exemption for trail projects under- taken by the City in recent years; (3) provides information on biologically sensitive re- sources known to exist in the vicinity of Canyon Loop Trail; and (4) discusses the City’s obligation to satisfy CEQA requirements, and other relevant permitting procedures, when proposing actions that may adversely affect rare and endangered species. 2-6 5.2.b Packet Pg. 281 Review of Proposed Canyon Loop Trail Project, Diamond Bar Hamilton Biological, Inc. October 14, 2019 Page 2 of 7 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIONS UNDER CEQA Article 19 of the CEQA Guidelines addresses this topic. If the City is, in fact, planning to claim a Categorical Exemption for the proposed trail improvement project, it would presumably do so under Section 15301 and/or Section 15304 of Article 19. Relevant por- tions of these Sections are excerpted below. 15301. Existing Facilities Class 1 consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equip- ment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency’s determination. The types of “existing facili- ties” itemized below are not intended to be all-inclusive of the types of projects which might fall within Class 1. The key consideration is whether the project involves negligi- ble or no expansion of an existing use. Examples include: (c) Existing highways and streets, sidewalks, gutters, bicycle and pedestrian trails, and similar facilities (this includes road grading for the purpose of public safety). 15304. Minor Alterations to Land Class 4 consists of minor public or private alterations in the condition of land, water, and/or vegetation which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees except for forestry or agricultural purposes. Examples include: (d) Minor alterations in land, water, and vegetation on existing officially designated wildlife management areas or fish production facilities which result in improvement of habitat for fish and wildlife resources or greater fish production. Exceptions to Categorical Exemption Rules Section 15300.2 of Article 19 discusses the conditions under which a CEQA Lead Agency may not claim a Categorical Exemption that would otherwise be appropriate. These include: (a) Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located -- a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply all instances, except where the project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies. (b) Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. (c) Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. 2-6 Cont. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 282 Review of Proposed Canyon Loop Trail Project, Diamond Bar Hamilton Biological, Inc. October 14, 2019 Page 3 of 7 As reviewed subsequently, the City appears to have improperly claimed Categorical Exemptions for recent trail projects that have adversely affected natural areas known to support listed and otherwise sensitive species. This practice should not be allowed to continue. IMPROPER USE OF CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIONS As reviewed in my above-referenced letter to you, I am aware of two recent City pro- jects that impacted natural habitat areas known to be occupied by special-status species. As context for evaluating the current proposal to improve Canyon Loop Trail under a Categorical Exemption, these recent projects are briefly summarized below. Pantera Park: Dog Park and Trail Construction In Pantera Park between 2013 and 2017, the City established a dog park adjacent to a highly sensitive hillside of coastal sage scrub, and established a new trail through that same hillside of coastal sage scrub. Please see Figures 1–3 on the following page. I have not been able to find any CEQA documentation for these actions, and have been in- formed that the City undertook them under Categorical Exemptions. Pantera Park is known to be occupied by the federally threatened Coastal California Gnatcatcher and by the “coastal” Cactus Wren, a California Species of Special Concern that is known to be rapidly declining across the region. Records of these species at Pantera Park are doc- umented here: •https://ebird.org/view/checklist/S37560358 •https://ebird.org/view/checklist/S51324514 Under CEQA, the loss, degradation, and fragmentation of sensitive natural communi- ties, such as coastal sage scrub and cactus scrub, and associated special-status species, such as the California Gnatcatcher and Cactus Wren, should be identified as significant adverse effects. Any unavoidable significant impacts must be mitigated, and if poten- tially significant effects remain after mitigation the CEQA lead agency must issue find- ings of overriding considerations. Under the federal Endangered Species Act, “take” of any listed species, such as the gnatcatcher, requires authorization from the US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2-6 Cont. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 283 Review of Proposed Canyon Loop Trail Project, Diamond Bar Hamilton Biological, Inc. October 14, 2019 Page 4 of 7 Figure 1. Photo, facing northeast, show- ing the Pantera Park dog park, estab- lished in 2013, and a trail established in 2017. The City appears not to have pre- pared an EIR to evaluate potential im- pacts to California Gnatcatchers, Cactus Wrens, or other special-status species known to occur in this park. Robert A. Hamilton, 1/4/19. Figure 2. Aerial image from Google Earth, dated March 7, 2011, showing largely intact stands of coastal sage scrub and cactus scrub pre-project. Figure 3. Aerial image from Google Earth, dated June 8, 2018, showing the post-project condition of the dog park and trail area. Substantial areas of coastal sage scrub were removed, frag- mented, and degraded by increased levels of human/canine disturbance. 2-6 Cont. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 284 Review of Proposed Canyon Loop Trail Project, Diamond Bar Hamilton Biological, Inc. October 14, 2019 Page 5 of 7 Summitridge Park: Trail Construction In Summitridge Park, just south of the Canyon Loop Trail, the City in 2017 established a new trail through highly sensitive coastal sage scrub occupied by California Gnatcatch- ers and Cactus Wrens: •https://ebird.org/view/checklist/S51487531 I have been informed that this action was also conducted under a Categorical Exemp- tion to CEQA that should not have been granted per Section 15300.2 of Article 19. This action also appears to have violated the federal Endangered Species Act. See Figures 4 and 5, below. Figures 4, 5. Aerial images from Google Earth, dated April 23, 2014 (left) and June 8, 2018 (right), showing the area of intact cactus scrub where a major trail was established in 2014/2015. Substantial areas of this sensitive community, known to be occupied by California Gnatcatchers and Cactus Wrens, were removed, fragmented, and degraded by increased levels of human disturbance. 2-6 Cont. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 285 Review of Proposed Canyon Loop Trail Project, Diamond Bar Hamilton Biological, Inc. October 14, 2019 Page 6 of 7 SENSITIVE RESOURCES IN THE CANYON LOOP TRAIL AREA I have not walked the entire Canyon Loop Trail, but during two brief visits in January 2019 I documented multiple pairs of California Gnatcatchers and Cactus Wrens along the southern part of the Canyon Loop Trail and in nearby areas (see Figure 6, below, and the eBird checklists cited and linked on pages 3 and 5 of this letter). Coastal sage scrub and cactus scrub habitats along the Canyon Loop Trail have potential to support additional pairs of these species, as well as several other special-status species. Figure 6. Locations of California Gnatcatchers and Cactus Wrens observed near the Canyon Loop trail by Robert A. Hamilton in January 2019. Please refer to the eBird checklists cited in this letter for documentary photographs of these birds. CEQA AND PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS Activities that impact the habitat of a listed or otherwise highly sensitive species, such as the California Gnatcatcher and “coastal” Cactus Wren, are normally identified as sig- nificant impacts under CEQA. Thus, in compliance with Section 15300.2 of Article 19 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City should not issue itself a Categorical Exemption for these proposed actions. Instead, current, appropriate biological surveys should be conducted as part of routine CEQA review of the proposed actions. Potentially significant impacts should be avoided or mitigated, per CEQA requirements. 2-6 Cont. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 286 Review of Proposed Canyon Loop Trail Project, Diamond Bar Hamilton Biological, Inc. October 14, 2019 Page 7 of 7 Furthermore, (a) the US Fish and Wildlife Service should be notified of any actions that could result in “take” of the federally threatened California Gnatcatcher, and (b) the California Department of Fish and Wildlife should be notified of any proposed altera- tion of any watercourse with bed and banks. CONCLUSION I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the City of Diamond Bar’s proposed Can- yon Loop Trail improvements project. If you have questions, or wish to discuss any matters, please do not hesitate to call me at (562) 477-2181 or send e-mail to robb@ham- iltonbiological.com. Sincerely, Robert A. Hamilton President, Hamilton Biological, Inc. 316 Monrovia Avenue Long Beach, CA 90803 562-477-2181 robb@hamiltonbiological.com cc: Dan Fox, Manager, City of Diamond Bar Christine Medak, US Fish and Wildlife Service Victoria Tang, California Department of Fish and Wildlife Andrew Valand, California Department of Fish and Wildlife Angelica Gonzalez, Conservation Program Coordinator, Sierra Club Angeles Chapter Robin Smith, Chair, Diamond Bar-Pomona Valley Sierra Club Task Force Dr. Chia Teng, Diamond Bar Preservation Foundation Lee Paulson, President, Responsible Land Use 2-6 Cont. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 287 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 2-37 Responses to Comments RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER NO. 2 C. Robin Smith Sierra Club November 16, 2020 2-1 This comment includes introductory language to the letter. It does not pertain to the adequacy of the environmental analysis within the IS/MND, and no further response is required. 2-2 This comment references the Diamond Bar Parks and Recreation Master Plan 2011. While the Canyon Loop Trail is identified as a component of the Summit Ridge Trail System in the Master Plan, this comment does not raise any concerns specific to the environmental analysis provided in the IS/MND. The City has prepared an IS/MND for the Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project, which analyzes project-level and cumulative impacts associated with its implementation. This comment also references the comment letters submitted by CDFW and Hamilton Biological; refer to Response to Comment Letter Nos. 1 (above) and 3 (below). 2-3 The City acknowledges the biological value of the project site and surrounding area and the suitable habitat it provides for California gnatcatcher and cactus wren. The City is committed to minimizing impacts to sensitive biological species, and has conducted a comprehensive analysis of project impacts, including preparation of a Biological Resources Analysis and focused surveys for the California gnatcatcher and cactus wren. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the IS/MND and include the refinement of several measures to accommodate concerns expressed by CDFW (refer to Response to Comment Letter No. 1). It should be noted that no invasive landscaping would be included as part of the proposed project. 2-4 This comment provides a conclusion to the comment letter. The commenter will be notified of public hearings for the project as necessary under CEQA and the City’s public noticing requirements. No further response is required. 2-5 This comment letter includes numerous exhibits as attachments. Exhibit A, Diamond Bark Parks and Recreation Master Plan 2011, is over 400 pages in length, and thus, has not been provided herein. However, it is available for review at https://www.diamondbarca.gov/195/Parks-Master-Plan. A response to Exhibit B, Hamilton Biological Letter, October 14, 2019, has been provided as Response 2-6, below. A response to Exhibit C, CDFW Project Comments, has been provided as Response to Comment Letter No. 1, above. Finally, a response to Exhibit D, Hamilton Biological Canyon Loop Comments has been provided as Response to Comment Letter No. 3, below. 2-6 This comment from Hamilton Biological dated October 14, 2019, objects to the use of a Categorical Exemption for the proposed project. The City has prepared an IS/MND for the Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project, and a categorical exemption has not been used for the proposed project. This comment also notes several previous improvements implemented by the City, including the Pantera Dog Park and portions of Canyon Loop Trail; refer to Responses 3-2 and 3-3, below. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 288 H AMILTON B IOLOGICAL November 16, 2020 Ryan Wright, Parks and Recreation Director City of Diamond Bar 21810 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA Dear Mr. Wright, Working on behalf of a consortium of Diamond Bar residents, including Diamond Bar Preservation Foundation, Responsible Land Use, and the Diamond Bar/Pomona Valley Sierra Club Task Force, Hamilton Biological, Inc., (hereafter “Hamilton Biological”) has reviewed an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project in the City of Diamond Bar (the City). The project pro- poses trail widening along most of the South Canyon Loop, provision of gabion retain- ing walls, stairs with handrails and cobblestone swales, drainage crossings, shade struc- tures with benches/trash receptacles, lodge pole fences, and wayfinding/interpretive signage. PERMITTING MUST ADDRESS ILLEGALLY ESTABLISHED TRAILS The current proposal to improve Canyon Loop Trail under the IS/MND represents a continuation of actions the City has been taking over a period of years to establish ex- tensive new trails through sensitive habitats, all without required CEQA review or the requisite permits. As reviewed below, the City has failed to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) regarding actions that have removed, fragmented, and disturbed substantial areas of high-quality coastal sage scrub occupied by multiple special-status species, most nota- bly the Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) and the Coastal Cactus Wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus). Canyon Loop Trail Construction (2004 to Present) As of April 10, 2004, the current Canyon Loop Trail was not a loop at all; rather, it was a direct trail connecting Meandering Creek Drive in the west to Peak Court in the east. By 2013, however, the City established the southern half of the Canyon Loop Trail. This was followed by construction of a major new trail connecting the southern half of the Canyon Loop Trail to Summitridge Trail to the south, and after that a short cut-through on the southern part of the Canyon Loop Trail. See Figures 1–5 on the following pages. &200(17/(77(5 3-2 5.2.b Packet Pg. 289 Comments on Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project IS/MND, Diamond Bar Hamilton Biological, Inc. November 16, 2020 Page 2 of 8 Figure 1. Aerial photo dated April 10, 2004, showing that the southern half of the Canyon Loop Trail did not exist at that time. Source: Google Earth Pro. Figure 2. Recent aerial photo showing in color 5,210 linear feet of trails that the City has built through sensitive coastal sage scrub (~3,850 linear feet) and oak woodland (~1,360 feet) without proper CEQA review or con- sulting with the USFWS or CDFW. The red segment was established in 2011-2013; the blue segment was established in 2014-2015; and the magenta segment was established in 2015-2016 (see Figures 3 to 5). Source: Google Earth Pro. &RQW 3-2 5.2.b Packet Pg. 290 Comments on Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project IS/MND, Diamond Bar Hamilton Biological, Inc. November 16, 2020 Page 3 of 8 Figure 3. Aerial photo dated March 13, 2013, a year or two after the City built the southern half of the Canyon Loop Trail (red segment in Figure 2). The new trail impacted ~2,400 linear feet of coastal sage scrub habitat occupied by the California Gnatcatcher. Source: Google Earth Pro. Figure 4. Aerial photo dated March 24, 2015, shortly after the City built a new trail southern half of the Canyon Loop Trail (blue segment in Figure 2). The new trail impacted ~2,400 linear feet of coastal sage scrub and ~1,360 linear feet of oak woodland (CDFW jurisdictional area). Source: Google Earth Pro. &RQW 3-2 5.2.b Packet Pg. 291 Comments on Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project IS/MND, Diamond Bar Hamilton Biological, Inc. November 16, 2020 Page 4 of 8 Figure 5. Aerial photo dated May 2, 2019, showing all of the unpermitted trails, including a ~250-foot-long cut-through of a switch-back on the Canyon Loop Trail (the magenta segment in Figure 2). Source: Google Earth Pro. If the unpermitted trails average 8 feet wide, the area of habitat loss is approximately 41,680 square feet (0.96 acre). Approximately 19,250 square feet (0.71 acre) involves coastal sage scrub and 10,880 square feet (0.25 acre) involves oak woodland. More im- portant than the direct loss of habitat, however, is the indirect impact resulting from habitat fragmentation and increased disturbance of wildlife by people and their animals intruding into otherwise pristine blocks of native scrub and woodland habitats. It is my understanding that these trail construction projects were not subject to proper CEQA review because the City claimed, incorrectly, that the projects were categorically exempt from CEQA. Furthermore, the City apparently did not consult with the USFWS or CDFW to determine whether the projects could potentially impact sensitive biologi- cal resources, such as intact coastal sage scrub occupied by the federally listed Califor- nia Gnatcatcher, or native oak woodlands subject to CDFW jurisdiction. These deficien- cies must be addressed at this time, since the unpermitted trails were established in violation of the applicable laws and regulations. Pantera Park: Dog Park and Trail Construction (2013-2017) In nearby Pantera Park, between 2011 and 2017, the City established a dog park adja- cent to a hillside of coastal sage scrub occupied by California Gnatcatchers and Cactus Wrens, and then built a massive, winding trail through the scrub; see Figures 6 and 7 on the following page. When the City consults with the USFWS and CDFW regarding the Canyon Loop Trail project, these unpermitted impacts should be addressed. &RQW 3-2 3-3 5.2.b Packet Pg. 292 Comments on Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project IS/MND, Diamond Bar Hamilton Biological, Inc. November 16, 2020 Page 5 of 8 Figure 6. Aerial photo dated March 7, 2011, showing coastal sage scrub in the southeastern part of Pantera Park, approximately 0.6 mile northeast of the Canyon Loop Trail project site. This scrub habitat is occupied by California Gnatcatchers and Cactus Wrens (pers. obs.; eBird data). Source: Google Earth Pro. Figure 7. Aerial photo dated December 3, 2017, showing the same area after the City built a dog park and a large trail in the area, again without required CEQA review or consultation with the USFWS or CDFW. The area of impact should be determined and compensatory mitigation provided. Source: Google Earth Pro. &RQW 3-3 5.2.b Packet Pg. 293 Comments on Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project IS/MND, Diamond Bar Hamilton Biological, Inc. November 16, 2020 Page 6 of 8 THE COASTAL CACTUS WREN IS A SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES Page 4.4-4 of the IS/MND states: Although multiple territories of cactus wren were observed onsite, the survey area is well outside the known range for the coastal sandiegensis subspecies, which ends around State Route 74 based on CDFW mapping. And: Cactus wren in Los Angeles County are considered to be of the non-sensitive subspecies C.b. anthonyi, although it should be noted that many of the birds on the coast, including the ones in the survey area, show characteristics, such as the extent of white barring in the tail feathers, typically associated with the sensitive CCACW. Contrary to the IS/MND’s depiction, coastal populations of the Cactus Wren in south- ern California (not only subspecies sandiegensis, which is of questionable legitimacy as currently described) are regarded as having special status by the resource agencies. For example, the USFWS publication Birds of Conservation Concern1 identifies all coastal populations of the Cactus Wren in southern California as being of conservation concern. Despite the species having been identified as a “target species” of Natural Community Conservation Planning efforts to conserve coastal sage scrub and associated species across the region, Coastal Cactus Wrens are becoming increasingly rare in most areas, and are generally faring more poorly than the federally listed Coastal California Gnat- catcher. The causes of the Coastal Cactus Wren’s decline are not fully understood, but appear to involve the widespread loss, fragmentation, and degradation of its required cactus scrub habitat2. As of a decade ago, only about 200 pairs of Cactus Wrens were known from the coastal slope of Los Angeles County3. The species is very rare in Diamond Bar, being limited to a small number of pairs in Summitridge Park, Pantera Park, and possibly a few stands of cactus around the edges of the City4. The proposed project, considered together with the City’s previous impacts to the species from building of unpermitted trails without proper CEQA review, will significantly impact the Coastal Cactus Wren through loss, fragmentation, and degradation of cactus scrub habitat. Compensatory mitigation should consist of ecological restoration of cactus scrub habitat, at a minimum 5:1 ratio, in degraded habitat areas located near extant populations of the Cactus Wren in Sum- mitridge Park and/or Pantera Park. 1 https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/management/BCC2008.pdf 2 Hamilton, R. A., Proudfoot, G. A., Sherry, D. A., and Johnson, S. 2011. Cactus Wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus), in The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, ed.). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. 3 Cooper, D. S., R. A. Hamilton, and S. D. Lucas. 2012. A population census of the Cactus Wren in coastal Los Angeles County. Western Birds 43:151–163. 4 https://www.diamondbarca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/7072/Diamond-Bar-General-Plan- 2040?bidId=. &RQW 3-53-4 5.2.b Packet Pg. 294 Comments on Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project IS/MND, Diamond Bar Hamilton Biological, Inc. November 16, 2020 Page 7 of 8 ALL SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS TO SENSITIVE RESOURCES REQUIRE COMPENSATORY MITIGATION Mitigation Measure BIO-2 in the IS/MND calls for the City to obtain an Incidental Take Permit for impacts to the California Gnatcatcher, and envisions the City obtaining “a low-effect habitat conservation plan (HCP)” from the USFWS based on a conclusion that the proposed actions would have only minimal effects on the California Gnat- catcher. By erroneously characterizing the Coastal Cactus Wren as being “non-sensi- tive” in the City of Diamond Bar, Mitigation Measure BIO-2 mistakenly concludes that impacts to the wren are less than significant and require no compensatory mitigation. The types of mitigation actions described in Mitigation Measure BIO-2 (e.g., precon- struction nesting surveys for California Gnatcatchers, avoidance of active nests, envi- ronmental training of personnel) fail to compensate for the City’s unpermitted construc- tion of the Canyon Loop Trail and other major trails documented in this letter. All of the City’s unpermitted trail-building actions in recent years, together with the trail im- provements now proposed in the IS/MND, represent potentially significant impacts to the last viable populations of the Coastal California Gnatcatcher and Coastal Cactus Wren in the City of Diamond Bar. Also impacted are ecologically sensitive and valuable oak woodlands and streambeds. Therefore, when the City consults with the USFWS and CDFW, the City should be required to accurately document and account for the unper- mitted impacts to all sensitive biological resources, as outlined herein. The USFWS and CDFW should require that the City provide adequate compensatory mitigation for all impacts to sensitive biological resources, including streambeds, oak woodlands, coastal sage scrub, and especially cactus scrub that provides habitat for both the California Gnatcatcher and the Coastal Cactus Wren. CONCLUSION If you have questions, or wish to discuss any matters, please do not hesitate to call me at (562) 477-2181 or send e-mail to robb@hamiltonbiological.com. Sincerely, Robert A. Hamilton President, Hamilton Biological, Inc. 316 Monrovia Avenue Long Beach, CA 90803 562-477-2181 robb@hamiltonbiological.com 3-6 3-7 3-5 3-6 5.2.b Packet Pg. 295 Comments on Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project IS/MND, Diamond Bar Hamilton Biological, Inc. November 16, 2020 Page 8 of 8 cc: Greg Gubman, City of Diamond Bar Christine Medak, US Fish and Wildlife Service Erinn Wilson-Olgin, California Department of Fish and Wildlife Victoria Tang, California Department of Fish and Wildlife Andrew Valand, California Department of Fish and Wildlife Morgan Goodman, Conservation Program Coordinator, Sierra Club Angeles Chapter Robin Smith, Chair, Diamond Bar-Pomona Valley Sierra Club Task Force Dr. Chia Teng, Diamond Bar Preservation Foundation Lee Paulson, President, Responsible Land Use Travis Longcore, President, Los Angeles Audubon Society Dan Cooper, Cooper Ecological Monitoring 5.2.b Packet Pg. 296 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 2-46 Responses to Comments RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER NO. 3 Robert A. Hamilton, President Hamilton Biological, Inc. November 16, 2020 3-1 This comment includes introductory language and a summary of the project description. It does not pertain to the adequacy of the environmental analysis within the IS/MND, and no further response is required. 3-2 This comment states that the proposed project represents a continuance of actions the City has previously taken without conducting CEQA review or acquiring resource agency permits. The commenter provides aerial photographs depicting the Canyon Loop Trail at various times since 2004. At its most basic level, CEQA requires an analysis of how a proposed project will change the existing environmental conditions, also known as the environmental baseline (CEQA Guidelines § 15125[a]). Generally, the environmental baseline is the environmental conditions that exist at the time that environmental review begins (CEQA Guidelines § 15125[a][1]). This is true no matter how those conditions came to be (see, e.g., Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach [2012] 211 Cal.App.4th 1209, 1233 [proper baseline for evaluating impacts to habitat was the existing condition of the site, even if the site may have been degraded by illegal mowing]). Here, the Canyon Loop Trail has been in existence for decades. It was created through human and/or wildlife passage – not by the City. Thus, the existing environmental conditions for the current project, or baseline, include an existing trail. This was the case each time the City previously improved other portions of the trail. The commenter notes that the South Canyon Loop Trail did not exist as of 2004; however, based on Google Earth aerial imagery dating back to 1994, the South Canyon Loop is clearly visible as an unimproved trail. In any event, the statute of limitations regarding the City’s prior trail improvements has long expired, including the Notice of Exemption (NOE) filed on September 14, 2009 for the Southern Trail Connection to Canyon Route; NOE filed on October 22, 2010 for the Summitridge Park Southern Trail Vista; and the NOE filed on October 12, 2011 for the Grand View Trail Link. The City acknowledges the biological value of the project site and surrounding area and the suitable habitat it provides for California gnatcatcher and cactus wren. The City is committed to minimizing impacts to sensitive biological species, and has conducted a comprehensive analysis of project impacts, including preparation of a Biological Resources Analysis and focused surveys for the California gnatcatcher and cactus wren. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the IS/MND and include the refinement of several measures to accommodate concerns expressed by CDFW (refer to Response to Comment Letter No. 1). These measures fully mitigate the impacts of the project as proposed within the IS/MND, and no further mitigation is required under CEQA. 3-3 This comment states that the City did not adequately analyze or permit improvements associated with the Dog Park at Pantera Park Project. This dog park is located over 0.5-mile northeast of the project site, the impacts of which are unrelated to the proposed Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project. However, it should be noted that the City completed an IS/MND for the dog park, with a Notice of Determination approved for the project in March 2012. As a result, the statute of limitations regarding this project expired over eight years ago. 3-4 This comment is mostly for informational purposes to state that the Draft IS/MND incorrectly classifies the sensitivity of on-site Cactus Wrens (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus) and to state that the entire population 5.2.b Packet Pg. 297 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 2-47 Responses to Comments of cactus wrens in coastal southern California is considered as a bird of conservation concern by the USFWS. It further clarifies local status and declines in coastal Los Angeles County. Finally, the comment recommends that compensatory mitigation of cactus scrub habitat be conducted at a minimum 5:1 ratio in degraded habitat near extant Cactus Wren populations in Summitridge Park and/or Pantera Park. The City of Diamond Bar is currently evaluating mitigation options between a conservation bank and on-site restoration in order to meet the mitigation requirements of the CDFW and will finalize exact mitigation details based on consultations with the CDFW. 3-5 This comment states that the IS/MND has discounted impacts to Cactus Wren by incorrectly addressing its sensitivity and requiring no compensatory mitigation. The CDFW will be requiring compensatory mitigation for project-related impacts to coast prickly pear scrub and California sagebrush – black sagebrush scrub, the two habitat types that on-site Cactus Wrens were found to be inhabiting during surveys conducted in 2020. Because these two communities will be mitigated for, no further response is necessary. This comment also reiterates concerns regarding previous City actions and improvements allegedly without CEQA review and acquisition of resource agency permits; refer to Response 3-2, above. 3-6 This comment provides a conclusion to the letter and contact information for the commenter. No response is necessary. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 298 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 2-48 Responses to Comments This page intentionally left blank. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 299 PART III – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 5.2.b Packet Pg. 300 5.2.b Packet Pg. 301 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 3.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CEQA requires that when a public agency completes an environmental document which includes measures to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects, the public agency must adopt a reporting or monitoring plan. This requirement ensures that environmental impacts found to be significant will be mitigated. The reporting or monitoring plan must be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). In compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared for the proposed Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project. This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is intended to provide verification that all mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study prepared for the project are monitored and reported. Monitoring will include 1) verification that each mitigation measure has been implemented; 2) recordation of the actions taken to implement each mitigation; and 3) retention of records in the project file. This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program delineates responsibilities for monitoring the project, but also allows the City of Diamond Bar and discretion in determining how best to monitor implementation. Monitoring procedures will vary according to the type of mitigation measure. Adequate monitoring consists of demonstrating that monitoring procedures took place and that mitigation measures were implemented. Reporting consists of establishing a record that a mitigation measure is being implemented, and generally involves the following steps:  The City distributes reporting forms to the appropriate entities for verification of compliance.  Departments/agencies with reporting responsibilities will review the Initial Study, which provides general background information on the reasons for including specified mitigation measures.  Problems or exceptions to compliance will be addressed to the City as appropriate.  Periodic meetings may be held during project implementation to report on compliance of mitigation measures.  Responsible parties provide the City with verification that monitoring has been conducted and ensure, as applicable, that mitigation measures have been implemented. Monitoring compliance may be documented through existing review and approval programs such as field inspection reports and plan review.  The City prepares a reporting form periodically during the construction phase and an annual report summarizing all project mitigation monitoring efforts.  Appropriate mitigation measures will be included in construction documents and/or conditions of permits/approvals. Minor changes to the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, if required, would be made in accordance with CEQA and would be permitted after further review and approval by the City. Such changes could include reassignment of monitoring and reporting responsibilities, plan redesign to make any appropriate improvements, and/or modification, substitution or deletion of mitigation measures subject to conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. No change will be permitted unless the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program continues to satisfy the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 302 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program This page intentionally left blank. 5.2.b Packet Pg. 303 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING CHECKLIST Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Monitoring and Reporting Process Monitoring Milestones Party Responsible for Monitoring VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks AESTHETICS AES-1 To minimize construction-related impacts to scenic vistas and the visual character and quality of the project area, the project contractor shall ensure that all construction materials, heavy-duty equipment, and debris piles are staged and screened from public view in a designated construction staging area. Staging areas shall be approved and subject to periodic field inspections by the City of Diamond Bar Parks and Recreation Department, or responsible designee(s). Review and Approval of Final Plans Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit; During Construction Construction Contractor; City of Diamond Bar Parks and Recreation Department or Responsible Designee(s) BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES BIO-1 Prior to construction and during the appropriate blooming periods for special-status plant species with the potential to occur within the survey area, a qualified botanist shall conduct a focused rare plant survey in areas with suitable habitat to determine presence or absence of special-status plant species. The surveys shall be floristic in nature (i.e., identifying all plant species to the taxonomic level necessary to determine rarity), and shall be inclusive of, at a minimum, the areas proposed for trail improvements and those immediately surrounding those areas. The results of the survey shall be documented in a letter report. If individual or populations of special-status plant species are found within the areas proposed for disturbance, measures to avoid and minimize impacts shall be recommended. The surveys and reporting shall follow 2018 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and/or 2001 California Native Plant Society guidelines. Although not expected, if State- and/or Federally-listed plant species are present and avoidance is Rare Plant Surveys Conducted by Qualified Botanist Prior to Construction and During Appropriate Blooming Periods Project Botanist; City of Diamond Bar; USFWS; CDFW 5.2.bPacket Pg. 304 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Monitoring and Reporting Process Monitoring Milestones Party Responsible for Monitoring VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks infeasible, consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or CDFW shall be required and an Incidental Take Permit(s) from the USFWS and/or CDFW shall be obtained prior to the commencement of project activities. BIO-2 In consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the City of Diamond Bar Parks and Recreation Department shall obtain an Incidental Take Permit and prepare a low-effect habitat conservation plan (HCP) to permit removal of habitat suitable for and/or used by sensitive wildlife species, particularly coastal California gnatcatchers (Polioptila californica californica) known to occur on-site. Avoidance and minimization measures that may be required in a low-effect HCP for the proposed project, subject to consultation with the USFWS, include, but are not limited to, preconstruction nesting surveys for coastal California gnatcatcher and avoidance of any active nests or scheduling of work outside of the gnatcatcher nesting season, environmental training for all construction personnel, biological monitoring during initial vegetation removal, closing and restoration of any extraneous trail sections or breeding habitat to recreational use, provisions for pets (leashed pets, removal of pet waste), locations of trash receptacles, and on-site restoration and preservation of coastal sage scrub communities within the survey area (i.e., in the vicinity of the impacts). Incidental Take Permit Acquisition/ Preparation of HCP Resource Agency Permit Review; Prior to Construction Activities Project Biologist; City of Diamond Bar; USFWS; CDFW BIO-3 Project construction, equipment staging, mobilization, grading, ground disturbance activities, and vegetation removal shall be completed outside the avian breeding season. The City of Diamond Bar shall not perform any project construction or activities or remove or otherwise disturb vegetation on the project Completion of Preconstruction Nesting Surveys Prior to the Start of Construction Within 500-Foot Buffer of Project Site Project Biologist; City of Diamond Bar; USFWS 5.2.bPacket Pg. 305 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 5 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Monitoring and Reporting Process Monitoring Milestones Party Responsible for Monitoring VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks site, or adjacent to the site, from February 15 to August 31, and as early as January 1, to avoid impacts to breeding/nesting birds and raptors. However, if avoidance of the avian breeding season is infeasible and if project-related construction activities are initiated during the nesting season for coastal California gnatcatcher (CAGN; Polioptila californica californica) and cactus wren (CACW; Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus) (February 15th through September 15th), a nesting bird clearance survey shall be conducted within seven days prior to the start of construction within a 500-foot buffer of the project site. The survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist with demonstrable experience identifying CAGN and CACW nesting behavior and finding their nests, and who has been approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to conduct a CAGN survey. If an active CAGN or CACW nest is found during the survey, no project-related construction shall be allowed within 500 feet of an active CAGN nest or 300 feet of an active CACW nest, or within an alternative safe distance as determined by the qualified biologist based on topography, visual shielding, nest progress, and the type of construction and associated disturbance, until the active nest has been determined by the qualified biologist to have failed or to have successfully gone to completion (i.e., the nestlings have fledged and are no longer reliant on the nest). Results of the nesting bird clearance survey, shall be compiled in a memorandum and submitted to the City and the USFWS for project records. 5.2.bPacket Pg. 306 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 6 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Monitoring and Reporting Process Monitoring Milestones Party Responsible for Monitoring VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks BIO-4 The City of Diamond Bar shall protect special-status wildlife resources during construction. A qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction clearance survey prior to any ground disturbance and/or vegetation removal to search for special-status wildlife resources that may be present within the construction area. The biologist shall be thoroughly familiar with the habitat requirements and life histories of special-status species that could occur. The biologist shall submit survey results, including negative results, to CDFW following the survey and prior to the start of construction. If project-related activities are to be initiated during the general avian nesting season (January 1st through August 31st), a pre-construction nesting bird clearance survey shall be conducted within a 500-foot radius of the project footprint by a qualified biologist no more than 14 days prior to the start of any vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities. The qualified biologist shall survey all suitable nesting habitat at appropriate nesting times within the project’s development footprint, and areas within a biologically-defensible buffer zone surrounding the project’s development footprint. If no active nests are detected during the clearance survey, project activities may begin, and no additional avoidance and minimization measures would be required. If project activities are delayed or suspended for more than 7 days during the breeding season, surveys shall be repeated before work can resume. If an active nest is found, the bird species shall be identified and a “no-disturbance” buffer shall be established around the active nest. Buffers shall be clearly delineated and marked around the active nest Completion of Preconstruction Clearance Survey/Nesting Bird Survey Prior to the Start of Ground Disturbance or Vegetation Removal Project Biologist; City of Diamond Bar 5.2.bPacket Pg. 307 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 7 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Monitoring and Reporting Process Monitoring Milestones Party Responsible for Monitoring VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks site as directed by the qualified biologist. The buffer shall be 300 feet around active passerine (perching birds and songbirds) nests, 500 feet around active non-listed raptor nests, and 0.5-mile around active California Endangered Species Act (CESA)-listed bird nests. The qualified biologist shall advise workers of the sensitivity of the buffered areas, and workers shall not work, trespass, or engage in activities that would disturb nesting birds near or inside the buffer. The qualified biologist shall periodically monitor any active nests to determine if project-related activities occurring outside the “no-disturbance” buffer disturb the birds and if the buffer should be increased. Once the young have fledged and left the nest, or the nest otherwise becomes inactive under natural conditions, project activities within the “no-disturbance” buffer may occur following an additional survey by the qualified biologist to search for any new nests in the restricted area. A qualified biological monitor approved by CDFW shall be present during vegetation removal or grubbing activities. Any special-status wildlife that is found within the construction area shall be encouraged to move elsewhere or shall be physically moved out of harm’s way by the biologist if necessary. The biological monitor shall have the necessary state and/or federal permits or letters of permission from the wildlife agencies to relocate wildlife as necessary. CULTURAL RESOURCES CUL-1 If previously unidentified cultural resources are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work in the immediate area shall halt and a qualified archaeologist, defined as an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology, shall be During Construction; Preparation of Treatment Plan (If Resources are Found) During Ground-Disturbing Activities Construction Contractor; City of Diamond Bar; Project Archaeologist (If Necessary) 5.2.bPacket Pg. 308 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 8 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Monitoring and Reporting Process Monitoring Milestones Party Responsible for Monitoring VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks contacted by the City of Diamond Bar Parks and Recreation Director, or designated designee, immediately to evaluate the find. If necessary, the evaluation may require preparation of a treatment plan and archaeological testing for California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) eligibility. If the discovery proves to be eligible for the CRHR and cannot be avoided by project activities, additional work, such as data recovery excavation, may be warranted to mitigate any significant impacts to historical resources. In the event that an identified cultural resource is of Native American origin, the qualified archaeologist shall consult with the City of Diamond Bar Parks and Recreation Department staff to implement Native American consultation procedures. GEOLOGY AND SOILS GEO-1 If evidence of subsurface paleontological resources is found during construction, excavation and other construction activity in that area shall cease and the construction contractor shall contact the City of Diamond Bar Community Development Director. With direction from the Community Development Director, a paleontologist certified by the County of Los Angeles shall evaluate the find prior to resuming grading in the immediate vicinity of the find. If warranted, the paleontologist shall prepare and complete a standard Paleontological Resources Mitigation Program for the salvage and curation of the identified resources. Review of Paleontological Resources Mitigation Program (if Resources are Found); During Construction During Construction, Excavation and Other Construction Activity City of Diamond Bar; Project Paleontologist; Construction Contractor NOISE NOI-1 Prior to the initiation of construction, the City of Diamond Bar Director of Public Works, or authorized agents (such as the City’s Public Works Manager/Assistant City Engineer) acting within the scope of the particular duties delegated to them, shall Review of Project Plans and Specifications Periodic Site Inspections Construction Contractor; City of Diamond Bar 5.2.bPacket Pg. 309 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 9 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Monitoring and Reporting Process Monitoring Milestones Party Responsible for Monitoring VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks ensure that all project plans and specifications stipulate that:  All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers and other State-required noise attenuation devices.  A construction notice shall be mailed to residents within a 500-foot radius of the project and shall indicate the dates and duration of construction activities, as well as provide a City of Diamond Bar staff contact name and a telephone number where residents can inquire about the construction process and register complaints.  Construction haul routes shall be designed to avoid noise sensitive uses to the maximum extent feasible (e.g., residences etc.).  During construction, stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers.  Construction equipment staging areas shall be located away from adjacent sensitive receptors.  Pursuant to City of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 8.12.720, all construction activities associated with the proposed project shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and on Saturdays. Construction on Sundays and Federal holidays shall be prohibited. 5.2.bPacket Pg. 310 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 10 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Monitoring and Reporting Process Monitoring Milestones Party Responsible for Monitoring VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES TCR-1 Prior to the commencement of any ground disturbing activity at the project site, the City of Diamond Bar shall retain a Native American monitor. The Native American monitor shall be selected from a tribe that has requested that a monitor be present, and in which the project site is within their ancestral region of occupation. The Native American monitor shall only be present on-site during the construction phases that involve ground-disturbing activities. Ground disturbing activities are defined as activities that may include, but are not limited to, grubbing, tree removals, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching. The Native American monitor shall complete daily monitoring logs that shall provide descriptions of the day’s activities, including construction activities, locations, soil, and any cultural materials identified. The on-site monitoring shall end when all ground-disturbing activities on the project site are completed, or when the Native American monitor has indicated that all upcoming ground-disturbing activities at the project site have little to no potential for impacting tribal cultural resources. Native American Monitoring During Construction Prior to Commencement of Any Ground Disturbing Activity Native American Monitor; Construction Contractor; City of Diamond Bar TCR-2 In the event tribal cultural resources are discovered during project construction, construction activities shall cease in the immediate vicinity of the find (not less than the surrounding 50 feet) until the find can be assessed. All tribal cultural resources unearthed by project activities shall be evaluated by the Native American monitor and a qualified archaeologist if one is present. If the resources are Native American in origin, the affected tribe will retain it/them in the form and/or manner the tribe deems appropriate, for educational, cultural and/or historic purposes. Work may continue in other parts of the project site while evaluation and any required recovery activities take Evaluation and Recovery of Any Tribal Cultural Resources Found During Construction In the Event Tribal Cultural Resources are Found Native American Monitor; Construction Contractor; City of Diamond Bar 5.2.bPacket Pg. 311 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Monitoring and Reporting Process Monitoring Milestones Party Responsible for Monitoring VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks place. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to remove the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. TCR-3 In the event human remains are encountered during project construction, said remains shall require proper treatment in accordance with Health and Safety Code 7050.5, which dictates that any discoveries of human skeletal material shall be immediately reported to the County Coroner and excavation halted until the coroner has determined the nature of the remains. If the coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, the coroner shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission and Public Resources Code (PRC) 5097.98 shall be followed. PRC 5097.98 requires identification of the “most likely descendent,” and that remains are investigated and that appropriate recommendations are made for treatment of the remains. Treatment of Human Remains (if Found During Construction) County Coroner to be Contacted Within 24 Hours of Find County Coroner; Construction Contractor; City of Diamond Bar 5.2.bPacket Pg. 312 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2021 12 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program This page intentionally left blank. 5.2.bPacket Pg. 313 5 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 500 | Santa Ana, CA 92707 Office: 949-472-3505 | Fax: 949-472-8373 July 10, 2020 JN 178669 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR Attn: Mr. Ryan Wright 21810 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 SUBJECT: Results of a Biological Resources Assessment of the Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project– City of Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, California Dear Mr. Wright: Michael Baker International (Michael Baker) is pleased to submit this report to the City of Diamond Bar documenting the results of a biological resources assessment of the Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project (project) located in the City of Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, California. Michael Baker conducted a literature review and a field survey to characterize existing site conditions and assess the potential for special-status 1 plant and wildlife species to occur on or within the immediate vicinity of the project site that could pose a constraint to future development. Specifically, this report provides a detailed assessment of the suitability of the on-site habitat to support special-status plant and wildlife species that were identified by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) RareFind 5 (CDFW 2020a), the CNDDB Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS; CDFW 2020b), the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (Online Inventory; CNPS 2020), and other databases as potentially occurring in the vicinity of the project site. Project Location The survey area include the project site plus a 500-foot buffer, and is generally located south of State Route 60, east of State Route 57, north of Grand Avenue, and west of Chino Hills Parkway in the City of Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, California (refer to Figure 1, Regional Vicinity, in Attachment A). The survey area is depicted in Sections 10, 11, 4, and 15 of Township 2 south, Range 9 west, on the United States Geological Survey’s (USGS) San Dimas, California 7.5-minute quadrangle (refer to Figure 2, Project Vicinity, in Attachment A; USGS 1981). Specifically, the survey area is located along the Canyon Loop Trail within Summitridge Park (refer to Figure 3, Survey Area, in Attachment A). 1 As used in this report, “special-status” refers to plant and wildlife species that are Federally-/State-listed, proposed, or candidates; plant species that have been designated a California Rare Plant Rank species by the California Native Plant Society; wildlife species that are designated by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife as Fully Protected, Species of Special Concern, or Watch List species; and State/locally rare vegetation communities. 5.2.c Packet Pg. 314 Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project 2 Biological Resources Assessment Report Project Description The City of Diamond Bar proposes to implement a series of improvements to the existing Canyon Loop Trail. The intent of the project is primarily to realign the trail, improve drainage to minimize erosion of the trail, enhance the use of the trail where the gradients are steep, re-grade cross slopes, and consider amenities such as directional and interpretive signage, rest areas with benches, small shade shelters, climbing steps with cobblestone swale channelization, and water diverting improvements where necessary. Such trail improvements will reward hikers and visitors with 360-degree views of open space. Proposed improvements are shown in Figure 4, Project Design, in Attachment A. Methodology Literature Review Prior to conducting the field survey, literature reviews and records searches were conducted for special- status biological resources potentially occurring on or within the vicinity of the survey area. Previous special-status plant and wildlife species occurrence records within the USGS Baldwin Park, San Dimas, Ontario, La Habra, Yorba Linda, and Prado Dam, California 7.5-minute quadrangles were determined through a query of the CNDDB (CDFW 2020a), BIOS (CDFW 2020b), the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC; USFWS 2020a), CNPS Online Inventory (CNPS 2020), and the Calflora Database (Calflora 2020). Current conservation status of species was verified through lists and resources provided by the CDFW(CDFW 2020c, 2020d). In addition, Michael Baker reviewed all available reports, survey results, and literature detailing the biological resources previously observed on or within the vicinity of the survey area to gain an understanding of existing site conditions, confirm previous species observations, and note the extent of any disturbances that have occurred within the survey area that would otherwise limit the distribution of special-status biological resources. Standard field guides and texts were reviewed for specific habitat requirements of special-status species, as well as the following resources: • City of Diamond Bar General Plan 2040 (Dyett and Bhatia 2019); • Google Earth Pro Historical Aerial Imagery from 1995 to 2019 (Google, Inc. 2019); • Los Angeles County General Plan (Los Angeles County Planning Department 2015); • Species Accounts provided by Birds of the World (Billerman et al. 2020); • United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service’s (USDA) Custom Soil Resource Report for Los Angeles County, California, Southeastern Part, (USDA 2020); • USFWS Critical Habitat Mapper and Environmental Conservation Online System (USFWS 2020b); and • CEQA Review, Canyon Loop Trail Project, City of Diamond Bar (Hamilton Biological 2019). Habitat Assessment Michael Baker biologists Stephen Anderson and Ryan Winkleman conducted a habitat assessment/field survey on May 6, 2020 to confirm existing site conditions within the 500-foot survey area. Limitations to site access included areas with extremely dense vegetation and/or steep slopes. Michael Baker extensively surveyed all special-status habitats and/or natural areas with a higher potential to support special-status 5.2.c Packet Pg. 315 Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project 3 Biological Resources Assessment Report plant and wildlife species, where accessible. Vegetation communities occurring within the survey area were mapped on an aerial photograph and classified in accordance with the vegetation descriptions provided in A Manual of California Vegetation (MCV; Sawyer et al. 2009) and cross referenced with the Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California (Holland 1986). In addition, site characteristics such as soil condition, topography, hydrology, anthropogenic disturbances, indicator species, condition of on-site vegetation communities, and the presence of potentially regulated jurisdictional features were noted. Michael Baker used Geographic Information Systems (GIS) ArcView software to digitize the mapped vegetation communities and then transferred these data onto an aerial photograph to further document existing conditions and quantify the acreage of each vegetation community. Refer to Table 1 below for a summary of the survey dates, timing, surveyors, and weather conditions. Table 1: Habitat Assessment Survey Date, Timing, Surveyors, and Weather Conditions Date Time (start / finish) Surveyors Weather Conditions Temperature (°F) (start / finish) Average Wind Speed (mph) May 6, 2020 0809 / 1154 Stephen Anderson Ryan Winkleman 70 sunny / 88 sunny 3 All plant and wildlife species observed, as well as dominant plant species within each vegetation community, were recorded. Plant species observed during the habitat assessment were identified by visual characteristics and morphology in the field while unusual and less familiar plant species were photographed and identified later using taxonomic guides. Plant nomenclature used in this report follows the Jepson Flora Project (2020) and scientific names are provided immediately following common names of plant species (first reference only). Wildlife detections were made through aural and visual detection, as well as observation of sign including scat, trails, tracks, burrows, and nests. Field guides used to assist with identification of species during the habitat assessment included The Sibley Guide to Birds (Sibley 2014) for birds, A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians (Stebbins 2003) for herpetofauna, Bats of the United States and Canada (Harvey et al. 2011) for bats, and A Field Guide to Mammals of North America (Reid 2006). Although common names of wildlife species are well standardized, scientific names are provided immediately following common names of wildlife species in this report (first reference only). To the extent possible, nomenclature of birds follows the most recent annual supplement of the American Ornithological Union’s Checklist of North American Birds (Chesser et al. 2019), nomenclature of amphibians and reptiles follows Scientific and Standard English Names of Amphibians and Reptiles of North America North of Mexico, with Comments Regarding Confidence in Our Understanding (Crother 2017), and nomenclature for mammals follows the Revised Checklist of North American Mammals North of Mexico (Bradley et al. 2014). Focused Bird Surveys In response to the letter CEQA Review, Canyon Loop Trail Project, City of Diamond Bar (Hamilton Biological 2019), submitted to the City of Diamond Bar, Michael Baker conducted focused surveys for coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica; a Federally Threatened Species and CDFW Species of Special Concern (SSC)) and cactus wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus) between May 26 and July 1, 2020. Surveys were led by Mr. Winkleman with Michael Baker biologists Ashley Spencer and Tom Millington as support, as shown in Table 2. The surveys generally followed the protocol 5.2.c Packet Pg. 316 Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project 4 Biological Resources Assessment Report Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) Presence/Absence Survey Guidelines (USFWS 1997), as well as survey guidelines for cactus wren outlined in Mr. Winkleman’s Scientific Collecting Permit issued by CDFW. A total of six (6) surveys were conducted in patches of suitable habitat for these species within 500 feet of the project site, similar to the habitat assessment, with the goal of mapping occurrences and territories of coastal California gnatcatchers and cactus wrens and, if possible, mapping nesting locations. Detailed results of the focused bird surveys are included in a separate survey report but relevant results are summarized and incorporated in this assessment as needed. Table 2: Focused Bird Survey Dates, Timing, Surveyors, and Weather Conditions Date Time (start / finish) Surveyors Weather Conditions Temperature (°F) (start / finish) Average Wind Speed (mph) May 26, 2020 0751 / 1222 Ryan Winkleman 64 sunny / 83 sunny 1 June 3, 2020 0713 / 1146 Ashley Spencer Ryan Winkleman 65 sunny / 87 sunny 4 June 10, 2020 0720 / 1150 Ashley Spencer Ryan Winkleman 69 sunny / 93 sunny 2 June 17, 2020 0729 / 1149 Tom Millington Ryan Winkleman 62 cloudy / 68 cloudy 1 June 24, 2020 0729 / 1142 Ashley Spencer Ryan Winkleman 62 cloudy / 76 sunny 2 July 1, 2020 0730 / 1130 Ashley Spencer Ryan Winkleman 62 cloudy / 67 cloudy 1 Existing Site Conditions According to the USDA Custom Soil Resource Report for Los Angeles County, California, Southeastern Part, the survey area is underlain by the following soil units: Urban land-Sorrento-Arbolado complex, 2 to 9 percent slopes (1136), Gaviota-Chumash-Rock outcrop complex, 20 to 55 percent slopes (1145), and Counterfeit-Urban land complex, 10 to 35 percent slopes, terraced (1232). After a review of Google Earth historic imagery and results from the field survey, it was determined that the survey area consists of natural vegetation with relatively undisturbed soils. Areas immediately surrounding the survey area consist of residential developments to the east and west, and undeveloped land to the north and south. The survey area is located at an elevation of approximately 970 to 1,310 feet above mean sea level. Please refer to Attachment B for representative photographs of the survey area taken during the field survey. Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types Several terrestrial vegetation communities were identified on-site during the field survey. Vegetation classification was based on MCV (Sawyer et al. 2009) and cross-checked with Holland (1986). The vegetation communities and land uses present on-site are depicted on Figure 5, Vegetation Communities and Other Land Uses, in Attachment A, and described in further detail below. Additionally, refer to Attachment C for a complete list of plant species observed within the survey area during the field survey. 5.2.c Packet Pg. 317 Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project 5 Biological Resources Assessment Report Table 3 provides the acreages of each vegetation community/land use on-site, with each discussed in detail below. Table 3. Vegetation Communities/Land Uses within the Survey Area Vegetation Community/Land Use Acreage California Sagebrush – Black Sage Scrub 2.13 Disturbed California Sagebrush – Black Sage Scrub 17.76 California Buckwheat Scrub 0.45 Coast Live Oak Woodland and Forest 23.57 Coast Prickly Pear Scrub 9.90 Scrub Oak Chaparral 11.82 Disturbed California Walnut Groves 6.30 Disturbed Blue Elderberry Stands 2.23 Upland Mustards and Other Ruderal Forbs 15.38 Disturbed 6.01 Developed 7.56 TOTAL ACREAGE 103.11 California Sagebrush – Black Sage Scrub (Holland Equivalent: Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub; Code: 32500) Approximately 2.13 acres of California sagebrush – black sage scrub vegetation is located within the survey area. The majority of this vegetation community is dominated by California sagebrush (Artemisia californica) and black sage (Salvia mellifera) with other shrubs such as white sage (Salvia apiana), deerweed (Acmispon glaber), and California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum) occurring as less frequent sub-dominants. Due to the high density of shrubs within the vegetation community, little to no herbaceous cover is present. Disturbed California Sagebrush – Black Sage Scrub (Holland Equivalent: Disturbed Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub; Code: 32500) Approximately 17.76 acres of disturbed California sagebrush – black sage scrub vegetation is located throughout the survey area. This vegetation community is similar in composition and generally in close proximity to the California sagebrush – black sage scrub found within the survey area but also contains black mustard (Brassica nigra) and tocalote (Centaurea melitensis) as co-dominant species, in many areas completely dominating the ground cover between native shrubs. California Buckwheat Scrub (Holland Equivalent: Disturbed Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub; Code: 32500) Approximately 0.45 acre of California buckwheat scrub vegetation is located within the western portion of the survey area. This vegetation community is entirely dominated by California buckwheat, and appears to be part of a previous restoration effort. Coast Live Oak Woodland and Forest (Holland Equivalent: Southern Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest; Code 61310) Approximately 23.57 acres of coast live oak woodland and forest vegetation is located within the survey area. The majority of this vegetation community occurs within the valley bottoms and is dominated by coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), with southern California black walnut (Juglans californica; California Rare 5.2.c Packet Pg. 318 Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project 6 Biological Resources Assessment Report Plant Rank (CRPR) 4.2) occurring as a less frequent sub-dominant. Plant species observed in the herbaceous layer include common bedstraw (Galium aparine), wild cucumber (Marah macrocarpa), and miner’s lettuce (Claytonia perfoliata). Coast Prickly Pear Scrub (Holland Equivalent: Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub; Code: 32500) Approximately 9.90 acre of coast prickly pear scrub vegetation is located within the survey area. Coast prickly pear (Opuntia littoralis) is dominant within this vegetation community, with sticky monkey flower (Diplacus aurantiacus) prominently interspersed throughout the area. California buckwheat and California sagebrush are also present, but in lower proportions compared to coast prickly pear and sticky monkeyflower. Scrub Oak Chaparral (Holland Equivalent: Scrub Oak Chaparral; Code: 37900) Approximately 11.82 acres of scrub oak chaparral vegetation is located within the survey area. The majority of this plant community is dominated by inland scrub oak (Quercus berberidifolia), with other shrubs such as lemonade berry (Rhus integrifolia) chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum), and laurel sumac (Malosma laurina) occurring as less frequent sub-dominants. In addition, wild cucumber was commonly observed growing within this vegetation community. Disturbed California Walnut Groves (Holland Equivalent: Disturbed California Walnut Woodland; Code 71210) Approximately 6.30 acres of disturbed California walnut groves vegetation is located within the northern portion of the survey area. Southern California black walnut is dominant within this vegetation community, with dense patches of black mustard occurring between the widely scattered trees. No other herbaceous plants or shrubs were present within this vegetation community. Disturbed Blue Elderberry Stands (Holland Equivalent: Elderberry Savannah; Code 63430) Approximately 2.23 acres of disturbed blue elderberry stands vegetation is located within the northern portion of the survey area. Blue elderberry (Sambucus nigra) and black mustard are co-dominant within this vegetation community, with lemonade berry and inland scrub oak occurring as less frequent sub- dominants. No overstory or herbaceous cover were present within the vegetation community. Upland Mustards and Other Ruderal Forbs (Holland Equivalent: Non-Native Grassland; Code 42200) Approximately 15.38 acres of upland mustards and other ruderal forbs vegetation is located within the survey area. This non-native plant community is dominated by black mustard, with other species such as coastal wild radish (Raphanus sativus), Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus), wild oat (Avena fatua), and Italian rye grass (Festuca perennis) occurring as less frequent sub-dominants. No overstory or shrubs were present within the vegetation community. Disturbed Approximately 6.01 acres of disturbed areas are located throughout the survey area. Disturbed areas consist of areas of bare ground associated with the recreational hiking and biking trails within the park, along with 5.2.c Packet Pg. 319 Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project 7 Biological Resources Assessment Report other areas of bare ground associated with an unsuccessful restoration site in the southwest corner of the survey area. Developed Approximately 7.56 acres of developed areas are located within the western edge of the survey area. These areas consist of the residential developments immediately adjacent to the park, including any ornamental vegetation associated with the residences. Wildlife Natural vegetation communities provide foraging habitat, nesting/denning sites, and shelter from adverse weather or predation. This section provides a general discussion of common wildlife species that were detected by Michael Baker during the field survey or that are expected to occur based on existing site conditions. The discussion is to be used as a general reference and is limited by the season, time of day, and weather conditions in which the field survey was conducted. Refer to Attachment C for a complete list of wildlife species observed within the survey area during the field survey. Fish No fish or hydrogeomorphic features (e.g., perennial creeks, ponds, lakes, reservoirs) that would support populations of fish were observed in the survey area during the field survey. Although there is an ephemeral drainage in the center of the survey area, it is dry most of the year and would not support the establishment of a fish population on the site. Therefore, no fish are expected to occur. Amphibians No amphibians or hydrogeomorphic features (e.g., perennial creeks, ponds, lakes, reservoirs) that would provide suitable breeding habitat for amphibians were observed within the survey area during the field survey. The ephemeral drainage in the center of the survey area does not hold enough moisture to support amphibians, and without any sort of pools or ponding areas on-site and the extended dry season that this feature experiences, no amphibians are expected to occur. Reptiles Four (4) reptilian species were observed by Michael Baker biologists in the survey area: Great Basin fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis longipes), coastal whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri; a CDFW SSC), western side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana elegans), and red racer (Coluber flagellum piceus). The survey area consists of a mix of disturbed and undisturbed vegetation and surface soils and is expected to provide habitat for a number of reptilian species that are acclimated to natural and edge or urban environments. Additional reptilian species that may be present within the survey area include southern alligator lizard (Elgaria multicarinata), San Diego gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer annectens), and southern pacific rattlesnake (Crotalus oreganus helleri). Birds Fifty-seven (57) bird species were detected by Michael Baker biologists in the survey area, with the most commonly-occurring species including California quail (Callipepla californica), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna), California scrub jay (Aphelocoma californica), blue-gray 5.2.c Packet Pg. 320 Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project 8 Biological Resources Assessment Report gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulea), coastal California gnatcatcher, Bewick’s wren (Thryomanes bewickii), cactus wren, phainopepla (Phainopepla nitens), house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), lesser goldfinch (Spinus psaltria), California towhee (Melozone crissalis), and spotted towhee (Pipilo maculatus). In addition, multiple Cooper’s hawks (Accipiter cooperii; a CDFW Watch List (WL) Species) were observed within the survey area during every survey and was determined by the presence of multiple fledglings in early July during the focused bird surveys to have nested on-site. Nesting birds are protected pursuant to the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 and the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC)2. To maintain compliance with the MBTA and CFGC, clearance surveys are typically required prior to any ground disturbance or vegetation removal activities to avoid direct or indirect impacts to active bird nests and/or nesting birds. Consequently, if an active bird nest is destroyed or if project activities result in indirect impacts (e.g., nest abandonment, loss of reproductive effort) to nesting birds, it is considered “take” and is potentially punishable by fines and/or imprisonment. The survey area provides nesting habitat for year-round and seasonal avian residents that could occur in the area. This includes species that nest in shrubs (e.g., coastal California gnatcatcher, mourning dove), species nesting in trees (e.g., phainopepla, house finch, acorn woodpecker (Melanerpes formicivorus)), and species that nest on the open ground (e.g., California quail). No active or remnant nests or birds displaying overt nesting behavior were observed during the field survey, but evidence of nesting by both cactus wrens and coastal California gnatcatchers was found during follow-up surveys. Mammals Five (5) mammalian species were observed by Michael Baker biologists in the survey area: mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi), eastern fox squirrel (Sciurus niger), desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii), and an unidentified species of woodrat (Neotoma sp.). The survey area and surrounding habitat provides suitable habitat for a limited number of mammalian species adapted to living in edge or urban environments. Other common mammalian species that may occur within the survey area include coyote (Canis latrans) and racoon (Procyon lotor). Bats occur throughout most of southern California and may use the survey area as foraging and roosting habitat (within hollow tree trunks/limbs, adjacent residential development). Common bat species that may occur within the survey area include Mexican free-tailed bat (Tadarida brasiliensis) and big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus). Migratory Corridors and Linkages Wildlife corridors and linkages are key features for wildlife movement between habitat patches. Wildlife corridors are generally defined as those areas that provide opportunities for individuals or local populations to conduct seasonal migrations, permanent dispersals, or daily commutes, while linkages generally refer to broader areas that provide movement opportunities for multiple keystone/focal species or allow for propagation of ecological processes (e.g., for movement of pollinators), often between areas of conserved land. 2 Section 3503 makes it unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by the CFGC or any regulation made pursuant thereto; Section 3503.5 makes it unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds-of-prey); and Section 3513 makes it unlawful to take or possess any migratory non-game bird except as provided by the rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary of the Interior under provisions of the MBTA, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 703 et seq.). 5.2.c Packet Pg. 321 Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project 9 Biological Resources Assessment Report The survey area is not located within any wildlife corridors, habitat conservation plans, reserves, or preserves according to the Los Angeles County General Plan (2015) or the City of Diamond Bar General Plan 2040 (2019). The survey area is surrounded by a mixture of developed and undeveloped land on all sides and is located in relatively close proximity to major regional open space areas including the Chino Hills, Puente Hills, and Tonner Canyon. Wildlife movement into or out of the site is likely reduced by the presence of residential development surrounding the survey area, but it is still possible that mammals may use the survey area minimally to move between local open spaces such as those mentioned above. State and Federal Jurisdictional Areas There are three agencies that regulate activities within inland streams, wetlands, and riparian areas in California. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Regulatory Division regulates activities pursuant to Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA). Of the State agencies, CDFW regulates activities under Sections 1600 et seq. of the CFGC, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) regulates activities pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA and/or Section 13263 of the California Porter- Cologne Water Quality Control Act. One (1) jurisdictional drainage feature is situated near the center of the survey area, in the canyon between the two trails that are proposed for improvements. This feature is ephemeral, likely carrying flows only during rain events. It crosses the trail system twice but only as sheet flow, with no culvert passage evident under the trails. Although some sparse mulefat is present on the western end of the drainage before it crosses the trail and flows down a pipe riser. The drainage is otherwise generally a dry ditch flowing under a coast live oak canopy, with a generally weedy understory composed primarily of tocalote and prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola). This drainage does not qualify as waters of the U.S. under the Corps but would still qualify as waters of the State under the regulatory authority of the Regional Board and as a jurisdictional streambed under CDFW. Since no work is proposed to occur a within the drainage feature, regulatory permits from these agencies are not required. However, should work be proposed within the flowline of the drainage, a Waste Discharge Requirements and Section 1600 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement would be required through the Regional Board and California Department of Fish and CDFW, respectively. Special-Status Biological Resources The CNDDB and CNPS Online Inventory were queried for reported locations of special-status plant and wildlife species as well as special-status natural vegetation communities in the USGS Baldwin Park, San Dimas, Ontario, La Habra, Yorba Linda, and Prado Dam, California 7.5-minute quadrangles. The field survey was conducted to assess the conditions of the habitat(s) within the boundaries of the survey area to determine if the existing vegetation communities, at the time of the field survey, have the potential to provide suitable habitat(s) for special-status plant and wildlife species. Additionally, the potentials for special-status species to occur within the survey area were determined based on the reported locations in the CNDDB and CNPS Online Inventory and the following: • Present: the species was observed or detected within the survey area during the field survey. • High: Occurrence records (within 20 years) indicate that the species has been known to occur on or within 1 mile of the survey area and the site is within the normal expected range of this species. Intact, suitable habitat preferred by this species occurs within the survey area and/or there is viable landscape connectivity to a local known extant population(s) or sighting(s). 5.2.c Packet Pg. 322 Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project 10 Biological Resources Assessment Report • Moderate: Occurrence records (within 20 years) indicate that the species has been known to occur within 1 mile of the survey area and the site is within the normal expected range of this species. There is suitable habitat within the survey area but the site is ecologically isolated from any local known extant populations or sightings. • Low: Occurrence records (within 20 years) indicate that the species has been known to occur within 5 miles of the survey area, but the site is outside of the normal expected range of the species and/or there is poor quality or marginal habitat within the survey area. • Not Expected: There are no occurrence records of the species occurring within 5 miles of the survey area, there is no suitable habitat within the survey area, and/or the survey area is outside of the normal expected range for the species. The literature search identified forty-one (41) special-status plant species, sixty-six (66) special-status wildlife species, and seven (7) special-status vegetation communities as occurring within the USGS Baldwin Park, San Dimas, Ontario, La Habra, Yorba Linda, and Prado Dam, California 7.5-minute quadrangles. Special-status plant and wildlife species were evaluated for their potential to occur within the survey area based on habitat requirements, availability and quality of suitable habitat, and known distributions. Special-status biological resources identified during the literature review as having the potential to occur within the vicinity of the survey area are presented in Table D-1: Potentially Occurring Special-Status Biological Resources, provided in Attachment D. Additionally, refer to Figure 6, CNDDB Species Records, in Attachment A, for occurrence records of special-status species documented within a 5- mile radius of the survey area. Special-Status Plants Forty-one (41) special-status plant species have been recorded in the USGS Baldwin Park, San Dimas, Ontario, La Habra, Yorba Linda, and Prado Dam, California 7.5-minute quadrangles by the CNDDB and CNPS Online Inventory (refer to Attachment D). One (1) special-status plant species was observed during the field survey, southern California black walnut. Based on the results of the field survey and a review of specific habitat preferences, distributions, and elevation ranges, it was determined that the survey area has a moderate potential to support Catalina mariposa-lily (Calochortus catalinae; CRPR 4.2); and a low potential to support chaparral sand-verbena (Abronia villosa var. aurita; CRPR 1B.1), California androsace (Androsace elongata ssp. acuta; CRPR 4.2), western spleenwort (Asplenium vespertinum; CRPR 4.2), Braunton’s milk-vetch (Astragalus brauntonii; CRPR 1B.1, Federally Endangered), Nevin’s barberry (Berberis nevinii; Federally and State Endangered, CRPR 1B.1), Plummer’s mariposa-lily (Calochortus plummerae; CRPR 4.2), intermediate mariposa-lily (Calochortus weedii var. intermedius CRPR 1B.2), Lewis’ evening-primrose (Camissoniopsis lewisii; CRPR 3), Parry’s spineflower (Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi; CRPR 1B.1), paniculate tarplant (Deinandra paniculata; CRPR 4.2), many-stemmed dudleya (Dudleya multicaulis; CRPR 1B.2), mesa horkelia (Horkelia cuneata var. puberula; 1B.1), Robinson’s pepper-grass (Lepidium virginicum var. robinsonii; 4.3), aparejo grass (Muhlenbergia utilis; CRPR 2B.2), Hubby’s phacelia (Phacelia hubbyi; CRPR 4.2), south coast branching phacelia (Phacelia ramosissima var. austrolitoralis; CRPR 3.2), Brand’s star phacelia (Phacelia stellaris; CRPR 1B.1), white rabbit-tobacco (Pseudognaphalium leucocephalum; CRPR 2B.2), Engelmann oak (Quercus engelmannii; 4.2), and Coulter’s matilija poppy (Romneya coulteri; CRPR 4.2). All remaining special-status plant species identified by the CNDDB and CNPS databases are not expected to occur within the survey area. 5.2.c Packet Pg. 323 Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project 11 Biological Resources Assessment Report Special-Status Wildlife Sixty-six (66) special-status wildlife species have been recorded in the USGS Baldwin Park, San Dimas, Ontario, La Habra, Yorba Linda, and Prado Dam, California 7.5-minute quadrangles by the CNDDB and IPaC (refer to Attachment D). Four (4) special-status wildlife species were observed during the habitat assessment and subsequent focused bird surveys: Cooper’s hawk, southern California rufous-crowned sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps canescens; a CDFW WL species), coastal whiptail, and coastal California gnatcatcher. No additional special-status wildlife species were detected within the survey area during the field survey. In addition to those species that were already documented to be present within the survey area, based on the results of the field surveys and a review of specific habitat preferences, occurrence records, known distributions, and elevation ranges, it was determined that the survey area has a high potential to support sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus; a CDFW WL species), red-diamond rattlesnake (Crotalus ruber; a CDFW SSC), and American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum; a CDFW Fully Protected (FP) Species); a moderate potential to support merlin (Falco columbarius; a CDFW WL species); and a low potential to support southern California legless lizard (Anniella stebbinsi; a CDFW SSC), golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos; a CDFW FP and WL species), California glossy snake (Arizona elegans occidentalis; a CDFW SSC), long-eared owl (Asio otus; a CDFW SSC), orange-throated whiptail (Aspidoscelis hyperythra; a CDFW WL species), Crotch bumble bee (Bombus crotchii; a State Candidate Endangered species), Vaux’s swift (Chaetura vauxi; a CDFW SSC), northern harrier (Circus hudsonius; a CDFW SSC), white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus; a CDFW FP species), willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii; a State Endangered species), southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus; a Federally and State Endangered species), California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia; a CDFW WL species), western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus; a CDFW SSC), loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus; a CDFW SSC), western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii; a CDFW SSC), San Diego desert woodrat (Neotoma lepida intermedia; a CDFW SSC), coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii; a CDFW SSC), summer tanager (Piranga rubra; a CDFW SSC), coast patch-nosed snake (Salvadora hexalepis virgultea; a CDFW SSC), and yellow warbler (Setophaga petechia; a CDFW SSC). Some of these species including Vaux’s swift, willow flycatcher, southwestern willow flycatcher, and yellow warbler would only potentially occur as migrants briefly stopping over on their way north or south. All remaining special-status wildlife species identified by the CNDDB and IPaC are not expected to occur within the survey area. Due to regional significance, coastal California gnatcatcher and cactus wren are described in further detail below. Coastal California Gnatcatcher Coastal California gnatcatcher is a Federally threatened species with restricted habitat requirements, being an obligate resident of sage scrub habitats, particularly—but not exclusively—those that are dominated by California sagebrush. This species generally occurs below 750 feet elevation in coastal regions and below 1,500 feet inland. It ranges from Ventura County south to San Diego County and northern Baja California and is less common in sage scrub with a high percentage of tall shrubs. Coastal California gnatcatcher is considered a short-distance disperser through contiguous, undisturbed habitat (USFWS 2010). However, juveniles are capable of dispersing long distances (up to 14 miles) across fragmented and highly disturbed sage scrub habitat (USFWS 2010). Coastal California gnatcatcher prefers habitat with more low-growing vegetation (< 3 feet high). California gnatcatchers breed between mid-February and the end of August, with peak activity from mid-March to mid-May. Population estimates indicate that there are approximately 1,600 to 2,290 pairs of California gnatcatcher remaining. Declines are attributed to loss of sage scrub habitat due 5.2.c Packet Pg. 324 Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project 12 Biological Resources Assessment Report to development, as well as cowbird nest parasitism. Federally designated Critical Habitat for coastal California gnatcatcher is not located within or directly adjacent to the survey area. The primary constituent elements essential to support the biological needs of foraging, reproducing, rearing of young, intra-specific communication, dispersal, genetic exchange, or sheltering for California gnatcatcher are: 1) Dynamic and successional sage scrub habitats and associated vegetation (Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub, coastal sage-chaparral scrub, etc.) that provide space for individual and population growth, normal behavior, breeding, reproduction, nesting, dispersal and foraging; and 2) Non- sage scrub habitats such as chaparral, grassland, and riparian areas in proximity to sage scrub habitats that provide linkages to help with dispersal, foraging, and nesting. The survey area provides abundant suitable habitat for coastal California gnatcatcher, with known populations occurring in the area. In addition, multiple breeding pairs of coastal California gnatcatchers are known to be present within the survey area based on ongoing project-related presence/absence surveys currently being conducted. Cactus Wren Cactus wrens are a somewhat common avian species found within arid and semi-arid regions of southern California. The subspecies coastal cactus wren (C. b. sandiegensis) is found within a very limited range of southern California and is designated by CDFW as a Species of Special Concern. This subspecies of cactus wren has a broad white eyebrow line, heavily spotted breast, solid brown crown, and range from 7 to 9 inches in length. Coastal cactus wrens have a range which extends from extreme northwestern Baja California north at least through the coastal lowlands of San Diego County (Shuford and Gardali 2008). The actual northern limit of its range is uncertain because of the lack of specimens from northwestern San Diego County and most of Orange County. However, observations made in the field based on differences in song (slower frequency and lower pitch) and visual assessments suggest southern Orange County to approximately the vicinity of State Route 74 (Ortega Highway) is the northern limit of coastal cactus wren (Shuford and Gardali 2008). Coastal cactus wrens breed from early March through July and are mainly restricted to thickets of chollas (Cylindropuntia prolifera) or prickly-pear cacti (i.e., Opuntia littoralis, O. oricola) large enough to protect from predation. Suitable habitat conditions are normally found on south-facing slopes, at bases of hillsides, or in dry washes. Territories have been recorded as occurring at elevations below 1,500 feet amsl and averaging three (3) acres in size (Shuford and Gardali 2008). Coastal cactus wrens forage on the ground primarily for insects such as beetles, ants, wasps, grasshoppers, butterflies, and spiders. The survey area provides an abundance of the undisturbed coast prickly pear scrub habitat that is essential nesting habitat for this species. Although multiple territories of cactus wren were observed on-site, the survey area is well outside the known range for the coastal sandiegensis subspecies, which ends around State Route 74 based on CDFW mapping. This local subspecies found on-site is likely C. b. anthonyi. Special-Status Vegetation Communities Seven (7) special-status vegetation communities have been reported in the USGS Baldwin Park, San Dimas, Ontario, La Habra, Yorba Linda, and Prado Dam, California 7.5-minute quadrangles by the CNDDB. Two 5.2.c Packet Pg. 325 Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project 13 Biological Resources Assessment Report (2) special-status vegetation communities were observed within the survey area during the field survey, California walnut woodland and southern coast live oak riparian forest. Critical Habitat Under the definition used by the FESA, “Critical Habitat” refers to specific areas within the geographical range of a species that were occupied at the time it was listed that contain the physical or biological features that are essential to the survival and eventual recovery of that species and that may require special management considerations or protection, regardless of whether the species is still extant in the area. Areas that were not known to be occupied at the time a species was listed can also be designated as Critical Habitat if they contain one or more of the physical or biological features that are essential to that species’ conservation and if the other areas that are occupied are inadequate to ensure the species’ recovery. If a project may result in take or adverse modification to a species’ designated Critical Habitat and the project has a Federal nexus, the project proponent may be required to provide suitable mitigation. Projects with a Federal nexus may include projects that occur on Federal lands, require Federal permits (e.g., CWA Section 404 permit), or receive any Federal oversight or funding. If there is a Federal nexus, then the Federal agency that is responsible for providing funds or permits would be required to consult with the USFWS under the FESA. The survey area is not located within any federally designated Critical Habitat (refer to Figure 7, Critical Habitat, in Attachment A). Therefore, consultation with the USFWS under Section 7 of the FESA would not be required for the loss or adverse modification of Critical Habitat. Local Policies and Ordinances According to Chapter 22.38 of the City of Diamond Bar’s municipal code, native trees, including oak, walnut, sycamore, willow, and significant trees of cultural or historical value require a permit to be obtained prior to tree removal or tree pruning. Multiple coast live oak and black walnut trees are overhanging or occur within the project footprint and may require pruning and/or removal if trail improvements are proposed in these areas. Prior to construction, an application for a tree removal and/or tree pruning permit may be required if protected trees cannot be avoided. This may require the submittal of an arborist report before accepting the application for filling. Conclusions and Recommendations Special-Status Plants Natural habitats within the survey area consist of both disturbed and undisturbed vegetation communities and soils throughout. One (1) special-status plant species was observed during the field survey, southern California black walnut. Based on the results of the habitat assessment and a review of specific habitat preferences, distributions, and elevation ranges, it was determined that the survey area has a moderate potential to support Catalina mariposa-lily; and a low potential to support chaparral sand-verbena, California androsace, western spleenwort, Braunton’s milk-vetch, Nevin’s barberry, Plummer’s mariposa- lily, intermediate mariposa-lily, Lewis’ evening-primrose, Parry’s spineflower, paniculate tarplant, many- stemmed dudleya, Santa Ana River woollystar, mesa horkelia, Robinson’s pepper-grass, aparejo grass, Hubby’s phacelia, south coast branching phacelia, Brand’s star phacelia, white rabbit-tobacco, Engelmann oak, and Coulter’s matilija poppy. However, southern California walnut, Catalina mariposa-lily, California androsace, western spleenwort, Plummer’s mariposa-lily, Lewis’ evening-primrose, paniculate tarplant, 5.2.c Packet Pg. 326 Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project 14 Biological Resources Assessment Report Robinson’s pepper-grass, Hubby’s phacelia, south coast branching phacelia, Engelmann oak, and Coulter’s matilija poppy have a CRPR of 4 or 3. CRPR 4 designates a Watch List, and CRPR 3 designates plants that lack the necessary information to assign them to one of the other ranks or to reject them, both of which are generally not considered for impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In addition, chaparral sand-verbena, Braunton’s milk-vetch, Nevin’s barberry, intermediate mariposa lily, Parry’s spineflower, many-stemmed dudleya, mesa horkelia, aparejo grass, Brand’s star phacelia, and white-rabbit tobacco have a CRPR of either 1B or 2B. CRPR 1B designates plants that are rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere, while 2B designates plants that are rare, threatened, or endangered in California but common elsewhere. Although CRPR 1B and 2B plants generally are considered for impacts under CEQA, these plants were determined to have a low potential to occur on site. Nevin’s barberry is federally endangered and any impacts to this species, if present, would be considered significant with further mitigation required. All remaining special-status plant species identified by the CNDDB and CNPS databases are not expected to occur within the survey area. To ensure proper avoidance of special-status plant species, prior to construction, and during the appropriate blooming periods for special-status plant species with the potential to occur within the project site, a qualified botanist shall conduct a focused rare plant survey in areas with suitable habitat to determine presence or absence of special-status plant species. The surveys shall be floristic in nature (i.e., identifying all plant species to the taxonomic level necessary to determine rarity), and shall be inclusive of, at a minimum, the areas proposed for trail improvements and those immediately surrounding those areas. The results of the survey shall be documented in a letter report that will be included in the environmental document. If individual or populations of special-status plant species are found within the areas proposed for disturbance, measures to avoid and minimize impacts shall be recommended. The surveys and reporting shall follow 2018 CDFW and/or 2001 CNPS guidelines. Although not expected, if State- and/or Federally- listed plant species are present and avoidance is infeasible, consultation with the CDFW and/or USFWS would be required and an Incidental Take Permit(s) from the CDFW and/or USFWS shall be obtained prior to the commencement of project activities. Both coast live oak and southern California black walnuts located on-site are protected under Chapter 22.38 of the City of Diamond Bar’s municipal code. Prior to construction, an application for a tree removal and/or tree pruning permit may be required. This may require the submittal of an arborist report before accepting the application for filling. Special-Status Wildlife Four (4) special-status wildlife species were observed during the field survey: Cooper’s hawk, southern California rufous-crowned sparrow, coastal California gnatcatcher, and coastal whiptail. Based on the results of the habitat assessment and a review of specific habitat preferences, occurrence records, known distributions, and elevation ranges, it was determined that the survey area has a high potential to support sharp-shinned hawk, red-diamond rattlesnake, and American peregrine falcon; a moderate potential to support merlin; and a low potential to support southern California legless lizard, golden eagle, California glossy snake, long-eared owl, orange-throated whiptail, Crotch bumble bee, Vaux’s swift, northern harrier, white-tailed kite, willow flycatcher, southwestern willow flycatcher, California horned lark, western mastiff bat, loggerhead shrike, western red bat, San Diego desert woodrat, coast horned lizard, summer tanager, coast patch-nosed snake, and yellow warbler. CDFW would determine the need to conduct surveys for any of these species prior to any development occurring. Although Crotch bumble bee is not yet listed, under 5.2.c Packet Pg. 327 Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project 15 Biological Resources Assessment Report the CESA species that are designated as candidates for listing are afforded the same protections as those that are already listed; as such, CDFW may require an additional suitability assessment or analysis of the site’s potential to support this species and mitigation or an Incidental Take Permit may be required if it is determined that this species occurs on the site. Because willow flycatcher and southwestern willow flycatcher have a low potential to occur on-site strictly as stopover migrants (there is nothing resembling willow flycatcher breeding habitat at all within or near to the survey area), it is unlikely that surveys for these species would be required. No focused surveys would be required for any of the remaining species that have a potential to occur. All remaining special-status wildlife species identified by the CNDDB and IPaC databases are not expected to occur within the survey area. Because the project proposes to widen much of the southern trail to a width of five (5) feet, this will result in vegetation removal of habitat that is suitable for, or in some cases is already known to support, coastal California gnatcatcher. Although this area is not designated as Critical Habitat, loss of vegetation directly supporting known populations of coastal California gnatcatcher would constitute “take” under Section 9 of the FESA. Because the project will not have a Federal nexus, an incidental take permit (ITP) would instead be granted by the USFWS under Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the FESA. This typically entails the project proponent agreeing to a habitat conservation plan (HCP), an extensive process that can take years to complete. However, the USFWS also has a category of HCPs for projects that will otherwise have minor impacts on listed species, called a “low-effect HCP.” These HCPs pertain to projects involving (1) minor or negligible effects on federally listed, proposed, or candidate species and their habitats covered under the HCP; and (2) minor or negligible effects on other environmental values or resources. Under low-effect HCPs, the permitting process is more streamlined and take can generally be authorized under a series of strict avoidance and minimization measures. It is recommended that the City of Diamond Bar pursue a low- effect HCP with the USFWS to permit removal of habitat suitable for and/or used by coastal California gnatcatchers on the project site. Avoidance and minimization measures that may be required in a low-effect HCP for this project, subject to consultation with the USFWS, include but are not limited to pre- construction nesting surveys for coastal California gnatcatcher and avoidance of any active nests or scheduling of work outside of the gnatcatcher nesting season, environmental training of all personnel who would be removing the vegetation, biological monitoring during initial vegetation removal, closing and restoration of any extraneous trail sections to recreational use, and on-site restoration and preservation of coastal sage scrub communities within the survey area (i.e. the vicinity of the impacts). The results of the focused bird surveys are required to be sent to the USFWS within 45 days following the completion of the surveys. It is recommended that the City of Diamond Bar contact the USFWS as soon as possible after the submission of the focused survey report to discuss what would be needed to obtain an incidental take permit for this project. Nesting Birds The survey area and surrounding vegetation communities provide suitable foraging and nesting habitat for a variety of year-round and seasonal avian residents as well as migrating songbirds that could occur in the area. If project-related activities are to be initiated during the nesting season (January 1st to August 31st), a pre-construction nesting bird clearance survey should be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than three (3) days prior to the start of any vegetation removal or ground disturbing activities. The qualified biologist should survey all suitable nesting habitat within the project impact area, and areas within a biologically defensible buffer zone surrounding the project impact area. If no active nests are detected during the clearance survey, project activities may begin, and no additional avoidance and minimization 5.2.c Packet Pg. 328 Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project 16 Biological Resources Assessment Report measures would be required. If an active nest is found, the bird species should be identified and a “no- disturbance” buffer should be established around the active nest. The size of the “no-disturbance” buffer should be determined based on the judgement of the qualified biologist and level of activity and sensitivity of the species. It is further recommended that the qualified biologist periodically monitor any active nests to determine if project-related activities occurring outside the “no-disturbance” buffer disturb the birds and if the buffer should be increased. Once the young have fledged and left the nest, or the nest otherwise becomes inactive under natural conditions, project activities within the “no-disturbance” buffer may occur following an additional survey by the qualified biologist to search for any new nests in the restricted area. Please do not hesitate to contact me at (949) 330- 4115 or ryan.winkleman@mbakerintl.com should you have any questions or require further information regarding this report. Sincerely, Ryan Winkleman Senior Biologist Natural Resources and Regulatory Permitting Attachments: A. Project Figures B. Site Photographs C. Plant and Wildlife Species Observed List D. Potentially Occurring Special-Status Biological Resources E. References 5.2.c Packet Pg. 329 Attachment A Project Figures 5.2.c Packet Pg. 330 SA N B E R N A R D I N O C O U N T Y RI V E R S I D E C O U N T Y LOS ANGELES COUNTY ORANGE COUNTY Regional Vicinity Figure 1 °0 52.5 Miles6/9/2020 JN H:\pdata\178669\GIS\MXD\Bio Report\Fig 01 Regional Vicinity.mxd RPCANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT REPORT Source: ArcGIS Online, 2018 ^_Project Site ^ Project Location !"a$ %&g(%&q( %&l( ?» ?l ?£?q !"^$ 5.2.c Packet Pg. 331 Project Vicinity Figure 2 °0 10.5 Miles6/9/2020 JN H:\pdata\178669\GIS\MXD\Bio Report\Fig 02 Project Vicinity.mxd RPLegend Project Site Survey Area (500-foot buffer) CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT REPORT Source: USGS 7.5-Minute topographic quadrangle maps: Ontario, Prado Dam, San Dimas, and Yorba Linda, California (2018) 5.2.c Packet Pg. 332 !> !>""""""""Dare CtPeakCt WindsongCtSteep Ca n y o n R d BarkerDr Clear Creek CanyonDrBreckenridgeCtWynnewoodDrM o n u m e n t C a n y o n D r GrubstakeDrMeanderingCreekDr SummitridgeDrP1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P8 P7 P6 34.007148-117.794138 34.000846-117.805472 Survey Area7/8/2020 JN H:\pdata\178669\GIS\MXD\Bio Report\Fig 03 Survey Area.mxd RPSource: Nearmap, 2020 Figure 3 0 270135 Feet CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT REPORT ° Legend Project Site Survey Area (500-foot buffer)"Photograph Point and Direction !>Reference Point 5.2.c Packet Pg. 333 Dare CtProject Design7/8/2020 JN \\IRVICA1FS1.bkr.mbakercorp.com\HROOT\pdata\178669\GIS\MXD\Bio Report\Fig 04 Project Design.mxd RPSource: Richard Fisher Associates, 2019 Figure 4 CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT REPORT 5.2.c Packet Pg. 334 !> !> ( ( ( !! ! ! ! ! ! ! (( ( ( ( ( ( ( k kk j jjDare CtPeakCt WindsongCtSteep Ca n y o n R d BarkerDr Clear Creek CanyonDrBreckenridgeCtWynnewoodDrM o n u m e n t C a n y o n D r GrubstakeDrMeanderingCreekDr SummitridgeDr34.007148-117.794138 34.000846-117.805472 Vegetation Communities and Other Land Uses7/15/2020 JN H:\pdata\178669\GIS\MXD\Bio Report\Fig 05 Vegetation Communities and Other Land Uses_Project_Design.mxd RPSource: Nearmap, 2020 Figure 5 0 270135 Feet CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT REPORT ° Legend Survey Area (500-foot buffer) Project Site California Buckwheat Scrub (0.45 acre) California Sagebrush - Black Sage Scrub (2.13 acres) Coast Live Oak Woodland and Forest (23.57 acres) Coast Prickly Pear Scrub (9.90 acres) Disturbed Blue Elderberry Stands (2.23 acres) Disturbed California Sagebrush - Black Sage Scrub (17.76 acres) Disturbed California Walnut Groves (6.30 acres) Scrub Oak Chaparral (11.82 acres) Upland Mustards and Other Ruderal Forbs (15.38 acres) Disturbed (6.01 acres) Developed (7.56 acres) Unnamed Drainage Trail to be Expanded to 5' Wide Existing Trail to Remain Gabion Retaining Wall Stairs (Total of 6) kj Wayfinding Sign Lodge Pole Fence (Shade Structure with Benches & Trash Receptacle Proposed Bench Drainage Crossing !>Reference Point !(!( 5.2.c Packet Pg. 335 !> !> 14 3 11 11 9 9 711 9 66 66 66 8 2 5 5 5 10 34.043369-117.749941 33.965267-117.849117 CNDDB Species Records Figure 6 °0 4,6002,300 Feet7/8/2020 JN H:\pdata\178669\GIS\MXD\Bio Report\Fig 06 CNDDB Species Records.mxd RPLegend Survey Area (500-foot buffer) 2.5-mile Radius Buffer Animal Vegetation Community !>Reference Point CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT REPORT Source: Eagle Aerial, 2014, CDFW, 2020 ?q ?l ?£ ID Animal ID Animal ID Vegetation Community1 California black rail 6 red-diamond rattlesnake 11 California Walnut Woodland2 coastal California gnatcatcher 7 tricolored blackbird3 Cooper's hawk 8 western pond turtle4 Crotch bumble bee 9 yellow warbler5 least Bell's vireo 10 yellow-breasted chat 5.2.c Packet Pg. 336 !> !> 34.081885-117.71449 33.926568-117.885006 Critical Habitat Figure 7 °0 1.50.75 Miles7/8/2020 JN H:\pdata\178669\GIS\MXD\Bio Report\Fig 07 Critical Habitat.mxd RPLegend Project Site Survey Area (500-foot buffer) Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica)!>Reference Point CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT REPORT Source: Esri, 2018, USFWS, 2020 ?l ?q ?£ !"`$ 5.2.c Packet Pg. 337 Attachment B Site Photographs 5.2.c Packet Pg. 338 Attachment B – Site Photographs Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project B-1 Biological Resources Assessment Report Photograph 1: Standing within the eastern portion of the project site, facing west overlooking coast live oak woodland and forest and disturbed California sagebrush – black sage scrub. Photograph 2: Standing in the eastern portion of the project site, facing southwest overlooking scrub oak woodland in the background with the upland mustards and other ruderal forbs community in the foreground. 5.2.c Packet Pg. 339 Attachment B – Site Photographs Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project B-2 Biological Resources Assessment Report Photograph 3: Standing in the north end of the project site, facing southwest overlooking disturbed California walnut groves and coast live oak woodland and forest. Photograph 4: Standing in the west end of the project site, facing east towards disturbed California sagebrush – black sage scrub. 5.2.c Packet Pg. 340 Attachment B – Site Photographs Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project B-3 Biological Resources Assessment Report Photograph 5: Standing in the western portion of the project site, facing northeast along the Canyon Loop Trail with disturbed California walnut groves in the background and the upland mustards and other ruderal forbs community in the foreground. Photograph 6: Standing in the central portion of the project site, facing southwest towards disturbed California sagebrush – black sage scrub. 5.2.c Packet Pg. 341 Attachment B – Site Photographs Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project B-4 Biological Resources Assessment Report Photograph 7: Standing in the central portion of the project site, facing west towards coast prickly pear scrub. Photograph 8: Standing in the southern portion of the project site, facing north overlooking coast prickly pear scrub and coast live oak woodland and forest, with upland mustards and other ruderal forbs in the foreground and background. 5.2.c Packet Pg. 342 Attachment C Plant and Wildlife Species Observed List 5.2.c Packet Pg. 343 Attachment C – Plant and Wildlife Species Observed List Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project C-1 Biological Resources Assessment Report Table C-1: Plant and Wildlife Species Observed List Scientific Name* Common Name Cal-IPC Rating** Special-Status Rank*** Plants Acmispon glaber deerweed Adenostoma fasciculatum chamise Artemisia californica California sagebrush Avena fatua* wild oat Brassica nigra* black mustard Moderate Bromus diandrus* ripgut Moderate Carduus pycnocephalus* Italian thistle Moderate Carpobrotus edulis* iceplant High Centaurea melitensis* tocalote Moderate Cirsium occidentale cobweb thistle Claytonia perfoliata miner’s lettuce Croton setiger turkey-mullein Deinandra fasciculata clustered tarweed Dichelostemma capitatum blue dicks Diplacus aurantiacus sticky monkeyflower Dudleya lanceolata Southern California dudleya Elymus condensatus giant wild rye Encelia californica California encelia Eriodictyon crassifolium thick leaved yerba santa Eriogonum fasciculatum California buckwheat Erodium cicutarium* coastal heron’s bill Limited Euphorbia albomarginata rattlesnake sandmat Festuca perennis* Italian rye grass Moderate Galium aparine common bedstraw Heteromeles arbutifolia toyon Heterotheca grandiflora telegraph weed Hordeum murinum* farmer’s foxtail Moderate Juglans californica Southern California black walnut 4.2 Lonicera subspicata southern honeysuckle Lysimachia arvensis* scarlet pimpernel Malosma laurina laurel sumac Marah macrocarpa wild cucumber Marrubium vulgare* horehound Limited Melilotus indicus* annual yellow sweetclover Nicotiana glauca* tree tobacco Moderate Opuntia littoralis coast prickly pear Pennisetum setaceum* fountaingrass Moderate Phacelia distans common phacelia Phacelia minor California bluebell 5.2.c Packet Pg. 344 Attachment C – Plant and Wildlife Species Observed List Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project C-2 Biological Resources Assessment Report Table C-1: Plant and Wildlife Species Observed List Scientific Name* Common Name Cal-IPC Rating** Special-Status Rank*** Polypogon monspeliensis* rabbitsfoot grass Limited Quercus agrifolia coast live oak Quercus berberidfolia inland scrub oak Raphanus sativus* wild radish Rhus integrifolia lemonade berry Rumex crispus* curly dock Limited Salvia apiana white sage Salvia mellifera black sage Sambucus nigra black elderberry Silybum marianum* milk thistle Limited Sonchus asper* prickly sowthistle Taraxacum officinale* common dandelion Toxicodendron diversilobum poison oak Reptiles Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri coastal whiptail SSC Coluber flagellum piceus red racer Sceloporus occidentalis longipes Great Basin fence lizard Uta stansburiana elegans western side-blotched lizard Birds Accipiter cooperii Cooper’s hawk WL Aeronautes saxatalis white-throated swift Aimophila ruficeps canescens southern California rufous- crowned sparrow WL Aphelocoma californica California scrub jay Baeolophus inornatus oak titmouse Buteo jamaicensis red-tailed hawk Callipepla californica California quail Calypte anna Anna’s hummingbird Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus cactus wren Cardellina pusilla Wilson’s warbler Cathartes aura turkey vulture Chamaea fasciata wrentit Contopus sordidulus western wood-pewee Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow Corvus corax common raven Dryobates nuttallii Nuttall’s woodpecker Empidonax difficilis pacific-slope flycatcher Geococcyx californianus greater roadrunner Haemorhous mexicanus house finch Icterus bullockii Bullock’s oriole Icterus cucullatus hooded oriole 5.2.c Packet Pg. 345 Attachment C – Plant and Wildlife Species Observed List Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project C-3 Biological Resources Assessment Report Table C-1: Plant and Wildlife Species Observed List Scientific Name* Common Name Cal-IPC Rating** Special-Status Rank*** Leiothlypis celata orange-crowned warbler Lonchura punctulata* scaly-breasted munia Mimus polyglottos northern mockingbird Melanerpes formicivorus acorn woodpecker Melospiza melodia song sparrow Melozone crissalis California towhee Molothrus ater brown-headed cowbird Myiarchus cinerascens ash-throated flycatcher Icterus bullockii Bullock’s oriole Patagioenas fasciata band-tailed pigeon Petrochelidon pyrrhonota cliff swallow Phainopepla nitens phainopepla Pheucticus melanocephalus black-headed grosbeak Picoides nuttallii Nuttall’s woodpecker Pipilo maculatus spotted towhee Piranga ludoviciana western tanager Polioptila caerulea blue-gray gnatcatcher Polioptila californica californica coastal California gnatcatcher FT/SSC Psaltriparus minimus bushtit Sayornis nigricans black phoebe Sayornis saya Say’s phoebe Selasphorus sasin/rufus Allen’s/rufous hummingbird Selasphorus sasin Allen’s hummingbird Sitta carolinensis white-breasted nuthatch Spinus lawrencei Lawrence’s goldfinch Spinus psaltria lesser goldfinch Spizella atrogularis black-chinned sparrow Stelgidopteryx serripennis northern rough-winged swallow Thryomanes bewickii Bewick’s wren Toxostoma redivivum California thrasher Troglodytes aedon house wren Turdus migratorius American robin Tyrannus verticalis western kingbird Tyrannus vociferans Cassin’s kingbird Vireo gilvus warbling vireo Vireo huttoni Hutton’s vireo Zenaida macroura mourning dove Mammals Neotoma sp. woodrat Odocoileus hemionus mule deer 5.2.c Packet Pg. 346 Attachment C – Plant and Wildlife Species Observed List Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project C-4 Biological Resources Assessment Report Table C-1: Plant and Wildlife Species Observed List Scientific Name* Common Name Cal-IPC Rating** Special-Status Rank*** Otospermophilus beecheyi California ground squirrel Sciurus niger eastern fox squirrel Sylvilagus audubonii desert cottontail * Non-native species ** California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC) Ratings High These species have severe ecological impacts on physical processes, plant and animal communities, and vegetation structure. Their reproductive biology and other attributes are conducive to moderate to high rates of dispersal and establishment. Most are widely distributed ecologically. Moderate These species have substantial and apparent—but generally not severe—ecological impacts on physical processes, plant and animal communities, and vegetation structure. Their reproductive biology and other attributes are conducive to moderate to high rates of dispersal, though establishment is generally dependent upon ecological disturbance. Ecological amplitude and distribution may range from limited to widespread. Limited These species are invasive, but their ecological impacts are minor on a statewide level or there was not enough information to justify a higher score. Their reproductive biology and other attributes result in low to moderate rates of invasiveness. Ecological amplitude and distribution are generally limited, but these species may be locally persistent and problematic. *** Special-Status Rank FT Federally Threatened SSC Species of Special Concern – any species, subspecies, or distinct population of fish, amphibian, reptile, bird, or mammal native to California that currently satisfies one or more of the following criteria: - is extirpated from California or, in the case of birds, in its primary seasonal or breeding role; - is listed as Federally-, but not State-, threatened or endangered; meets the State definition of threatened or endangered but has not formally been listed. - is experiencing, or formerly experienced, serious (noncyclical) population declines or range retractions (not reversed) that, if continued or resumed, could qualify it for State threatened or endangered status; or - has naturally small populations exhibiting high susceptibility to risk from any factor(s), that if realized, could lead to declines that would qualify it for State threatened or endangered status. WL Watch List - taxa that were previously designated as “Species of Special Concern” but no longer merit that status, or which do not yet meet SSC criteria, but for which there is concern and a need for additional information to clarify status. 5.2.c Packet Pg. 347 Attachment D Potentially Occurring Special-Status Biological Resources 5.2.c Packet Pg. 348 Attachment D – Potentially Occurring Special-Status Biological Resources Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project D-1 Biological Resources Assessment Report Table D-1: Potentially Occurring Special-Status Biological Resources Scientific Name Common Name Special- Status Rank* Habitat Preferences and Distribution Affinities Observed On-site Potential to Occur SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES Accipiter cooperii Cooper’s hawk WL G5 S4 Yearlong resident of California. Generally, found in forested areas up to 3,000 feet above mean sea level (amsl) in elevation, especially near edges and rivers. Prefers hardwood stands and mature forests but can be found in urban and suburban areas where there are tall trees (25 to 50 feet high) for nesting. Prefers pines (Pinus spp.), oaks (Quercus spp.), Douglas firs (Pseudotsuga spp.), beeches (Fagus spp.), and spruces (Picea spp.) for nesting. Common in open areas during nesting season. Yes Present (nesting and foraging): This species was observed on-site during the reconnaissance survey, with a pair exhibiting apparent courtship behavior, as well as during every subsequent focused bird survey. The coast live oak woodlands present within and adjacent to the survey area provide suitable nesting habitat for this species, and new fledglings were found in this same area during the final survey on 7/1/20. Accipiter striatus sharp-shinned hawk WL G5 S4 Winter resident of southern California. Found in pine (Pinus spp.), fir (Abies spp.), and aspen (Populus tremuloides) forests. They can be found hunting in forest interior and edges from sea level to near alpine areas. Can also be found in rural, suburban and agricultural areas, where they often hunt at bird feeders. No High (wintering): The wooded habitat of the survey area would provide adequate habitat for this wintering species, and it has been reported several times in the project vicinity.. Agelaius tricolor tricolored blackbird ST SSC G2G3 S1S2 Range is limited to the coastal areas of the Pacific coast of North America, from Northern California to upper Baja California. Can be found in a wide variety of habitat including annual grasslands, wet and dry vernal pools and other seasonal wetlands, agricultural fields, cattle feedlots, and dairies. Occasionally forage in riparian scrub habitats along marsh borders. Basic habitat requirements for breeding include open accessible water, freshwater marsh dominated by cattails (Typha spp.), willows (Salix spp.), and bulrushes (Schoenoplectus spp.), and either flooded or thorny/spiny vegetation and suitable foraging space providing adequate insect prey. No Not Expected: The survey area and surrounding areas do not contain the wetland habitat that this species typically nests in, nor suitable grassland habitat for foraging. Aimophila ruficeps canescens southern California rufous- crowned sparrow WL G5T3 S3 Yearlong resident that is typically found between 3,000 and 6,000 feet amsl. Breed in sparsely vegetated scrubland on hillsides and canyons. Prefers coastal sage scrub dominated by California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), but they can also be found breeding in coastal bluff scrub, low-growing serpentine chaparral, and along the edges of tall chaparral habitats. Yes Present (foraging): This species was observed on- site. The on-site coastal sage scrub, particularly where on slopes, provides suitable nesting habitat for this species, and it likely nests on-site. 5.2.c Packet Pg. 349 Attachment D – Potentially Occurring Special-Status Biological Resources Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project D-2 Biological Resources Assessment Report Table D-1: Potentially Occurring Special-Status Biological Resources Scientific Name Common Name Special- Status Rank* Habitat Preferences and Distribution Affinities Observed On-site Potential to Occur Ammodramus savannarum grasshopper sparrow SSC G5 S3 Yearlong resident along the coast of southern California. Occurs in grassland, upland meadow, pasture, hayfield, and old field habitats. Optimal habitat contains short- to medium-height bunch grasses interspersed with patches of bare ground, a shallow litter layer, scattered forbs, and few shrubs. May inhabit thickets, weedy lawns, vegetated landfills, fence rows, open fields, or grasslands. No Not Expected: This species is typically found in areas with expansive grasslands with sparse shrubs, a habitat type that is not present within the survey area. Anniella pulchra northern California legless lizard SSC G3 S3 Occurs from the southern edge of the San Joaquin River in northern Contra Costa County south to the Ventura County, south of which there is a wide area where the species of Anniella is or are unknown. Occurs in moist warm loose soil with plant cover. Moisture is essential. Occurs in sparsely vegetated areas of beach dunes, chaparral, pine-oak woodlands, desert scrub, sandy washes, and stream terraces with California sycamores (Platanus racemosa), Fremont cottonwoods (Populus fremontii), or oaks (Quercus spp.). Leaf litter under trees and bushes in sunny areas and dunes stabilized with bush lupine (Lupinus sp.) and mock heather (Ericameria ericoides) often indicate suitable habitat. Often can be found under surface objects such as rocks, boards, driftwood, and logs. Can also be found by gently raking leaf litter under bushes and trees. Sometimes found in suburban gardens in southern California. No Not Expected: The survey area has marginally suitable habitat for this species in the dry drainage that runs through the center, but based on range it is expected that this species is not present. Anniella stebbinsi southern California legless lizard SSC G3 S3 Locally abundant specimens are found in coastal sand dunes and a variety of interior habitats, including sandy washes and alluvial fans. A large protected population persists in the remnant of the once extensive El Segundo Dunes at Los Angeles International Airport. No Low: There is marginally suitable habitat for this species in the dry drainage that runs through the center of the survey area, but there are no CNDDB records within 5 miles. Antrozous pallidus pallid bat SSC G5 S3 Locally common species locally common in the Great Basin, Mojave, and Sonoran deserts (specifically Sonoran life zone) and grasslands throughout the western U.S. Also occurs in shrublands, woodlands, and forests from sea level to 8,000 ft amsl. Prefers rocky outcrops, cliffs, and crevices for roosting with access to open habitats for foraging. May also roost in caves, mines, bridges, barns, porches, and bat boxes, and even on the ground under burlap sacks, stone piles, rags, baseboards, and rocks. No Not Expected: There is no roosting habitat within the survey area and no CNDDB reports within 5 miles of the survey area. 5.2.c Packet Pg. 350 Attachment D – Potentially Occurring Special-Status Biological Resources Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project D-3 Biological Resources Assessment Report Table D-1: Potentially Occurring Special-Status Biological Resources Scientific Name Common Name Special- Status Rank* Habitat Preferences and Distribution Affinities Observed On-site Potential to Occur Aquila chrysaetos golden eagle FP WL G5 S3 Yearlong resident of California. Occupies nearly all terrestrial habitats of the western states except densely forested areas. Favors secluded cliffs with overhanging ledges and large trees for nesting and cover. Hilly or mountainous country where takeoff and soaring are supported by updrafts is generally preferred to flat habitats. Deeply cut canyons rising to open mountain slopes and crags are ideal habitat. No Low (foraging): This species may forage over the site but in general the survey area does not contain adequate open space habitat for foraging or suitable nesting habitat. Arizona elegans occidentalis California glossy snake SSC G5T2 S2 Inhabits arid scrub, rocky washes, grasslands, and chaparral habitats. Appears to prefer microhabitats of open areas and areas with soil loose enough for easy burrowing. No Low: The survey area contains marginal habitat due to proliferation of weeds, and there are no CNDDB records of this species within 5 miles. Artemisiospiza belli belli Bell’s sage sparrow WL G5T2T3 S3 This species has a wide, but sparse distribution in western Riverside County, specifically within the “Riverside lowlands, San Jacinto Foothills, Santa Ana Mountains, and Desert Transition Bioregions. Yearlong resident on the coastal side of southern California mountains. Breeds in coastal sage scrub and chaparral habitats from February to August. They require semi-open habitats with evenly spaced shrubs one to two meters high. Occurs in chaparral dominated by fairly dense stands of chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum). No Not Expected: The survey area is outside of the typical range of this species on the coastal slope, which in Los Angeles County is typically restricted to montane chaparral habitat. Asio otus long-eared owl SSC G5 S3? Uncommon yearlong resident throughout the state except the Central Valley and southern California deserts where it is an uncommon winter visitor. Requires riparian habitat and uses live oak thickets and other dense stands of trees. No Low (wintering): The survey area contains marginal wintering habitat, with some open grasslands and oak woodlands. There are a few known records at localities in the general vicinity. Aspidoscelis hyperythra orange-throated whiptail WL G5 S2S3 Uncommon to fairly common over much of its range in Orange, Riverside, and San Diego counties. Also occurs in southwestern San Bernardino County near Colton. Semi-arid brushy areas typically with loose soil and rocks, including washes, streamsides, rocky hillsides, and coastal chaparral. No Low: This species prefers more pristine patches of coastal sage scrub vegetation. The survey area has marginally suitable habitat due to weed proliferation, and there are no CNDDB records within 5 miles. Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri coastal whiptail SSC G5T5 S3 This subspecies is found in coastal southern California, mostly west of the Peninsular Ranges and south of the Transverse Ranges, and north into Ventura County. Ranges south into Baja California. Found in a variety of ecosystems, primarily hot and dry open areas with sparse vegetation in chaparral, woodland, and riparian areas. Associated with rocky areas with little vegetation or sunny microhabitats within shrub or grassland associations. Yes Present: Multiple individuals have been seen within the survey area during the project surveys. 5.2.c Packet Pg. 351 Attachment D – Potentially Occurring Special-Status Biological Resources Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project D-4 Biological Resources Assessment Report Table D-1: Potentially Occurring Special-Status Biological Resources Scientific Name Common Name Special- Status Rank* Habitat Preferences and Distribution Affinities Observed On-site Potential to Occur Athene cunicularia burrowing owl SSC G4 S3 Yearlong resident of California. Primarily a grassland species, but it persists and even thrives in some landscapes highly altered by human activity. Occurs in open, annual or perennial grasslands, deserts, and scrublands characterized by low- growing vegetation. The overriding characteristics of suitable habitat appear to be burrows for roosting and nesting and relatively short vegetation with only sparse shrubs and taller vegetation. No Not Expected: The survey area does not contain suitable open space habitat to support this species. Bombus crotchii Crotch bumble bee SCE G3G4 S1S2 Found from coastal California east to the Sierra-Cascade crest and south into Mexico. Primarily occurs in California, including the Mediterranean region, Pacific coast, western desert, great valley, and adjacent foothills through most of southwestern California. Has also been recorded in Baja California, Baja California Sur, and in southwest Nevada. Inhabits open grassland and scrub habitats. Primarily nests underground. Food plant genera include Antirrhinum, Phacelia, Clarkia, Dendromecon, Eschscholzia, and Eriogonum. No Low: Although suitable habitat is present throughout much of the survey area, there are no recent records of this species anywhere in the project vicinity. The only records within 5 miles of the survey area are from one location in 1911 and another location with repeat records from 1932-1934; the areas of these records have been entirely developed. Buteo swainsoni Swainson’s hawk ST G5 S3 Summer migrant in southern California. Typical habitat is open desert, grassland, or cropland containing scattered, large trees or small groves. Breeds in stands with few trees in juniper-sage flats, riparian areas, and in oak savannah in the Central Valley. Forages in adjacent grassland or suitable grain or alfalfa fields or livestock pastures. No Not Expected: This species occurs in this area strictly as a migrant. While it may fly over the site on its way north or south during migration, it would not be expected to land anywhere in the survey area, which does not contain suitable foraging habitat. Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus sandiegensis coastal cactus wren SSC G5T3Q S3 The yearlong resident coastal population (C.b. sandiegensis) has a very limited range, extending from extreme northwestern Baja California north through the coastal lowlands of San Diego County and apparently into southern Orange County. Restricted to thickets of cholla (Cylindropuntia prolifera) or prickly-pear cacti (Opuntia littoralis, O. oricola) tall enough to support and protect the birds’ nests. Typically, habitat consists of coastal sage scrub at elevations below 1,500 feet amsl. No Not Expected: The survey area falls well outside of the recognized range of the sandiegensis subspecies, which ends around State Route 74 based on CDFW mapping. However, the site does contain multiple pairs of another local subspecies, C.b. anthonyi. Catostomus santaanae Santa Ana sucker FT G1 S1 Occur in the watersheds draining the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains of southern California. Steams that Santa Ana sucker inhabit are generally perennial streams with water ranging in depth from a few inches to several feet and with currents ranging from slight to swift. No Not Expected: There is no suitable aquatic habitat and the survey area is well outside of the range of this species. 5.2.c Packet Pg. 352 Attachment D – Potentially Occurring Special-Status Biological Resources Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project D-5 Biological Resources Assessment Report Table D-1: Potentially Occurring Special-Status Biological Resources Scientific Name Common Name Special- Status Rank* Habitat Preferences and Distribution Affinities Observed On-site Potential to Occur Chaetodipus fallax fallax northwestern San Diego pocket mouse SSC G5T3T4 S3S4 Found terrestrially in a wide variety of temperate habitats ranging from chaparral and grasslands to scrub forests and deserts. Open habitat on the Pacific slope from southwestern San Bernardino County to northwestern Baja California. Habitat types include coastal sage scrub, sage scrub/grassland ecotones, and chaparral communities. Major habitat requirement is the presence of low growing vegetation or rocky outcroppings, as well as sandy soil to dig burrows. No Not Expected: The survey area has too much dense, high-growing vegetation for it to be suitable for this species. Chaetura vauxi Vaux’s swift SSC G5 S2S3 Summer resident of northern California. Hollow trees are its favored nesting and roosting sites (chimneys are used on occasion), making this swift vulnerable to loss of old-growth forest. Breeds from southwestern Canada through the western United States to Mexico, Central America, and northern Venezuela. In winter, northern migrant populations of this species overlap southern residents. No Low (migration): This species does not nest in southern California and only migrates through. The extensive coast live oak woodlands in and around the survey area could potentially serve as stopover habitat for the night for migrating birds. Circus hudsonius northern harrier SSC G5 S3 Yearlong resident of California. Frequents meadows, grasslands, open rangelands, desert sinks, fresh and saltwater emergent wetlands; seldom found in wooded area. In general, it prefers saltwater marshes, wet meadows, sloughs, and bogs for nesting and foraging. Nests on the ground in shrubby vegetation or patches of dense vegetation, usually at the marsh edge. No Low (foraging): This species is relatively widespread in the surrounding area, particularly because of Tonner Canyon and the Chino Hills. Some of the more open weedy areas in the survey area could serve as suitable foraging habitat by this species, but the site overall is only marginally suitable for this purpose, and there is no nesting habitat. Coccyzus americanus occidentalis western yellow-billed cuckoo FT SE G5T2T3 S1 In California, the breeding distribution is now thought to be restricted to isolated sites in Sacramento, Amargosa, Kern, Santa Ana, and Colorado River valleys. Obligate riparian species with a primary habitat association of willow-cottonwood riparian forest. No Not Expected: The survey area does not contain suitable foraging or nesting habitat for this species. There are no reports of this species in the general area within 5 miles. Coturnicops noveboracensis yellow rail SSC G4 S1S2 Precise breeding and wintering ranges and relative abundances difficult to discern fully because of the species’ secretive behavior within its marsh habitat. This species occurs year-round in California as a very local breeder in northeastern interior and as a winter visitor (early October to mid-April). Require sedge marshes/meadows with moist soil or shallow standing water. No Not Expected: This species is rare everywhere in California and only reliably occurs in the far northeast corner of the state. It is not expected to occur within the survey area. 5.2.c Packet Pg. 353 Attachment D – Potentially Occurring Special-Status Biological Resources Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project D-6 Biological Resources Assessment Report Table D-1: Potentially Occurring Special-Status Biological Resources Scientific Name Common Name Special- Status Rank* Habitat Preferences and Distribution Affinities Observed On-site Potential to Occur Crotalus ruber red-diamond rattlesnake SSC G4 S3 Found in southwestern California, from the Morongo Valley west to the coast and south along the peninsular ranges to mid Baja California. It can be found from the desert, through dense chaparral in the foothills (it avoids the mountains above around 4,000 feet amsl), to warm inland mesas and valleys, all the way to the cool ocean shore. It is most commonly associated with heavy brush with large rocks or boulders. Dense chaparral in the foothills, boulders associated coastal sage scrub, oak/pine woodlands, and desert slope scrub associations; however, chamise and red shank (Adenostoma sparsifolium) associations may offer better structural habitat for refuges and food resources for this species than other habitats. No High: The survey area has suitable habitat throughout the entire limits and there are a high number of CNDDB reports of this species within the Summitridge Park Trail system. Dipodomys merriami parvus San Bernardino kangaroo rat FE SCE SSC G5T1 S1 Inhabits early to intermediate seral stages of coastal scrub habitat. This species prefers alluvial scrub vegetation on sandy loam substrates characteristic of alluvial fans and floodplains. No Not Expected: The survey area does not contain alluvial scrub habitat and is outside of the range of this species. Elanus leucurus white-tailed kite FP G5 S3S4 Yearlong resident along the coastal ranges and valleys of California. Occurs in low elevation, open grasslands, savannah-like habitats, agricultural areas, wetlands, and oak woodlands. Uses trees with dense canopies for cover. Important prey item is the California vole (Microtus californicus). Nests in tall (20 to 50 feet) coast live oaks (Quercus agrifolia). No Low (nesting and foraging): The survey area has marginal nesting and foraging habitat, with patches of oak woodlands surrounded by open (but very weedy) hillsides. There are a few records within 5 miles. Empidonax traillii willow flycatcher SE G5 S1S2 A rare summer resident of California with currently known breeding locations restricted primarily to the Sierra Nevada/Cascade region, near Buelton in Santa Barbara County; Prado Basin in Riverside County; and several locations in San Diego County. In California, the species is restricted to thickets of willows, whether along streams in broad valleys, in canyon bottoms, around mountain-side seepages, or at the margins of ponds and lakes. No Low (migration): This species may occur within the survey area for resting or foraging purposes strictly during migration. However, this species does not and would not nest anywhere within 5 miles of the survey area. Empidonax traillii extimus southwestern willow flycatcher FE SE G5T2 S1 Uncommon summer resident in southern California primarily found in lower elevation riparian habitats occurring along streams or in meadows. The structure of suitable breeding habitat typically consists of a dense mid-story and understory and can also include a dense canopy. Nest sites are generally located near surface water or saturated soils. The presence of surface water, swampy conditions, standing or flowing water under the riparian canopy are preferred. No Low (migration): This species may occur within the survey area for resting or foraging purposes strictly during migration. However, this species does not and would not nest anywhere within 5 miles of the survey area. 5.2.c Packet Pg. 354 Attachment D – Potentially Occurring Special-Status Biological Resources Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project D-7 Biological Resources Assessment Report Table D-1: Potentially Occurring Special-Status Biological Resources Scientific Name Common Name Special- Status Rank* Habitat Preferences and Distribution Affinities Observed On-site Potential to Occur Emys marmorata western pond turtle SSC G3G4 S3 Found in ponds, lakes, rivers, streams, creeks, marshes, and irrigation ditches, with abundant vegetation, either rocky or muddy bottoms, in woodland, forest, and grassland. In streams, prefers pools to shallower areas. Logs, rocks, cattail mats, and exposed banks are required for basking. May enter brackish water and even seawater. Found at elevations from sea level to over 5,900 feet amsl. No Not Expected: There is no suitable aquatic within the survey area. Eremophila alpestris actia California horned lark WL G5T4Q S4 Yearlong resident of California. This subspecies is typically found in coastal regions. Breed in level or gently sloping shortgrass prairie, montane meadows, "bald" hills, open coastal plains, fallow grain fields, and alkali flats. Within southern California, California horned larks breed primarily in open fields, (short) grasslands, and rangelands. Nests on the open ground. No Low (nesting and foraging): The survey area contains marginal nesting and foraging habitat for this species, but the open space areas are generally consumed by dense weeds. There are a few local records within 5 miles. Eumops perotis californicus western mastiff bat SSC G5T4 S3S4 Primarily a cliff-dwelling species, roost generally under exfoliating rock slabs. Roosts are generally high above the ground, usually allowing a clear vertical drop of at least 3 meters below the entrance for flight. In California, it is most frequently encountered in broad open areas. Its foraging habitat includes dry desert washes, flood plains, chaparral, oak woodland, open ponderosa pine forest, grassland, and agricultural areas. No Low: There is suitable roosting and foraging habitat on-site, but there are no CNDDB records within 5 miles of the survey area. Falco columbarius merlin WL G5 S3S4 Uncommon winter resident of southern California. Nest in forested openings, edges, and along rivers across northern North America. Found in open forests, grasslands, and especially coastal areas with flocks of small songbirds or shorebirds. This species does not breed in California. No Moderate (wintering): The survey area generally contains suitable wintering habitat for this species, and there are a handful of records within 5 miles. Falco mexicanus prairie falcon WL G5 S4 The prairie falcon is associated primarily with perennial grasslands, savannahs, rangeland, some agricultural fields during the winter season, and desert scrub areas, all typically dry environments of western North American where there are cliffs or bluffs for nest sites. The species requires sheltered cliff ledges for cover and nesting which may range in height from low rock outcrops of 30 feet to vertical 400 feet high (or more) cliffs and typically overlook some treeless country for hunting. Open terrain is used for foraging. Will forage up to 15 miles from the nest site. No Not Expected: The survey area does not contain suitable nesting or foraging habitat for this species. 5.2.c Packet Pg. 355 Attachment D – Potentially Occurring Special-Status Biological Resources Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project D-8 Biological Resources Assessment Report Table D-1: Potentially Occurring Special-Status Biological Resources Scientific Name Common Name Special- Status Rank* Habitat Preferences and Distribution Affinities Observed On-site Potential to Occur Falco peregrinus anatum American peregrine falcon FP G4T4 S3S4 This species breeds and winters throughout California, with the exception of desert areas. Use a large variety of open habitats for foraging, including tundra, marshes, seacoasts, savannahs, grasslands, meadows, open woodlands, and agricultural areas. Sites are often located near rivers or lakes. Riparian areas, as well as coastal and inland wetlands, are also important habitats year- round for this species. The species breeds mostly in woodland, forest, and coastal habitats. The nest is typically a scrape or depression dug in gravel on a cliff ledge or on manmade structures, including skyscraper ledges, tall towers, and bridges. Within southern California, peregrine falcons are primarily found at coastal estuaries and inland oases wherever a food source is located. No High (foraging): The survey area generally contains suitable foraging habitat for this species, and there are a handful of records within 5 miles. There is no suitable nesting habitat within the survey area. Gila orcuttii arroyo chub SSC G2 S2 Native to the Los Angeles, San Gabriel, San Luis Rey, Santa Ana, and Santa Margarita rivers and to Malibu and San Juan creeks. This species has been introduced and have successfully established populations in the Santa Ynez, Santa Maria, Cuyama and Mojave river systems as well as smaller coastal streams such as Arroyo Grande Creek and Chorro Creek in San Luis Obispo County. Warm streams of the Los Angeles Plain, which are typically muddy torrents during the winter, and clear quiet brooks in the summer, possibly drying up in places. They are found both in slow-moving and fast-moving sections, but generally deeper than 16 inches. No Not Expected: There is no suitable aquatic within the survey area. Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle SE FP G5 S3 Locally common yearlong resident of southern California. Typically prefer areas near large water bodies such as sea coasts, coastal estuaries and inland lakes and rivers, in many areas, these birds are found within two miles of a water source. Most populations, specifically those in northern regions, migrate to southern, milder climates annually. Generally, these birds’ nest in the canopy of tall, coniferous trees, surrounded by smaller trees. They have been reported nesting on the ground, on cliffs, on cellular phone towers, on electrical poles and in artificial nesting towers. No Not Expected: The survey area does not contain suitable nesting or foraging habitat for this species. There is possibly foraging habitat at the local Arnold Reservoir southeast of the survey area, but there is no suitable nesting habitat within 5 miles. 5.2.c Packet Pg. 356 Attachment D – Potentially Occurring Special-Status Biological Resources Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project D-9 Biological Resources Assessment Report Table D-1: Potentially Occurring Special-Status Biological Resources Scientific Name Common Name Special- Status Rank* Habitat Preferences and Distribution Affinities Observed On-site Potential to Occur Icteria virens yellow-breasted chat SSC G5 S3 Summer resident of California. Primarily found in tall, dense, relatively wide riparian woodlands and thickets of willows, vine tangles, and dense brush with well-developed understories. Breeding habitat within southern California primarily consists of dense, wide riparian woodlands and thickets of willows, vine tangles, and dense brush with well-developed understories. Nesting areas are associated with streams, swampy ground, and the borders of small ponds. It winters south the Central America. Found at elevations ranging from 820 to 2,625 feet amsl. No Not Expected: There is no suitable nesting or foraging habitat within the survey area, which lacks the riparian scrub that this species occurs in. Lanius ludovicianus loggerhead shrike SSC G4 S4 Yearlong resident of California. Prefers open habitats with bare ground, scattered shrubs, and areas with low or sparse herbaceous cover including open- canopied valley foothill hardwood, riparian, pinyon-juniper desert riparian, creosote bush scrub, and Joshua tree woodland. Requires suitable perches including trees, posts, fences, utility lines, or other perches. Nests in branches up to 14 feet above the ground frequently in a shrub with thorns or with tangled branching habitats. No Low (foraging): The survey area has marginal foraging habitat for this species on the hillsides, but this species is nearly extirpated from the coastal slope as a breeding bird. Larus californicus California gull WL G5 S4 Require isolated islands in rivers, reservoirs and natural lakes for nesting, where predations pressures from terrestrial mammals are diminished. Uses both fresh and saline aquatic habitats at variable elevations and degrees of aridity for nesting and for opportunistic foraging. No Not Expected: This species may fly over the survey area, but there is no suitable foraging or roosting habitat and this is outside of this species’ breeding range. Lasiurus blossevillii western red bat SSC G5 S3 Winter range includes western lowlands and coastal regions south of San Francisco Bay. There is migration between summer and winter ranges. Roosting habitat includes forests and woodlands from sea level up through mixed conifer forests. Roosts primarily in trees, less often in shrubs. Roost sites are often found adjacent to streams, fields, or urban areas. Forages over grasslands, shrublands, open woodlands and forests, and croplands. Not found in desert areas. No Low: There is suitable roosting and foraging habitat on-site, but there are no CNDDB records within 5 miles of the survey area. Lasiurus xanthinus western yellow bat SSC G5 S3 Roosts in palm trees in foothill riparian, desert wash, and palm oasis habitats with access to water for foraging. No Not Expected: The survey area and surrounding vicinity (generally developed) lacks roosting habitat for this species. Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus California black rail ST FP G3G4T1 S1 Suitable habitat generally includes salt marshes, freshwater marshes, and wet meadows. Typical associated vegetation includes pickle weed (Salicornia virginica), in salt marshes and bulrush (Scirpus spp.) in less saline habitats. No Not Expected: This species is extremely rare anywhere in southern California outside of the far southeast corner of the state. There is no suitable nesting or foraging habitat within the survey area. 5.2.c Packet Pg. 357 Attachment D – Potentially Occurring Special-Status Biological Resources Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project D-10 Biological Resources Assessment Report Table D-1: Potentially Occurring Special-Status Biological Resources Scientific Name Common Name Special- Status Rank* Habitat Preferences and Distribution Affinities Observed On-site Potential to Occur Lepus californicus bennettii San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit SSC G5T3T4 S3S4 Occupies many diverse habitats, but primarily is found in arid regions supporting short-grass habitats, agricultural fields, or sparse coastal scrub. No Not Expected: There is no suitably open shrubby habitat within the survey area, which is also too surrounded by development, for this species to be expected. There are no CNDDB records within 5 miles. Microtus californicus stephensi south coast marsh vole SSC G5T1T2 S1S2 Found within tidal marshes in Los Angeles, Orange, and southern Ventura counties. No Not Expected: There is no suitable habitat for this species within the survey area and no CNDDB records within 5 miles. Neotoma lepida intermedia San Diego desert woodrat SSC G5T3T4 S3S4 Occurs in coastal scrub communities between San Luis Obispo and San Diego Counties. Found in a variety of shrub and desert habitats, primarily associated with rock outcroppings, boulders, cacti, or areas of dense undergrowth. Woodrats often are associated with cholla cactus which they use for water and dens or boulders and boulder piles. The most common natural habitats for records are chaparral, coastal sage scrub (including RSS and Diegan coastal sage scrub) and grassland. No Low: The survey area contains suitable habitat for this species, but there are no CNDDB records within 5 miles. Nyctinomops femorosaccus pocketed free-tailed bat SSC G4 S3 Often found in pinyon-juniper woodlands, desert scrub, desert succulent shrub, desert riparian, desert wash, alkali desert scrub, Joshua tree (Yucca brevifolia) woodland, and palm oasis habitats. Prefers rocky desert areas with high cliffs or rock outcrops, which are used as roosting sites. No Not Expected: There is no suitable habitat for this species within the survey area and no CNDDB records within 5 miles. Nyctinomops macrotis big free-tailed bat SSC G5 S3 Found in New Mexico, southern Arizona, and Texas. Rare in California. Records of this species are from urban areas of San Diego County. Prefers rugged, rocky terrain up to 8,000 feet amsl. Roosts in buildings, caves, and occasionally in holes in trees. Also roosts in crevices in high cliffs or rock outcrops. No Not Expected: There is no suitable habitat for this species within the survey area and no CNDDB records within 5 miles. Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 10 steelhead – southern California DPS FE G5T1Q S1 Steelhead can survive in a wide range of temperature conditions. Species is found where dissolved oxygen concentration is at least 7 parts per million. In streams, deep low-velocity pools are important wintering habitats. Spawning habitat consists of gravel substrates free of excessive silt. No Not Expected: There is no suitable aquatic within the survey area. Pandion haliaetus osprey WL G5 S4 Winter resident of southern California. Associated strictly with large, fish-bearing waters, primarily in ponderosa pine through mixed conifer habitats. Uses large trees, snags, and dead-topped trees in open forest habitats for cover and nesting. Requires open, clear waters for foraging and uses rivers, lakes, reservoirs, bays, estuaries, and surf zones. No Not Expected: The survey area does not contain suitable nesting or foraging habitat for this species. There is possibly foraging habitat at the local Arnold Reservoir southeast of the survey area, but there is no suitable nesting habitat within 5 miles. 5.2.c Packet Pg. 358 Attachment D – Potentially Occurring Special-Status Biological Resources Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project D-11 Biological Resources Assessment Report Table D-1: Potentially Occurring Special-Status Biological Resources Scientific Name Common Name Special- Status Rank* Habitat Preferences and Distribution Affinities Observed On-site Potential to Occur Perognathus longimembris brevinasus Los Angeles pocket mouse SSC G5T1T2 S1S2 Occurs in lower elevation grasslands and coastal sage scrub communities in and around the Los Angeles Basin. Prefers open ground with fine sandy soils. May not dig extensive burrows, but instead will seek refuge under weeds and dead leaves instead. No Not Expected: There is no suitable habitat for this species within the survey area and no CNDDB records within 5 miles. Phalacrocorax auritus double-crested cormorant WL G5 S4 Yearlong resident of California. Prefers water less than 30 feet deep with rocky or gravel bottom. Rests in daytime and roosts overnight beside water on offshore rocks, islands, cliffs, dead branches of trees, wharfs, jetties, or even transmission lines. Occupies diverse aquatic habitats in all seasons. In California, most individuals are found nesting in coastal regions. Requires suitable places for daytime resting (e.g., rocks, sandbars, pilings). Forage in shallow water (< 30 feet deep). No Not Expected: There is no suitable foraging or nesting habitat for this species within the survey area. The survey area lacks any open waters or any notable expansive open fields and lacks any rookery trees. Phrynosoma blainvillii coast horned lizard SSC G3G4 S4 Occurs in a wide variety of vegetation types including coastal sage scrub, annual grassland, chaparral, oak woodland, riparian woodland and coniferous forest. Its elevational range extends up to 4,000 feet in the Sierra Nevada foothills and up to 6,000 feet in the mountains of southern California. In inland areas, this species is restricted to areas with pockets of open microhabitat, created by disturbance (e.g. fire, floods, unimproved roads, grazing lands, and fire breaks). The key elements of such habitats are loose, fine soils with a high sand fraction; an abundance of native ants or other insects; and open areas with limited overstory for basking and low, but relatively dense shrubs for refuge. No Low: There are pockets of suitable habitat within the survey area where the weeds are not as prevalent and there is more open ground, but there is only one record from within the last 20 years within 5 miles of the survey area. Piranga rubra summer tanager SSC G5 S1 Summer resident in southern California where it breeds in low-elevation willow and Fremont cottonwood woodlands, and in higher-elevation mesquite and saltcedar (Tamarix spp.) stands. Winters in the tropics, mainly in lowlands but also up to middle elevations in mountains, both in solid forest and in edges and clearings with scattered trees. Nests close to creeks, favoring broad riparian zones (196 feet [60 meters]). No Low (wintering): This species is a fairly common winter vagrant in coastal southern California and may occur as a vagrant within the survey area. However, it would not be expected to nest on-site. Polioptila californica californica coastal California gnatcatcher FT SSC G4G5T2Q S2 Yearlong resident of sage scrub habitats that are dominated by California sagebrush. This species generally occurs below 750 feet amsl in coastal regions and below 1,500 feet amsl inland. Ranges from the Ventura County, south to San Diego County and northern Baja California and it is less common in sage scrub with a high percentage of tall shrubs. Prefers habitat with more low- growing vegetation. Yes Present: The survey area contains a relatively high number of gnatcatchers that are confirmed to be nesting on-site. 5.2.c Packet Pg. 359 Attachment D – Potentially Occurring Special-Status Biological Resources Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project D-12 Biological Resources Assessment Report Table D-1: Potentially Occurring Special-Status Biological Resources Scientific Name Common Name Special- Status Rank* Habitat Preferences and Distribution Affinities Observed On-site Potential to Occur Rhinichthys osculus ssp. 3 Santa Ana speckled dace SSC G5T1 S1 Requires permanent flowing streams with summer water temperatures of 62 – 68 degrees Fahrenheit. Inhabits shallow cobble and gravel riffles and small streams that flow through steep, rocky canyons with chaparral covered walls. No Not Expected: There is no suitable aquatic within the survey area. Riparia riparia bank swallow ST G5 S2 Neotropical migrant found in riparian and other lowland habitats in California, west of the deserts. The species does not breed in southern California. During the summer, the species is restricted to riverbanks, creeks, seashores, and lakes with vertical banks, bluffs, and cliffs with fine-textured or sandy soils nearby for nesting. No Not Expected: There is no suitable foraging habitat for this species within the survey area. This species does not breed anywhere in the region. Salvadora hexalepis virgultea coast patch-nosed snake SSC G5T4 S2S3 Occurs in brushy vegetation including coastal scrub and chaparral from the coast to the mountains. Takes refuge in existing small mammal burrows. No Low: There is suitable habitat within the survey area, but no CNDDB records within 5 miles. Setophaga petechia yellow warbler SSC G5 S3S4 Yearlong resident along the southern coast of California with the remainder of the State being occupied during the summer. The species also winters along the Colorado River and in parts of Imperial and Riverside Counties. Nests in riparian areas dominated by willows, cottonwoods, California sycamores, or alders (Alnus spp.) or in mature chaparral. May also use oaks, conifers, and urban areas near stream courses. No Low (foraging): The survey area contains marginal foraging habitat for this birds during migration, but there is no nesting habitat. Lack of any non-oak riparian habitat or eucalyptus trees reduces the possibility of birds staying on-site for very long. Spea hammondii western spadefoot SSC G3 S3 Prefers open areas with sandy or gravelly soils, in a variety of habitats including mixed woodlands, grasslands, coastal sage scrub, chaparral, sandy washes, lowlands, river floodplains, alluvial fans, playas, alkali flats, foothills, and mountains. Rain pools which do not contain American bullfrogs (Lithobates catesbeianus), predatory fish, or crayfish are necessary for breeding. Estivates in upland habitats adjacent to potential breeding sites in burrows approximating 3 feet in depth. No Not Expected: There is no suitable habitat within the survey area and no CNDDB records within 5 miles. Taricha torosa coast range newt SSC G4 S4 Found in wet forests, oak forests, chaparral, and rolling grasslands. In southern California, it is found in drier chaparral, oak woodland, and grasslands. No Not Expected: There is no suitable habitat within the survey area and no CNDDB records within 5 miles. Taxidea taxus American badger SSC G5 S3 Occupies a wide variety of habitats including dry, open grassland, sagebrush, and woodland habitats. Badgers are generally associated with treeless regions, prairies, park lands and cold desert areas (Lindzey 1982). Require dry, friable, often sandy soil to dig burrows for cover, food storage, and giving birth. Occasionally found in riparian zones and open chaparral with less than 50% plant cover. No Not Expected: There is no suitable habitat within the survey area and no CNDDB records within 5 miles. 5.2.c Packet Pg. 360 Attachment D – Potentially Occurring Special-Status Biological Resources Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project D-13 Biological Resources Assessment Report Table D-1: Potentially Occurring Special-Status Biological Resources Scientific Name Common Name Special- Status Rank* Habitat Preferences and Distribution Affinities Observed On-site Potential to Occur Thamnophis hammondii two-striped gartersnake SSC G4 S3S4 Occurs in or near permanent fresh water, often along streams with rocky beds and riparian growth up to 7,000 feet amsl. No Not Expected: There is no suitable habitat within the survey area and no CNDDB records within 5 miles. Thamnophis sirtalis pop. 1 south coast gartersnake SSC G5T1T2 S1S2 Utilizes a wide variety of habitats - forests, mixed woodlands, grassland, chaparral, farmlands, often near ponds, marshes, or streams. No Not Expected: There is no suitable habitat within the survey area and no CNDDB records within 5 miles. Vireo bellii pusillus least Bell’s vireo FE SE SSC G5T2 S2 Summer resident in southern California. Breeding habitat generally consists of dense, low, shrubby vegetation in riparian areas, and mesquite brushlands, often near water in arid regions. Early successional cottonwood-willow riparian groves are preferred for nesting. The most critical structural component of nesting habitat in California is a dense shrub layer that is 2 to 10 feet (0.6 to 3.0 meters) above ground. The presence of water, including ponded surface water or moist soil conditions, may also be a key component for nesting habitat. No Not Expected: There is no suitable nesting or foraging habitat within the survey area, which lacks the riparian habitat that this species occurs in. Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus yellow-headed blackbird SSC G5 S3 Occurs primarily as a migrant and summer resident from April to early October; breeds from mid-April to early October. Small numbers winter in the southern Central Valley and the Imperial and Colorado River valleys. Occurs in freshwater emergent wetlands, and moist, open areas along croplands and mud flats of lacustrine habitats. Prefers to nest in tall, dense wetland vegetation characterized by tules (Scirpus spp.), cattails (Typha spp.), or other similar plant species along the border of lakes and ponds. No Not Expected: The survey area does not contain suitable nesting or foraging habitat for this species and there are no reports in the general vicinity. SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES Abronia villosa var. aurita chaparral sand-verbena 1B.1 G5T2? S2 Annual herb. Occurs on sandy soils within chaparral, coastal scrub, and desert dunes habitat. Found at elevations ranging from 246 to 5,249 feet amsl. Blooming period is (January) March through September. No Low: The sandy soils within chaparral habitat (inland scrub oak chaparral) preferred by this species is present on-site. However, there are no occurrence records for this species within 5.0 miles of the survey area (CNDDB, 2020). Androsace elongata ssp. acuta California androsace 4.2 G5?T3T4 S3S4 Annual herb. Occurs in chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, meadows and seeps, pinyon and juniper woodland, and valley and foothill grassland habitats. Found at elevations ranging from 492 to 4,281 feet amsl. Blooming period is from March to June. No Low: The chaparral (scrub oak chaparral) habitat preferred by this species is present within the survey area. However, there are no occurrence records for this species within 5.0 miles of the survey area (CNDDB, 2020). 5.2.c Packet Pg. 361 Attachment D – Potentially Occurring Special-Status Biological Resources Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project D-14 Biological Resources Assessment Report Table D-1: Potentially Occurring Special-Status Biological Resources Scientific Name Common Name Special- Status Rank* Habitat Preferences and Distribution Affinities Observed On-site Potential to Occur Asplenium vespertinum western spleenwort 4.2 G4 S4 Perennial rhizomatous herb. Found on rocky soils within chaparral, cismontane woodland, and coastal scrub habitat. Found at elevations ranging from 591 to 3,281 feet amsl. Blooming period is February through June. No Low: The rocky soils within chaparral (scrub oak chaparral) habitat preferred by this species is present within the survey area. However, there are no occurrence records for this species within 5.0 miles of the survey area (CNDDB, 2020). Astragalus brauntonii Braunton's milk-vetch FE 1B.1 G2 S2 Perennial herb. Found in recently burned or disturbed areas, usually sandstone with carbonate layers in coastal scrub, chaparral, and valley and foothill grassland habitats. Found at elevations ranging from 13 to 2,100 feet amsl. Blooming period is January through August. No Low: The chaparral habitat (inland scrub oak chaparral) preferred by this species is present on-site. However, there are no occurrence records for this species within 5.0 miles of the survey area (CNDDB, 2020). Atriplex coulteri Coulter’s saltbush 1B.2 G3 S1S2 Perennial herb. Blooms March through October. Generally associated with alkaline or clay soils that occur in grasslands and coastal bluff habitats. Known elevations range from 30 to 1,440 feet amsl. No Not Expected: The alkaline and clays soils preferred by this species is not present within the survey area. Additionally, there are no occurrence records for this species within 5.0 miles of the survey area (CNDDB, 2020). Atriplex parishii Parish’s brittlescale 1B.1 G1G2 S1 Annual herb. Blooms June through October. Usually found on drying alkali flats with fine soils in vernal pools, chenopod scrub, wet meadows, and playas. Known elevations range from 15 to 4,660 feet amsl. No Not Expected: No vernal pools, chenopod scrub, wet meadows, or playa habitats typically preferred by this species are present within the survey area. Additionally, there are no occurrence records for this species within 5.0 miles of the survey area (CNDDB, 2020). Atriplex serenana var. davidsonii Davidson’s saltscale 1B.2 G5T1 S1 Annual herb. Occurs on alkaline soils within coastal bluff scrub and coastal scrub habitats. Grows in elevations ranging from 33 to 656 feet amsl. Blooming period is from April to October. No Not Expected: The survey area is outside of the known elevation range for this species. Additionally, the alkaline soils preferred by this species are not present within the survey area. Further, there are no occurrence records for this species within 5.0 miles of the survey area (CNDDB, 2020). Berberis nevinii Nevin’s barberry FE SE 1B.1 G1 S1 Perennial evergreen shrub. Occurs on sandy or gravelly soils in chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, and riparian scrub. Found at elevations ranging from 899 to 2,707 feet amsl. Blooming period is (February) March through June. No Low: The sandy and gravelly soils within chaparral (scrub oak chaparral) preferred by this species is present within the survey area. However, there are no occurrence records for this species within 5.0 miles of the survey area (CNDDB, 2020). 5.2.c Packet Pg. 362 Attachment D – Potentially Occurring Special-Status Biological Resources Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project D-15 Biological Resources Assessment Report Table D-1: Potentially Occurring Special-Status Biological Resources Scientific Name Common Name Special- Status Rank* Habitat Preferences and Distribution Affinities Observed On-site Potential to Occur Calochortus catalinae Catalina mariposa-lily 4.2 G3G4 S3S4 Perennial herb (bulb). Habitats include chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland. Found at elevations ranging from 49 to 2,297 feet amsl. Blooming period is February through June. No Moderate: The chaparral (scrub oak chaparral) and coastal scrub habitats preferred by this species are present within the survey area. In addition, the nearest documented occurrence is 0.3 mile south of the project site (UC Riverside, 2020). Calochortus plummerae Plummer's mariposa-lily 4.2 G4 S4 Perennial bulbiferous herb. Occurs on granitic and rocky soils within chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, lower montane coniferous forest, and valley/foothill grassland. Grows in elevations ranging from 328 to 5,577 feet amsl. Blooming period is from May to July. No Low: The rocky soils within chaparral (scrub oak chaparral) and coastal scrub habitats preferred by this species is present within the survey area. However, the nearest documented occurrence for this species (Occurrence Number 95) is 4.2 miles northwest of the survey area (CNDDB, 2020). Calochortus weedii var. intermedius intermediate mariposa-lily 1B.2 G3G4T2 S2 Perennial bulbiferous herb. Found in chaparral, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grasslands in rocky or calcareous soils. Found at elevations ranging from 344 to 2,805 feet amsl. Blooming period is May through July. No Low: The rocky soils within chaparral (scrub oak chaparral) and coastal scrub habitats preferred by this species is present within the survey area. However, the nearest documented occurrence for this species (Occurrence Number 123) is 2.5 miles south of the survey area (CNDDB, 2020). Calystegia felix lucky morning-glory 1B.1 G1Q S1 Annual herb (rhizomatous). Blooms March through September. Found on silty loam and alkaline soils in meadows and seeps and alluvial soils in riparian scrub. Historically associated with wetland and marshy places, but possibly in drier situations as well. Known elevations range from 25 to 710 feet amsl. No Not Expected: The survey area is outside of the known elevation range for this species. Additionally, the typical habitat preferred by this species is not present within the survey area. Camissoniopsis lewisii Lewis' evening-primrose 3 G4 S4 Annual herb. Occurs on sandy or clay soils coastal bluff scrub, cismontane woodland, coastal dunes, coastal scrubland, and valley/foothill grassland habitats. Grows in elevations ranging from 0 to 984 feet amsl. Blooming period is March through May (June). No Low: The sandy soils within coastal scrubland preferred by this species is present within the survey area. However, there are no occurrence records for this species within 5.0 miles of the survey area (CNDDB, 2020). Centromadia parryi ssp. australis southern tarplant 1B.1 G3T2 S2 Annual herb. Occurs in marshes and swamps (margins), valley and foothill grassland (vernally mesic), and vernal pools. Found at elevations ranging from 0 to 1,575 feet amsl. Blooming period is from May to November. No Not Expected: The marshes and swamp, valley and foothill grassland, and vernal pool habitats typically preferred by this species are not present within the survey area. Further, there are no occurrence records for this species within 5.0 miles of the survey area (CNDDB, 2020). 5.2.c Packet Pg. 363 Attachment D – Potentially Occurring Special-Status Biological Resources Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project D-16 Biological Resources Assessment Report Table D-1: Potentially Occurring Special-Status Biological Resources Scientific Name Common Name Special- Status Rank* Habitat Preferences and Distribution Affinities Observed On-site Potential to Occur Centromadia pungens ssp. laevis smooth tarplant 1B.1 G3G4T2 S2 Annual herb. Occurs in alkaline soils within chenopod scrub, meadows and seeps, playas, riparian woodland, and valley/foothill grassland habitats. Grows in elevation from 0 to 2,100 feet amsl. Blooming period is April through September. No Not Expected: The alkaline soils typically preferred by this species are not present within the survey area. Further, the only occurrence record near the survey area was last seen in 1903 (CNDDB, 2020). Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi Parry’s spineflower 1B.1 G3T2 S2 Annual herb. Occurs on sandy and/or rocky soils in chaparral, coastal sage scrub, and sandy openings within alluvial washes and margins. Found at elevations ranging from 951 to 3,773 feet amsl. Blooming period is April through June. No Low: The chaparral (scrub oak chaparral) and coastal sage scrub habitats preferred by this species are present within the survey area. However, there are no occurrence records for this species within 5.0 miles of the survey area (CNDDB, 2020). Cladium californicum California saw-grass 2B.2 G4 S2 Perennial rhizomatous herb. Found in meadows and seeps, marshes and swamps (alkaline or freshwater). Found at elevations ranging from 197 to 5,249 feet amsl. Blooming period is June through September. No Not Expected: There are no meadows and seeps or marshes and swamps within the survey area. Further, there are no occurrence records for this species within 5.0 miles of the survey area (CNDDB, 2020). Convolvulus simulans small-flowered morning-glory 4.2 G4 S4 Annual herb. Found on wet clay and serpentine ridges within chaparral, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grassland. Found at elevations ranging from 100 to 2820 feet amsl. Blooming period is March through July. No Not Expected: Wet clay and serpentine ridges are not present within the survey area. Further, there are no occurrence records for this species within 5.0 miles of the survey area (CNDDB, 2020). Deinandra paniculata paniculate tarplant 4.2 G4 S4 Annual herb. Occurs in coastal scrub, vernal pools, and valley/foothill grassland habitats. Found at elevations rainging from 82 to 3,084 feet amsl. Blooming period is April through November. No Low: Although the coastal scrub habitat preferred by this species is abundant within the survey area, there are no occurrence records for this species within 5.0 miles of the survey area (CNDDB, 2020). Dodecahema leptoceras slender-horned spineflower FE SE 1B.1 G1 S1 Annual herb. Occurs on flood deposited terraces and washes in chaparral, coastal scrub, and alluvial fan sage scrub habitats. Found at elevations ranging from 1,181 to 2,690 feet amsl. Blooming period is from April to June. No Not Expected: The survey area is outside of the known elevation range for this species. Further, there are no occurrence records for this species within 5.0 miles of the survey area (CNDDB, 2020). 5.2.c Packet Pg. 364 Attachment D – Potentially Occurring Special-Status Biological Resources Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project D-17 Biological Resources Assessment Report Table D-1: Potentially Occurring Special-Status Biological Resources Scientific Name Common Name Special- Status Rank* Habitat Preferences and Distribution Affinities Observed On-site Potential to Occur Dudleya multicaulis many-stemmed dudleya 1B.2 G2 S2 Perennial herb. Often occurs on clay soils and around granitic outcrops in chaparral, coastal sage scrub, and grasslands. Found at elevations ranging from 0 to 2,592 feet amsl. Blooming period is April through July. No Low: The clay soils within chaparral (scrub oak chaparral) and coastal sage scrub typically preferred by this species is present within the survey area. However, there are no occurrence records last seen within the past 20 years for this species within 5.0 miles of the survey area (CNDDB, 2020). Eriastrum densifolium ssp. sanctorum Santa Ana River woollystar FE SE 1B.1 G4T1 S1 Perennial herb. Grows on sandy or gravelly soils within chaparral and coastal scrub (alluvial fan) habitats. Found at elevations ranging from 298 to 2,001 feet amsl. Blooming period is April through September. No Not Expected: The survey area is outside of the known range of this species and lacks the alluvial fan habitat that this species is associated with. In addition, there are no occurrence records last seen within the past 20 years for this species within 5.0 miles of the survey area (CNDDB, 2020). Horkelia cuneata var. puberula mesa horkelia 1B.1 G4T1 S1 Perennial herb. Found in sandy or gravelly soils within chaparral, cismontane woodland, and coastal scrub habitats. Found at elevations ranging from 230 to 2,657 feet amsl. Blooming period is February through September. No Low: The sandy soils within chaparral (scrub oak chaparral) typically preferred by this species is present within the project site. However, there are no occurrence records for this species within 5.0 miles of the survey area (CNDDB, 2020). Juglans californica southern California black walnut 4.2 G4 S4 Perennial deciduous tree. Found in chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, and riparian woodland habitats. Found at elevations ranging from 164 to 2,953 feet amsl. Blooming period is March through August. Yes Present: This species occurs within the disturbed California walnut groves and coast live oak woodland and forest within the survey area. Juncus acutus ssp. leopoldii southwestern spiny rush 4.2 Perennial rhizomatous herb. Occurs within coastal dunes (mesic), meadows and seeps (alkaline seeps), and marshes and swamps (coastal salt). Found at elevations ranging from 9 to 2,955 feet amsl. Blooming period is (March) May through June. No Not Expected: The wetland communities and hydric soils typically preferred by this species are not present within the survey area. Further, there are no occurrence records for this species within 5.0 miles of the survey area (CNDDB, 2020). Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri Coulter’s goldfields 1B.1 G4T2 S2 Annual herb. Prefers playas, vernal pools, and coastal salt marshes and swamps. Found at elevations ranging from 3 to 4,003 feet amsl. Blooming period is from February to June. No Not Expected: The wetland communities typically preferred by this species are not present within the survey area. Further, there are no occurrence records for this species within 5.0 miles of the survey area (CNDDB, 2020). 5.2.c Packet Pg. 365 Attachment D – Potentially Occurring Special-Status Biological Resources Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project D-18 Biological Resources Assessment Report Table D-1: Potentially Occurring Special-Status Biological Resources Scientific Name Common Name Special- Status Rank* Habitat Preferences and Distribution Affinities Observed On-site Potential to Occur Lepidium virginicum var. robinsonii Robinson's pepper-grass 4.3 G5T3 S3 Annual herb. Dry soils on chaparral and coastal sage scrub. Found at elevations ranging from 66 to 4,396 feet amsl. Blooming period is January through July. No Low: The dry soils within chaparral (scrub oak chaparral) and coastal sage scrub typically preferred by this species are present within the project site. However, the nearest documented occurrence (Occurrence Number 141) is 3.5 miles southwest of the survey area (CNDDB, 2020). Monardella australis ssp. jokerstii Jokerst's monardella 1B.1 G4T1? S1? Perennial rhizomatous herb. Grows on steep scree or talus slopes between breccia and secondary alluvial benches along drainages and washes. Found in chaparral and lower montane coniferous forest habitat. Blooming period is July through September. Found at elevations ranging from 4,429 to 5,741 feet amsl. No Not Expected: Although a drainage runs through the survey area, there is no breccia or secondary alluvial benches present along this drainage. Additionally, the survey area is outside of the known elevation range for this species. Further, there are no occurrence records for this species within 5.0 miles of the survey area (CNDDB, 2020). Muhlenbergia californica California muhly 4.3 G4 S4 Perennial rhizomatous herb. Found in mesic areas, meadows, seeps, and streambanks within chaparral, coastal scrub, and lower montane coniferous forest. Found at elevations ranging from 328 to 6,562 feet amsl. Blooming period is June through September. No Not Expected: There are no wetland communities within the survey area that this species is typically found within. Further, the only occurrence record of this species near the survey area is from 1916 (CNDDB, 2020). Muhlenbergia utilis aparejo grass 2B.2 G4 S2S3 Perennial herb. Usually occurs in coastal sage scrub, creosote bush scrub, and wetland riparian habitats. Found at elevations ranging from 820 to 3,281 feet amsl. Blooming period is October through March. No Low: The coastal sage scrub habitat preferred by this species is present within the survey area. However, the only occurrence record of this species near the survey area is from 1916 (CNDDB, 2020). Navarretia prostrata prostate vernal pool navarretia 1B.2 G2 S2 Annual herb. Blooms April through July. Occurs in mesic sites and on alkaline soils in coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland, vernal pool, meadows, and seeps. Known elevations range from 5 to 4,055 feet amsl. No Not Expected: There are no alkaline soils or mesic sites present within the survey area. Further, the only occurrence record of this species near the survey area is from 1918 (CNDDB, 2020). Phacelia hubbyi Hubby’s phacelia 4.2 G4 S4 Annual herb. Grows on gravelly, rocky, talus soils within chaparral, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grassland habitats. Found at elevations ranging from 0 to 3,281 feet amsl. Blooming period is from April to July. No Low: The rocky soils within chaparral (scrub oak chaparral) and coastal sage scrub habitat preferred by this species are present within the survey area. However, there are no occurrence records for this species within 5.0 miles of the survey area (CNDDB, 2020). 5.2.c Packet Pg. 366 Attachment D – Potentially Occurring Special-Status Biological Resources Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project D-19 Biological Resources Assessment Report Table D-1: Potentially Occurring Special-Status Biological Resources Scientific Name Common Name Special- Status Rank* Habitat Preferences and Distribution Affinities Observed On-site Potential to Occur Phacelia ramosissima var. austrolitoralis south coast branching phacelia 3.2 G5?T3Q S3 Perennial herb. Found on sandy, sometimes rocky site within chaparral, coastal scrub, coastal dunes, and coastal salt marsh. Found at elevations ranging from 15 to 980 feet amsl. Blooming period is from March to August. No Low: The sandy soils within chaparral (scrub oak chaparral) and coastal sage scrub habitat preferred by this species are present within the survey area. However, there are no occurrence records for this species within 5.0 miles of the survey area (CNDDB, 2020). Phacelia stellaris Brand’s star phacelia 1B.1 G1 S1 Annual herb. Found in coastal dunes and coastal scrub habitats. Found at elevations ranging from 3 to 1,312 feet amsl. Blooming period is from March to June. No Low: Although the coastal scrub habitat preferred by this species is present within the survey area, the only occurrence record of this species near the survey area is from 1935 (CNDDB, 2020). Pseudognaphalium leucocephalum white rabbit-tobacco 2B.2 G4 S2 Perennial herb. Found on sandy and gravelly soils within chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, and riparian woodland habitats. Found at elevations ranging from 0 to 6,890 feet amsl. Blooming period is July through December. No Low: The sandy soils within chaparral (scrub oak chaparral), coastal scrub, and riparian woodland habitats are found throughout the survey area. However, the most recent occurrence record of this species near the survey area is from 1931 (CNDDB, 2020). Quercus engelmannii Engelmann oak 4.2 G3 S3 Perennial deciduous tree. Occurs in chaparral, cismontane woodland, riparian woodland, and valley/foothill grassland. Grows in elevations ranging from 160 to 4,275 feet amsl. Blooming period is from March to June. No Low: The chaparral (scrub oak chaparral) and riparian woodland habitat preferred by this species are present within the survey area. However, there are no occurrence records for this species within 5.0 miles of the survey area (CNDDB, 2020). Romneya coulteri Coulter's matilija poppy 4.2 G4 S4 Perennial rhizomatous herb. Habitats include chaparral and coastal scrub. Grows at elevations ranging from 66 to 3,937 feet amsl. Blooming period is from March to July. No Low: The chaparral (scrub oak chaparral) and coastal scrub habitat preferred by this species are present within the survey area. However, there are no occurrence records for this species within 5.0 miles of the survey area (CNDDB, 2020). Senecio aphanactis chaparral ragwort 2B.2 G4 S2 Annual herb. Grows on alkaline soils within chaparral, cismontane woodland, and coastal scrub habitats. Found at elevations ranging from 49 to 2,625 feet amsl. Blooming period is January through April (May). No Not Expected: The survey area contains no alkaline soils, which is required for this species. Further, the only occurrence record of this species near the survey area is from 1932 (CNDDB, 2020). 5.2.c Packet Pg. 367 Attachment D – Potentially Occurring Special-Status Biological Resources Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project D-20 Biological Resources Assessment Report Table D-1: Potentially Occurring Special-Status Biological Resources Scientific Name Common Name Special- Status Rank* Habitat Preferences and Distribution Affinities Observed On-site Potential to Occur Sidalcea neomexicana Salt Spring checkerbloom 2B.2 G4 S2 Perennial herb. Found on alkaline and mesic soils within chaparral, coastal scrub, lower montane coniferous forest, Mojavean desert scrub, and playas. Found at elevations ranging from 49 to 5,020 feet amsl. Blooming period is from March to June. No Not Expected: The alkaline soils and mesic soils required for this species to grow is not present within the survey area. Further, the most recent occurrence record of this species near the survey area is from 1917 (CNDDB, 2020). Symphyotrichum defoliatum San Bernardino aster 1B.2 G2 S2 Perennial rhizomatous herb. Occurs near ditches, streams, and springs within cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, lower montane coniferous forest, meadows, seeps, marshes, and valley/foothill grassland. Grows in elevations ranging from 0 to 6,700 feet amsl. Blooming period is from July to November. No Not Expected: The alkaline soils and mesic soils required for this species to grow is not present within the survey area. Further, the most recent occurrence record of this species near the survey area is from 1930 (CNDDB, 2020). Thysanocarpus rigidus rigid fringepod 1B.2 G1G2 S1 Annual herb. Occurs on dry, rocky slopes and along ridges of oak and pine woodland in arid mountain ranges. Grows in elevations ranging from 1,395 to 7,100 feet amsl. Blooming period is from February to May. No Not Expected: The project site is out of the known elevation range for this species. Further, the only documented occurrence record of this species near the survey area is from 1923 (CNDDB, 2020). SPECIAL-STATUS VEGETATION COMMUNITIES CNDDB/Holland (1986) California Walnut Woodland MCV (1995) California Walnut Series NVCS (2009) Juglans californica Woodland Alliance G3 S3.2 Found at elevations ranging from 490 to 2,952 feet amsl in riparian corridors, but most stands cover all hillslopes. Southern California black walnut is dominant or co- dominant in the tree canopy with white alder (Alnus rhombifolia), two petaled ash (Fraxinus dipetala), toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), coast live oak, valley oak (Quercus lobata), polished willow (Salix laevigata), arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), black elderberry (Sambucus nigra), and California bay (Umbellularia californica). Trees are less than 50 feet tall; canopy is open to continuous. Shrub layer is sparse to intermittent. Herbaceous layer is sparse or grassy. Yes Present: Approximately 6.30 acres of this vegetation community occurs along the slope within the northern portion of the survey area. 5.2.c Packet Pg. 368 Attachment D – Potentially Occurring Special-Status Biological Resources Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project D-21 Biological Resources Assessment Report Table D-1: Potentially Occurring Special-Status Biological Resources Scientific Name Common Name Special- Status Rank* Habitat Preferences and Distribution Affinities Observed On-site Potential to Occur CNDDB/Holland (1986) Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub MCV (1995) Scalebroom Series NVCS (2009) Lepidospartum squamatum intermittently flooded Shrubland Alliance G3 S3 Found at elevations ranging from 164 to 4,922 feet amsl on intermittently or rarely flooded, low-gradient alluvial deposits along streams, washes, and fans. Scalebroom (Lepidospartum squamatum) is dominant, co-dominant, or conspicuous in the shrub canopy with burrobrush (Ambrosia salsola), California sagebrush, mulefat, bladderpod (Cleome isomeris), California cholla (Cylindropuntia californica), brittlebush (Encelia farinosa), thick leaved yerba santa (Eriodictyon crassifolium), hairy yerba santa (Eriodictyon trichocalyx), California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), chaparral yucca (Hesperoyucca whipplei), deerweed (Acmispon glaber), laurel sumac (Malosma laurina), prickly-pear cactus, lemonade berry (Rhus integrifolia), sugar bush (Rhus ovata), skunkbrush (Rhus aromatica), and poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum). Emergent trees or tall shrubs may be present at low cover, including mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus betuloides), southern California black walnut, California juniper (Juniperus californica), California sycamore, Fremont cottonwood, or black elderberry. Shrubs are less than 7 feet tall; canopy is open to continuous, and two tiered. Herbaceous is layer variable and may be grassy. No Absent: This vegetation community does not occur within the survey area. CNDDB/Holland (1986) Southern California Arroyo Chub/Santa Ana Sucker Stream MCV (1995) Not Identified NVCS (2009) Not Identified N/A N/A Characterized by a functioning hydrological system that experiences peaks and ebbs in water volume throughout the year; a mosaic of loose sand, gravel, cobble, and boulder substrates in a series of riffles, runs, pools and shallow sandy stream margins with water depths greater than 1.2 inches and water bottom velocities of more than 0.01 feet per second; non-turbid conditions or only seasonally turbid water; water temperatures less than 86° Fahrenheit; and stream habitat that includes algae, emergent aquatic vegetation, macroinvertebrates, and riparian vegetation. No Absent: This vegetation community does not occur within the survey area. 5.2.c Packet Pg. 369 Attachment D – Potentially Occurring Special-Status Biological Resources Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project D-22 Biological Resources Assessment Report Table D-1: Potentially Occurring Special-Status Biological Resources Scientific Name Common Name Special- Status Rank* Habitat Preferences and Distribution Affinities Observed On-site Potential to Occur CNDDB/Holland (1986) Southern Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest MCV (1995) Coast Live Oak Series NVCS (2009) Quercus agrifolia Woodland Alliance G5 S4 Found at elevations ranging from sea level to 3,937 feet amsl in alluvial terraces, canyon bottoms, stream banks, slopes, and flats, Soils are deep, sandy or loamy with high organic matter. Coast live oak is a dominant or co-dominant in the tree canopy with bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), box elder (Acer negundo), madrono (Arbutus menziesii), southern California black walnut, California sycamore, Fremont cottonwood, blue oak (Quercus douglasii), Engelmann oak (Quercus engelmannii), California black oak (Quercus kelloggii), valley oak, arroyo willow, and California bay. Trees are less than 98 feet tall; canopy is open to continuous. Shrub layer is sparse to intermittent. Herbaceous layer is sparse or grassy. Yes Present: Approximately 23.57 acres of this vegetation community occurs along the base of the slopes within the survey area. CNDDB/Holland (1986) Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest MCV (1995) Fremont Cottonwood Series NVCS (2009) Populus fremontii Forest Alliance G4 S3.2 Found at elevations ranging from sea level to 7,874 feet amsl on floodplains, along low-gradient rivers, perennial or seasonally intermittent streams, springs, in lower canyons in desert mountains, in alluvial fans, and in valleys with a dependable subsurface water supply that varies considerably during the year. Fremont cottonwood is a dominant or co- dominant in the tree canopy with box elder, desert baccharis (Baccharis sergiloides), Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia), northern California black walnut (Juglans hindsii), California sycamore, coast live oak, narrowleaf willow (Salix exigua), Goodding’s willow (Salix goodingii), polished willow (Salix laevigata), arroyo willow, pacific willow (Salix lasiandra ssp. lasiandra), and yellow willow (Salix lutea). Trees and less than 25 meters tall; canopy is continuous to open. Shrub layer is intermittent to open. Herbaceous layer is variable. No Absent: This vegetation community does not occur within the survey area. CNDDB/Holland (1986) Southern Sycamore Alder Riparian Woodland MCV (1995) California Sycamore Series NVCS (2009) Platanus racemosa Woodland Alliance G3 S3 Found at elevations ranging from sea level to 7,874 feet amsl in gullies, intermittent streams, springs, seeps, stream banks, and terraces adjacent to floodplains that are subject to high-intensity flooding. Soils are rocky or cobbly alluvium with permanent moisture at depth. California sycamore is a dominant or co-dominant in the tree canopy with white alder, southern California black walnut, Fremont cottonwood, coast live oak, valley oak, narrowleaf willow, Gooding’s willow, polished willow, arroyo willow, yellow willow, Peruvian pepper tree (Schinus molle), and California bay. No Absent: This vegetation community does not occur within the survey area. 5.2.c Packet Pg. 370 Attachment D – Potentially Occurring Special-Status Biological Resources Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project D-23 Biological Resources Assessment Report Table D-1: Potentially Occurring Special-Status Biological Resources Scientific Name Common Name Special- Status Rank* Habitat Preferences and Distribution Affinities Observed On-site Potential to Occur CNDDB/Holland (1986) Southern Willow Scrub MCV (1995) N/A NVCS (2009) N/A N/A N/A Southern willow scrub consists of dense, broadleaved, winter-deciduous stands of trees dominated by shrubby willows in association with mule fat and scattered emergent cottonwood and western sycamores. This vegetation community occurs on loose, sandy or fine, gravelly alluvium deposited near stream channels during flood flows. Frequent flooding maintains this early seral community, preventing succession to a riparian woodland or forest (Holland, 1986). In the absence of periodic flooding, this early seral type would be succeeded by southern cottonwood or western sycamore riparian forest. No Absent: This vegetation community does not occur within the survey area. * U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) FE Endangered – any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. FT Threatened – any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) SE Endangered – any native species or subspecies of bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant which is in serious danger of becoming extinct throughout all, or a significant portion, of its range due to one or more causes, including loss of habitat, change in habitat, overexploitation, predation, competition, or disease. SCE State Candidate for Listing as Endangered – the classification provided to a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant that the Fish and Game Commission has formally noticed as being under review by the Department of Fish and Wildlife for addition to the list of endangered species, or a species for which the commission has published a notice of proposed regulation to add the species to the list of endangered species. ST Threatened – any native species or subspecies of bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant that, although not presently threatened with extinction, is likely to become an endangered species in the foreseeable future in the absence of the special protection and management efforts required under the California Endangered Species Act. FP Fully Protected – any native species or subspecies of bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, or reptile that were determined by the State of California to be rare or face possible extinction. SSC Species of Special Concern – any species, subspecies, or distinct population of fish, amphibian, reptile, bird, or mammal native to California that currently satisfies one or more of the following criteria: - is extirpated from California or, in the case of birds, in its primary seasonal or breeding role; - is listed as Federally-, but not State-, threatened or endangered; meets the State definition of threatened or endangered but has not formally been listed. - is experiencing, or formerly experienced, serious (noncyclical) population declines or range retractions (not reversed) that, if continued or resumed, could qualify it for State threatened or endangered status; or - has naturally small populations exhibiting high susceptibility to risk from any factor(s), that if realized, could lead to declines that would qualify it for State threatened or endangered status. WL Watch List - taxa that were previously designated as “Species of Special Concern” but no longer merit that status, or which do not yet meet SSC criteria, but for which there is concern and a need for additional information to clarify status. California Native Plant Society (CNPS) California Rare Plant Rank 1B Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere. 2B Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere. 3 Plant that lack the necessary information to assign them to one of the other ranks or to reject them. 4 Plants of limited distribution – Watch List. Threat Ranks .1 Seriously threatened in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened/high degree any immediacy of threat). 5.2.c Packet Pg. 371 Attachment D – Potentially Occurring Special-Status Biological Resources Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project D-24 Biological Resources Assessment Report .2 Moderately threatened in California (20 to 80 percent of occurrences threatened/moderate degree and immediacy of threat). .3 Not very threatened in California (less than 20 percent of occurrences threatened/low degree and immediacy of threat or no current threats known). NatureServe Conservation Status Rank The Global Rank (G#) reflects the overall condition and imperilment of a species throughout its global range. The Infraspecific Taxon Rank (T#) reflects the global situation of just the subspecies or variety. The State Rank (S#) reflects the condition and imperilment of an element throughout its range within California. (G#Q) reflects that the element is very rare but there are taxonomic questions associated with it; the calculated G rank is qualified by adding a Q after the G#). Adding a ? to a rank expresses uncertainty about the rank. G1/T1 Critically Imperiled – At very high risk of extinction due to extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer populations), very steep declines, or other factors. G2/T2 Imperiled— At high risk of extinction due to very restricted range, very few populations (often 20 or fewer), steep declines, or other factors. G3/T3 Vulnerable— At moderate risk of extinction due to a restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors. G4/T4 Apparently Secure— Uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors. G5/T5 Secure – Common; widespread and abundant. S1 Critically Imperiled – Critically imperiled in the state because of extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer occurrences) or because of some factor(s) such as very steep declines making it especially vulnerable to extirpation from the State. S2 Imperiled – Imperiled in the State because of rarity due to very restricted range, very few populations (often 20 or fewer), steep declines, or other factors making it very vulnerable to extirpation from the nation or State. S3 Vulnerable – Vulnerable in the State due to a restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors making it vulnerable to extirpation. S4 Apparently Secure – Uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors. 5.2.c Packet Pg. 372 Attachment E References 5.2.c Packet Pg. 373 Attachment E – References Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project E-1 Biological Resources Assessment Report Billerman, S. M., Keeney, B. K., Rodewald, P. G., and T. S. Schulenberg (Editors). 2020. Birds of the World. Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. Accessed online at: https://birdsoftheworld.org/bow/home. Bradley, D.R., Ammerman, L.K., Baker, R.J., Bradley, L.C., Cook, J.A., Dowler, R.C., Jones, C., Schmidly, D.J., Stangl Jr., F.B., Van Den Bussche, R.A., and B. Würsig. 2014. Revised Checklist of North American Mammals North of Mexico, 2014. Occasional Papers of the Museum of Texas Tech University. 327. 1-27. Calflora: Information on California plants for education, research and conservation. [web application]. 2020. Berkeley, California: The Calflora Database [a non-profit organization]. Accessed online at: https://www.calflora.org/. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2020a. RareFind 5, California Natural Diversity Data Base, California. Data base report on threatened, endangered, rare or otherwise sensitive species and communities for the USGS Baldwin Park, San Dimas, Ontario, La Habra, Yorba Linda, and Prado Dam, California 7.5-minute quadrangles. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2020b. Biogeographic Information and Observation System, California Natural Diversity Data Base, California. Data base report on threatened, endangered, rare or otherwise sensitive species and communities for the USGS Baldwin Park, San Dimas, Ontario, La Habra, Yorba Linda, and Prado Dam, California 7.5-minute quadrangles. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2020c. Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List, California Natural Diversity Data Base, California. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2020d. Special Animals List, California Natural Diversity Data Base, California. California Native Plant Society (CNPS), Rare Plant Program. 2020. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (online edition, v8-03 0.39). Accessed online at: http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/. Chesser, R. T., Burns, K. J., Cicero, C., Dunn, J. L., Kratter, A. W., Lovette, I. J., Rasmussen, P. C., Remsen, J. V. Jr., Stotz, D. F., and K. Winker. 2019. Check-list of North American Birds (online). American Ornithological Society. Accessed online at: http://checklist.aou.org/taxa. Crother, B. I. (ed.). 2017. Scientific and Standard English Names of Amphibians and Reptiles of North America North of Mexico, with Comments Regarding Confidence in Our Understanding pp. 1– 102. SSAR Herpetological Circular 43. Dechant, J.A., Sondreal, M.L., Johnson, D.H., Igl, L.D., Goldade, C.M., Rabie, P.A., and B.R. Euliss. 1999 (revised 2002). Effects of management practices on grassland birds: Burrowing Owl. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center. Jamestown, ND. 5.2.c Packet Pg. 374 Attachment E – References Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project E-2 Biological Resources Assessment Report Dyett and Bhatia Urban and Regional Planners (Dyett and Bhatia). 2019. City of Diamond Bar General Plan 2040. Prepared for the City of Diamond Bar. Adopted December 17, 2019, City Council Resolution No. 2019-44. Google, Inc. 2019. Google Earth Pro Imagery Version 7.3.2.5776. Build date 03/05/2019. Aerial Image dated June 8, 2018. Hamilton Biological. 2019. CEQA Review, Canyon Loop Trail Project, City of Diamond Bar. Submitted to the City of Diamond Bar. October 14, 2019. Harvey, M. J., J. S. Altenbach, and T.L. Best. 2011. Bats of the United States and Canada. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland. Holland, R. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. Jepson Flora Project (eds.). 2020. Jepson eFlora. Accessed online at: http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora/. Los Angeles County Planning Department. 2015. Los Angeles County General Plan 2035. Adopted October 6, 2015. Reid, F.A. 2006. A Field Guide to Mammals of North America, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, New York, New York. Sawyer, J.O., Keeler-Wolf, T., and J. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation (Second Edition). California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California, USA. Shuford, W. D., and Gardali, T., editors. 2008. San Diego Cactus Wren. In California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. Sibley, D.A. 2014. The Sibley Guide to Birds, Second Edition. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., New York, New York. Stebbins, R.C. 2003. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians, Third Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, New York, New York. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA). 2020. Custom Soil Resource Report for Los Angeles County, California, Southeastern Part. Accessed online at: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1997. Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) Presence/Absence Survey Guidelines. February 28, 1997. 5.2.c Packet Pg. 375 Attachment E – References Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project E-3 Biological Resources Assessment Report U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010. Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) 5- Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Accessed online at: https://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/SpeciesStatusList/5YR/20100929_5YR_CAGN.pdf U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2020a. ECOS Environmental Conservation Online System: Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC). Accessed online at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2020b. ECOS Environmental Conservation Online System: Threatened and Endangered Species Active Critical Habitat Report. Accessed online at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/table/critical-habitat.html. U.S. Geological Survey. 1981. San Dimas, California 7.5-Minute Topographic Quadrangle Map. 5.2.c Packet Pg. 376 August 7, 2020 178669 City of Diamond Bar Contact: Mr. Ryan Wright 21810 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 SUBJECT: Results of Coastal California Gnatcatcher and Cactus Wren Focused Surveys for the Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project in the City of Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, California Dear Mr. Wright: Michael Baker International (Michael Baker) is pleased to submit this report to the City of Diamond Bar (City) documenting the results of coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica; CAGN) and cactus wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus; CACW) focused surveys conducted for the Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project (project or project site) located in the City of Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, California. Surveys occurred during the 2020 field season, when Michael Baker was contracted by the City to perform CAGN and CACW surveys in suitable habitat within 500 feet of the proposed project. Project Location The survey area include the project site plus suitable CAGN and CACW habitat within a 500-foot buffer, and is generally located south of State Route 60, east of State Route 57, north of Grand Avenue, and west of Chino Hills Parkway in the City of Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, California (refer to Figure 1, Regional Vicinity, in Attachment A). The survey area is depicted in Sections 11 and 14 of Township 2 south, Range 9 west, on the United States Geological Survey’s (USGS) San Dimas, California 7.5-minute quadrangle (USGS 1981). Specifically, the survey area is located along the Canyon Loop Trail within Summitridge Park (refer to Figure 2, Survey Area, in Attachment A). Project Description The City of Diamond Bar proposes to implement a series of improvements to the existing Canyon Loop Trail. The intent of the project is primarily to realign the trail, improve drainage to minimize erosion of the trail, enhance the use of the trail where the gradients are steep, re-grade cross slopes, and consider amenities such as directional and interpretive signage, rest areas with benches, small shade shelters, climbing steps with cobblestone swale channelization, and water diverting improvements where necessary. Such trail improvements will reward hikers and visitors with 360-degree views of open space. Regulatory Framework Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 As defined within the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (FESA), an endangered species is any 5.2.c Packet Pg. 377 Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project 2 Coastal California Gnatcatcher and Cactus Wren Focused Survey Results animal or plant listed by regulation as being in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its geographical range. A threatened species is any animal or plant that is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its geographical range. Without a special permit, Federal law prohibits the “take” of any individuals or habitat of Federally-listed species. Under Section 9 of the FESA, take is defined as “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect or attempt to engage in any such conduct.” The term “harm” has been clarified to include “any act which actually kills or injures fish or wildlife, and emphasizes that such acts may include significant habitat modification or degradation that significantly impairs essential behavioral patterns of fish or wildlife.” Enforcement of FESA is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Under the definition used by the FESA, “Critical Habitat” refers to specific areas within the geographical range of a species that were occupied at the time it was listed that contain the physical or biological features that are essential to the survival and eventual recovery of that species and that may require special management considerations or protection, regardless of whether the species is still extant in the area. Areas that were not known to be occupied at the time a species was listed can also be designated as Critical Habitat if they contain one or more of the physical or biological features that are essential to that species’ conservation and if the occupied areas are inadequate to ensure the species’ recovery. If a project may result in take or adverse modification to a species’ designated Critical Habitat and the project has a Federal nexus, the project proponent may be required to provide suitable mitigation. Projects with a Federal nexus may include projects that occur on Federal lands, require Federal permits (e.g., Clean Water Act Section 404 permit), or receive any Federal oversight or funding. If there is a Federal nexus, then the Federal agency that is responsible for providing funds or permits would be required to consult with the USFWS under the FESA. Species Background Coastal California Gnatcatcher CAGN is a Federally threatened species with restricted habitat requirements, being an obligate resident of sage scrub habitats, particularly—but not exclusively—those that are dominated by California sagebrush (Artemisia californica). This species generally occurs below 750 feet elevation in coastal regions and below 1,500 feet inland. It ranges from Ventura County south to San Diego County and northern Baja Califo rnia and is less common in sage scrub with a high percentage of tall shrubs. CAGN is considered a short-distance disperser through contiguous, undisturbed habitat (USFWS 2010). However, juveniles are capable of dispersing long distances (up to 14 miles) across fragmented and highly disturbed sage scrub habitat (USFWS 2010). CAGN prefers habitat with more low-growing vegetation (< 3 feet high). CAGN breeds between mid-February and the end of August, with peak activity from mid-March to mid-May. Population declines are attributed to loss of sage scrub habitat due to development, as well as brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater) nest parasitism. Federally designated Critical Habitat for CAGN is not located within or directly adjacent to the survey area. The primary constituent elements essential to support the biological needs of foraging, reproducing, rearing of young, intra-specific communication, dispersal, genetic exchange, or sheltering for CAGN are: 1) Dynamic and successional sage scrub habitats and associated vegetation (Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub, coastal sage-chaparral scrub, etc.) that provide space for individual and population growth, normal behavior, breeding, reproduction, nesting, dispersal and foraging; and 5.2.c Packet Pg. 378 Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project 3 Coastal California Gnatcatcher and Cactus Wren Focused Survey Results 2) Non-sage scrub habitats such as chaparral, grassland, and riparian areas in proximity to sage scrub habitats that provide linkages to help with dispersal, foraging, and nesting (USFWS 2007). The survey area provides abundant suitable habitat for CAGN, although there are large sections of the survey area that are highly disturbed by non-native plants. Cactus Wren CACWs are a somewhat common avian species found within arid and semi-arid regions of southern California. The subspecies coastal cactus wren (C. b. sandiegensis; CCAWC) is found within a very limited range of southern California and is designated by CDFW as a Species of Special Concern (SSC). CCACW has more heavily spotted underparts more closely blending into the dark breast spot, less of a cinnamon- buff wash to the underparts, and extensive white in the interior tail feathers, as opposed to the continental desert subspecies and subspecies along the Los Angeles County coast, C.b. anthonyi, which has finer belly spotting more demarcated from the prominent breast spot, a heavier cinnamon-wash buff to the underparts, and white generally restricted to the outermost tail feather (rectrix 6) and occasionally onto rectrix 5 (the next feather in from the outside) (Rea and Weaver 1990). CCACW have a range which extends from extreme northwestern Baja California north at least through the coastal lowlands of San Diego County (Shuford and Gardali 2008). The actual northern limit of its range is uncertain because of the lack of specimens from northwestern San Diego County and most of Orange County. However, observations made in the field based on differences in song (slower frequency and lower pitch) and visual assessments suggest approximately the vicinity of State Route 74 (Ortega Highway) in Orange County may be the northern limit of CCACW, and this is apparently the range limit accepted by CDFW (Shuford and Gardali 2008). CACWS breed from early March through July and are mainly restricted to thickets of chollas (Cylindropuntia prolifera) or prickly-pear cacti (i.e., Opuntia littoralis, O. oricola) large enough to protect from predation. Suitable habitat conditions are normally found on south-facing slopes, at bases of hillsides, or in dry washes. Territories have been recorded as occurring at elevations below 1,500 feet above mean sea level (amsl) and averaging three (3) acres in size (Shuford and Gardali 2008). CACWs forage on the ground primarily for insects such as beetles, ants, wasps, grasshoppers, butterflies, and spiders. The survey area provides several distinct patches of the undisturbed coast prickly pear scrub habitat that is essential nesting habitat for this species. However, the survey area is well outside of the apparent geographic range for the coastal sandiegensis subspecies, which ends around State Route 74 based on CDFW mapping and distribution descriptions in Rea and Weaver (1990). The local subspecies found throughout Los Angeles County is C. b. anthonyi, although birds on the coastal slope often show some characteristics of the sandiegensis subspecies (such as more white in the tail than is otherwise expected for this subspecies). Environmental Setting The survey area for this effort encompasses suitable CAGN and CACW habitat within 500 feet of the existing Canyon Loop Trail. It is located in the southeastern corner of Los Angeles County less than 0.5 mile west of the boundary with San Bernardino County. The survey area represents a small subset of the entire 500-foot buffer around the Canyon Loop Trail and is approximately 30.24 acres in size. It is generally associated with preserved open space, although many areas within it, particularly the southeast portion of it, are disturbed with high proportions of non-native plant species as well. An unnamed ephemeral drainage runs roughly east to west through the center of the survey area. Areas immediately surrounding the survey area consist of residential developments to the east and west, and undeveloped land to the north and south. 5.2.c Packet Pg. 379 Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project 4 Coastal California Gnatcatcher and Cactus Wren Focused Survey Results Topography and Soils The topography of the survey area is generally steep slopes with associated public trails along hilltops and other stabilized surfaces. The survey area is located at an elevation of approximately 970 to 1,310 feet amsl. According to the Custom Soil Resource Report for Los Angeles County, California, Southeastern Part (USDA 2020), the survey area is underlain by the following soil units: Urban land-Sorrento-Arbolado complex, 2 to 9 percent slopes (1136), Gaviota-Chumash-Rock outcrop complex, 20 to 55 percent slopes (1145), and Counterfeit-Urban land complex, 10 to 35 percent slopes, terraced (1232). Vegetation Communities Several terrestrial vegetation communities were identified on-site during the field survey. Vegetation classification was based on A Manual of California Vegetation (Second Edition) (Sawyer et al. 2009) and cross-checked with Holland (1986). The vegetation communities and land uses present within the survey area are depicted on Figure 3, Vegetation Communities, in Attachment A, and described in further detail below. Figure 3 and the descriptions below only include those communities that are suitable habitat for CAGN and CACW and do not include all vegetation communities or land uses within 500 feet of the project. All of the following vegetation communities are associated with what would be considered coastal sage scrub (CSS) habitat. California Sagebrush – Black Sage Scrub (Holland Equivalent: Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub; Code: 32500) Approximately 2.13 acres of California sagebrush – black sage scrub vegetation is located within the survey area. The majority of this vegetation community is dominated by California sagebrush (Artemisia californica) and black sage (Salvia mellifera) with other shrubs such as white sage (Salvia apiana), deerweed (Acmispon glaber), and California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum) occurring as less frequent sub-dominants. Due to the high density of shrubs within the vegetation community, little to no herbaceous cover is present. Disturbed California Sagebrush – Black Sage Scrub (Holland Equivalent: Disturbed Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub; Code: 32500) Approximately 17.76 acres of disturbed California sagebrush – black sage scrub vegetation is located throughout the survey area. This vegetation community is similar in composition and generally in close proximity to the California sagebrush – black sage scrub found within the survey area but also contains black mustard (Brassica nigra) and tocalote (Centaurea melitensis) as co-dominant species, in many areas completely dominating the ground cover between native shrubs. California Buckwheat Scrub (Holland Equivalent: Disturbed Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub; Code: 32500) Approximately 0.45 acre of California buckwheat scrub vegetation is located within the western portion of the survey area. This vegetation community is entirely dominated by California buckwheat, and appears to be part of a previous restoration effort. Coast Prickly Pear Scrub (Holland Equivalent: Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub; Code: 32500) Approximately 9.90 acres of coast prickly pear scrub vegetation is located within the survey area. Coast prickly pear (Opuntia littoralis) is dominant within this vegetation community, with sticky monkeyflower (Diplacus aurantiacus) prominently interspersed throughout the area. California buckwheat and California sagebrush are also present, but in lower proportions compared to coast prickly pear and sticky monkeyflower. 5.2.c Packet Pg. 380 Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project 5 Coastal California Gnatcatcher and Cactus Wren Focused Survey Results Methods Literature Review Prior to conducting the focused surveys, Michael Baker performed a detailed literature review and record search of the project site, vicinity, and region for CAGN and CACW records. The literature search included a review of any existing biological and focused CAGN survey reports from the project vicinity, as well as records reported in the CNDDB (CDFW 2020), the USFWS online Critical Habitat Mapper (USFWS 2020), the Cornell Lab of Ornithology’s eBird database (eBird 2020), and a letter written to the City of Diamond Bar by Hamilton Biological (Hamilton Biological 2019). Focused Surveys Protocol surveys for CAGN and CACW were conducted concurrently along, and in areas of suitable habitat within 500 feet of, the existing Canyon Loop Trail in 2020. All surveys were conducted by Michael Baker biologists Ryan Winkleman (USFWS recovery permit TE-88331A-2), Ashley Spencer, and Tom Millington between May and July 2020 (refer to Table 1, Survey Dates, Surveyors, Time, and Weather Conditions). The surveys followed the CAGN guidelines described in the USFWS protocol Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) Presence/Absence Survey Guidelines, February 28, 1997 (USFWS 1997) and the CACW guidelines described in Mr. Winkleman’s CDFW scientific collecting permit (SC-182750017). A total of six (6) surveys were conducted between May 26 and July 1, 2020. Table 1: Survey Dates, Surveyors, Time, and Weather Conditions Date Surveyors Time (start/finish) Weather Conditions Temperature (°F) (start/finish) Wind Speed Range (miles per hour) 5/26/20 Ryan Winkleman 0751 / 1222 64 / 83 0-1 6/3/20 Ryan Winkleman, Ashley Spencer 0713 / 1146 65 / 87 0-8 6/10/20 Ryan Winkleman, Ashley Spencer 0720 / 1150 69 / 93 0-3 6/17/20 Ryan Winkleman, Tom Millington 0729 / 1149 62 / 68 0-1 6/24/20 Ryan Winkleman, Ashley Spencer 0729 / 1142 62 / 76 0-3 7/1/20 Ryan Winkleman, Ashley Spencer 0730 / 1130 62 / 67 0-1 During each survey, the biologist(s) walked areas of suitable habitat for CAGN and/or CACW within the survey area and would stop at strategic locations and use taped playback to attempt to lure the target species into view. All recordings were obtained from xeno-canto.org (2020) and were played with a Pixel 3XL smartphone amplified with a MIFA F10 portable Bluetooth speaker. In each instance the biologist(s) would position themselves in an area of suitable habitat and wait up to one (1) minute to see if the target species could be incidentally detected. If no birds were detected, Mr. Winkleman would play a short recording or short portion of a recording, followed by approximately one (1) minute of silence before playing another 5.2.c Packet Pg. 381 Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project 6 Coastal California Gnatcatcher and Cactus Wren Focused Survey Results recording or continuing the same recording. Recordings were cycled rather than repeated to more realistically mimic birds making variable vocalizations. In areas where both species could feasibly be present, the CAGN and CACW recordings were played alternately. If birds responded aurally or flew into view, all playback was stopped while the biologist(s) observed the bird(s) from a distance and took notes on age, sex, and behavior. Territory boundaries were mapped in the Avenza smartphone application while in the field and updated as necessary to record the approximate boundaries over the six surveys. If nesting behavior was observed, the biologists watched from a safe distance and, if found, plotted the nest location as accurately as possible using Global Positioning System (GPS) technology and then watched for updates on subsequent surveys from a safe distance. Photographs were periodically taken during the surveys (refer to Figure 2, Survey Area, in Attachment A, as well as to Attachment B). Results A total of forty-seven (47) wildlife species were observed within the CAGN survey area during the CAGN focused surveys including four (4) reptiles, seventy-six (76) birds, and five (5) mammals. A complete list of wildlife species observed during the focused survey is included in Attachment C. Coastal California Gnatcatcher Based on information in the CNDDB (CDFW 2020), eBird (eBird 2020), and from a local expert (Benson personal communication 2020), CAGN is a rare and local resident in the coastal slope of Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties. Populations are somewhat widespread but persistent in the project vicinity in Los Angeles County, spanning across the Chino Hills, San Jose Hills, and Puente Hills. In San Bernardino County, which is located immediately to the east of the project site, CAGN persists in only four or five populations in the entire county, including in Chino Hills State Park. Farther to the south, CAGN is reasonably common in the foothills of the Santa Ana Mountains in Orange County. The project site is not located within designated Critical Habitat (USFWS 2007). A minimum of five (5) CAGN territories were mapped during the focused surveys (refer to Figure 4, Coastal California Gnatcatcher Results, in Attachment A). Four (4) nests were found in two (2) of these territories, one (1) of which successfully led to chicks fledging. Of the minimum five territories, four (4) territories (Territories 1, 3, 4, and 5) had chicks fledge in them. The boundaries of Territories 3 and 5 expanded over time due to post-breeding dispersal, with Territory #5 potentially undergoing two separate instances of dispersal to two areas where no CAGN had been previously detected. A more detailed summary of CAGN activity in each territory during each survey is provided in Table 2 below. Cactus Wren Similar to CAGN, CACW is a rare and local resident on the coastal slope of Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties. In Los Angeles County the species is better off but declining, with populations known from the Chino Hills, San Jose Hills, Puente Hills, and foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains. In adjacent San Bernardino County, the only known populations are in the upper Santa Ana River wash near Redlands/Mentone/Highland and near the confluence of Cajon and Lytle Creeks, both far from the survey area (Benson personal communication 2020). This species is much more common in Orange County in the foothills of the Santa Ana Mountains and less so in the San Joaquin Hills. Birds in Los Angeles County are considered to be of the non-sensitive subspecies C.b. anthonyi, although it should be noted that many of the birds on the coast, including the ones in the survey area, show characteristics, such as the extent of white barring in the tail feathers, typically associated with the sensitive CCACW. 5.2.c Packet Pg. 382 Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project 7 Coastal California Gnatcatcher and Cactus Wren Focused Survey Results Table 2: CAGN Survey Results Date Territories Territory #1 Territory #2 Territory #3 Territory #4 Territory #5 5/26/20 Adult male present and foraging solitarily. Adult male present and foraging, territorial against juvenile CACW. Adult female briefly observed. CAGN incidentally heard, but not seen. Adult male present and foraging. Family unit with two adults and at least two juveniles present. 6/3/20 Family unit with two adults and two juveniles present. Adult male present and foraging, territorial against juvenile CACW. No activity observed. Family unit with at least one juvenile present. Adult male present, no other birds seen. 6/10/20 Adult male present with two female- type birds, could not see well enough to determine age. Adult pair present, Nest #1 found. Male observed perched over nest in a shading action. Family unit present with at least two juveniles in a new post- breeding dispersal area where not previously found. Adult pair present and foraging, no other birds seen. Adult pair present, Nest #1 found. Both male and female observed incubating and shading the eggs. 6/17/20 Adult male present with a single female- type bird, not aged. Nest #1 failed. Adult pair periodically seen throughout territory but no indications of nesting. Family unit in the post-breeding dispersal area again. Adult male present and foraging. Possible female seen but not confirmed. Adult pair observed feeding chicks in Nest #1. Chicks too small to count from afar. 6/24/20 Adult male present with a single female- type bird, not aged. Adult pair present and nearly finished building Nest #2. Two female-type birds present in the post-breeding dispersal area, including the adult female carrying off food. Adult male present and foraging. Adult pair present feeding chicks in Nest #1. Four chicks visible in nest. Two juvenile birds found to the north, up the hillside above the territory in mustard, assumed to be the juveniles from 5/26 in a post- breeding dispersal area, although not previously found here despite weekly playback. 7/1/20 Four birds flew in together to playback and then went out of sight. Later observed the adult pair bringing food to juveniles. Nest #2 failed. Adult male observed building a new nest, Nest #3. One bird heard- only, one female-type bird briefly seen in the post-breeding dispersal area. Adult male present and foraging. Nest #1 empty and nesting territory abandoned. Four birds, including at least one adult (male), found in the 6/24 post-breeding dispersal area. Up to three separate birds found approximately 250 meters to the east. Possibly more Territory #5 dispersal. 5.2.c Packet Pg. 383 Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project 8 Coastal California Gnatcatcher and Cactus Wren Focused Survey Results A total of five (5) CACW territories were mapped during the focused surveys (refer to Figure 5, Cactus Wren Results, in Attachment A). No attempts were made to find CACW nests, although one (1) nest was incidentally found outside of any apparently active territories. Although no nests were found in the territories, all five territories fledged young. Of these, Territory #5 is the only one that had an obvious instance of post-breeding dispersal into a new area during the surveys, with all other families utilizing the same territories that they had evidently nested in. A more detailed summary of CACW activity in each territory during each survey is provided in Table 3 below. Table 3: CACW Survey Results Date Territories Territory #1 Territory #2 Territory #3 Territory #4 Territory #5 5/26/20 Adult pair present. Independent juvenile bird to the west either from Territory #1 or Territory #3. Adult male singing. Adult pair present. Adult pair with two juveniles present. One bird heard only. Cooper’s hawk suppressed activity. 6/3/20 Adult pair present. Independent juvenile bird to the west either from Territory #1 or Territory #3. Adult male singing. Adult bird present. At least three birds present. Food exchange witnessed between adult and one of the juveniles. One bird heard only. Cooper’s hawk suppressed activity. 6/10/20 Two adults present. Three adults and one juvenile present. Adult male singing. Two adults and two juveniles present. Two adults and two juveniles present together. 6/17/20 Two adults and three juveniles present. Two adults and two juveniles present. Adult male singing. At least four birds present. Family unit moved slightly north to a post- breeding dispersal area. 6/24/20 One bird present, did not take notes on age. Three birds present, did not take notes on age. Two adults present. Five birds present together. All four birds seen together in the post- breeding dispersal area. 7/1/20 Two adults seen in territory. All four birds seen in territory. One adult with two juveniles observed. First evidence of nesting. Five birds present in a group together. No birds found in the post-breeding dispersal area. Two adults and one juvenile found in the original territory. Conclusions and Recommendations Based on the results of the focused surveys, at least five (5) CAGN and five (5) CACW territories were found to be present within the 500-foot survey area. Four (4) CAGN pairs and all five (5) CACW pairs 5.2.c Packet Pg. 384 Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project 9 Coastal California Gnatcatcher and Cactus Wren Focused Survey Results successfully fledged young in 2020 as evidenced by firsthand observations by Michael Baker biologists during the surveys. Many of the territories were directly adjacent to, crossed over, or were at least in close proximity to proposed trail improvement areas. Of the nests that were found, the closest nest (CAGN Territory #2 Nest #1) was approximately 70 feet from the Canyon Loop Trail. Although a variety of trail improvements are proposed for this project, most of the improvements are widening the existing trail in the southern half of the survey area. This would result in loss of suitable habitat for these species, particularly for CAGN. Based on project plans, the length of proposed trail widening is currently estimated at approximately 1,942 feet, or approximately 0.37 mile. The trail is proposed to be widened to five feet total width, which means on average based on field observations during the surveys it would be widened an additional one to two feet from its current width at these locations. The on-site CACW is not believed to be the sensitive CCACW protected by the CDFW as a SSC; regardless, impacts to this species can be addressed through a nesting bird clearance survey (see below), with additional benefits imparted via CAGN protections. Although this area is not designated as Critical Habitat, loss of vegetation directly supporting known populations of CAGN would constitute “take” of CAGN under Section 9 of the FESA. Because the project will not have a Federal nexus to allow for FESA Section 7 consultations, an incidental take permit (ITP) would instead be granted by the USFWS under Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the FESA. This typically entails the project proponent agreeing to a habitat conservation plan (HCP), an extensive process that can take years to complete. However, the USFWS also has a category of HCPs for projects that will otherwise have minor impacts on listed species, called a “low-effect HCP.” These HCPs pertain to projects involving (1) minor or negligible effects on federally listed, proposed, or candidate species and their habitats covered under the HCP; and (2) minor or negligible effects on other environmental values or resources. Under low-effect HCPs, the permitting process is more streamlined and take can generally be authorized under a series of strict avoidance and minimization measures. Therefore, it is recommended that the City consult with USFWS and pursue a low-effect HCP to permit removal of habitat suitable for and/or used by CAGN on the project site. To avoid indirect impacts and take of CAGN or CACW, it is recommended that all project-related construction occur outside of the general breeding season (February 15 – September 15). Timing the construction to be outside of this window of time would avoid impacts to CAGN or CACW nests. If it is not possible to construct the project outside of this time period, it is recommended that a nesting bird survey be conducted within seven (7) days prior to the start of construction in a 500-foot buffer from the project. The survey should be conducted by a qualified biologist with demonstrable experience identifying CAGN and CACW nesting behavior and finding their nests, and who has been approved by the USFWS to conduct a CAGN nesting survey. If an active CAGN or CACW nest is found during the survey, no project-related construction will be allowed within 500 feet of an active CAGN nest or 300 feet of an active CACW nest, or within an alternative safe distance as determined by the qualified biologist based on topography, visual shielding, nest progress, and the type of construction and associated disturbance, until the active nest has been determined by the qualified biologist to have failed or to have successfully gone to completion (i.e. the nestlings have fledged and are no longer reliant on the nest). Results of the nesting bird survey, should one be required, shall be compiled in a memorandum and submitted to the City and to the USFWS for the project record. Please do not hesitate to contact me at (949) 533-0918 or ryan.winkleman@mbakerintl.com should you 5.2.c Packet Pg. 385 Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project 10 Coastal California Gnatcatcher and Cactus Wren Focused Survey Results have any questions or require further information regarding the information presented in this report. Sincerely, Ryan Winkleman Senior Biologist Natural Resources and Regulatory Permitting Attachments: A. Figures B. Site Photographs C. Wildlife Species Observed List D. References 5.2.c Packet Pg. 386 Attachment A Figures 5.2.c Packet Pg. 387 SA N B E R N A R D I N O C O U N T Y RI V E R S I D E C O U N T Y LOS ANGELES COUNTY ORANGE COUNTY Regional Vicinity Figure 1 °0 52.5 Miles7/30/2020 JN H:\pdata\178669\GIS\MXD\Focused Bird Surveys\Fig 01 Regional Vicinity.mxd RPCANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT COASTAL CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHER AND CACTUS WREN FOCUSED SURVEY RESULTS Source: ArcGIS Online, 2018 ^_Project Site ^ Project Location !"a$ %&g(%&q( %&l( ?» ?l ?£?q !"^$ 5.2.c Packet Pg. 388 !> !> """"""""""""""""""Dare CtPeakCt WindsongCtSteep Ca n y o n R d BarkerDr Clear Creek CanyonDrBreckenridgeCtWynnewoodDrM o n u m e n t C a n y o n D r GrubstakeDrMeanderingCreekDr SummitridgeDrP1 P2 P3 P4 P5P6 P7P8 P9P10 P11 P12 P13 P14 P15 P16 P17 P18 34.007148-117.794138 34.000846-117.805472 Survey Area7/30/2020 JN H:\pdata\178669\GIS\MXD\Focused Bird Surveys\Fig 02 Survey Area.mxd RPSource: Nearmap, 2020 Figure 2 0 270135 Feet CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT COASTAL CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHER AND CACTUS WREN FOCUSED SURVEY RESULTS ° Legend Project Site Survey Area (Suitable Habitat within 500 Feet)"Photograph Point and Direction !>Reference Point 5.2.c Packet Pg. 389 !> !>Dare CtPeakCt WindsongCtSteep Ca n y o n R d BarkerDr Clear Creek CanyonDrBreckenridgeCtWynnewoodDrM o n u m e n t C a n y o n D r GrubstakeDrMeanderingCreekDr SummitridgeDr34.007148-117.794138 34.000846-117.805472 Vegetation Communities7/30/2020 JN H:\pdata\178669\GIS\MXD\Focused Bird Surveys\Fig 03 Vegetation Communities.mxd RPSource: Nearmap, 2020 Figure 3 0 270135 Feet CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT COASTAL CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHER AND CACTUS WREN FOCUSED SURVEY RESULTS ° Legend Project Site Survey Area (Suitable Habitat within 500 Feet) California Buckwheat Scrub (0.45 acre) California Sagebrush - Black Sage Scrub (2.13 acres) Coast Prickly Pear Scrub (9.90 acres) Disturbed California Sagebrush - Black Sage Scrub (17.76 acres) Unnamed Drainage !>Reference Point 5.2.c Packet Pg. 390 !> !> ( ( ( !! ! ! ! ! ! ! (( ( ( ( ( ( ( k kk j jj !( !( !( !(Dare CtPeakCt WindsongCtSteep Ca n y o n R d BarkerDr Clear Creek CanyonDrBreckenridgeCtWynnewoodDrM o n u m e n t C a n y o n D r GrubstakeDrMeanderingCreekDr SummitridgeDrNest #1 Nest #2 Nest #3 Nest #1 34.007148-117.794138 34.000846-117.805472 Coastal California Gnatcatcher Results8/4/2020 JN H:\pdata\178669\GIS\MXD\Focused Bird Surveyst\Fig 04 Coastal California Gnatcatcher Results.mxd RPSource: Nearmap, 2020 Figure 4 0 270135 Feet CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT COASTAL CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHER AND CACTUS WREN FOCUSED SURVEY RESULTS ° Legend Project Site Survey Area (Suitable Habitat within 500 Feet) !>Reference Point CAGN Territories Territory #1 Territory #2 Territory #3 Territory #3 (Post-breeding Dispersal) Territory #4 Territory #5 Territory #5 (Post-breeding Dispersal) CAGN Nests !(Successful Nest !(Failed Nest Proposed Trail Improvements Trail to be Expanded to 5' Wide Existing Trail to Remain Gabion Retaining Wall Stairs kj Wayfinding Sign Lodge Pole Fence (Shade Structure with Benches & Trash Receptacle Proposed Bench Drainage Crossing !(!( 5.2.c Packet Pg. 391 !> !> ( ( ( !! ! ! ! ! ! ! (( ( ( ( ( ( ( k kk j jj !( !( !(Dare CtPeakCt WindsongCtSteep Ca n y o n R d BarkerDr Clear Creek CanyonDrBreckenridgeCtWynnewoodDrM o n u m e n t C a n y o n D r GrubstakeDrMeanderingCreekDr SummitridgeDr5/26/20 6/3/20 34.007148-117.794138 34.000846-117.805472 Cactus Wren Results8/4/2020 JN H:\pdata\178669\GIS\MXD\Focused Bird Surveyst\Fig 05 Cactus Wren Results.mxd RPSource: Nearmap, 2020 Figure 5 0 270135 Feet CANYON LOOP TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT COASTAL CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHER AND CACTUS WREN FOCUSED SURVEY RESULTS ° Legend Project Site Survey Area (Suitable Habitat within 500 Feet) !>Reference Point CACW Territories Territory #1 Territory #2 Territory #3 Territory #4 Territory #5 Territory #5 (Post-breeding Dispersal) CACW Nests !(Old Nest CACW Observations !(Solitary Juvenile Proposed Trail Improvements Trail to be Expanded to 5' Wide Existing Trail to Remain Gabion Retaining Wall Stairs kj Wayfinding Sign Lodge Pole Fence (Shade Structure with Benches & Trash Receptacle Proposed Bench Drainage Crossing !(!( 5.2.c Packet Pg. 392 Attachment B Site Photographs 5.2.c Packet Pg. 393 Attachment B – Site Photographs Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project B-1 Coastal California Gnatcatcher and Cactus Wren Focused Survey Results Photograph 1: Standing in coastal California gnatcatcher (CAGN) Territory 1 facing east-northeast. Photograph 2: Standing in the CAGN Territory 2 facing south-southeast. 5.2.c Packet Pg. 394 Attachment B – Site Photographs Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project B-2 Coastal California Gnatcatcher and Cactus Wren Focused Survey Results Photograph 3: Standing in CAGN Territory 2 facing southwest. This is the most highly-disturbed CAGN territory within the survey area. Photograph 4: Standing in CAGN Territory 2 facing northeast. 5.2.c Packet Pg. 395 Attachment B – Site Photographs Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project B-3 Coastal California Gnatcatcher and Cactus Wren Focused Survey Results Photograph 5: Standing in CAGN Territory 3 facing southeast. Photograph 6: Standing in CAGN Territory 3 facing west. 5.2.c Packet Pg. 396 Attachment B – Site Photographs Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project B-4 Coastal California Gnatcatcher and Cactus Wren Focused Survey Results Photograph 7: Standing in CAGN Territory 4 facing southeast. Photograph 8: Standing in CAGN Territory 4 facing southwest. 5.2.c Packet Pg. 397 Attachment B – Site Photographs Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project B-5 Coastal California Gnatcatcher and Cactus Wren Focused Survey Results Photograph 9: Standing in CAGN Territory 5 facing northeast. Photograph 10: Standing in CAGN Territory 5 facing west. 5.2.c Packet Pg. 398 Attachment B – Site Photographs Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project B-6 Coastal California Gnatcatcher and Cactus Wren Focused Survey Results Photograph 11: Facing west toward cactus wren (CACW) Territory 1. Photograph 12: Facing north toward CACW Territory 2. 5.2.c Packet Pg. 399 Attachment B – Site Photographs Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project B-7 Coastal California Gnatcatcher and Cactus Wren Focused Survey Results Photograph 13: Standing in CACW Territory 3 facing south. Photograph 14: Standing in CACW Territory 4 facing west. 5.2.c Packet Pg. 400 Attachment B – Site Photographs Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project B-8 Coastal California Gnatcatcher and Cactus Wren Focused Survey Results Photograph 15: Facing northeast toward CACW Territory 5. Photograph 16: An adult male CAGN acts aggressively toward a lone juvenile CACW in CAGN Territory #2. 5.2.c Packet Pg. 401 Attachment B – Site Photographs Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project B-9 Coastal California Gnatcatcher and Cactus Wren Focused Survey Results Photograph 17: A CACW family gathers together in CACW Territory 5. Photograph 18: An adult male CAGN brings food for the waiting nestlings in Territory 5 Nest #1. 5.2.c Packet Pg. 402 Attachment C Wildlife Species Observed List 5.2.c Packet Pg. 403 Attachment C –Wildlife Species Observed List Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project C-1 Coastal California Gnatcatcher and Cactus Wren Focused Survey Results Table C-1: Wildlife Species Observed List Scientific Name* Common Name Special-Status Rank** Reptiles Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri coastal whiptail SSC Coluber flagellum piceus red racer Sceloporus occidentalis longipes Great Basin fence lizard Uta stansburiana elegans western side-blotched lizard Birds Accipiter cooperii Cooper’s hawk WL Aeronautes saxatalis white-throated swift Aimophila ruficeps canescens southern California rufous-crowned sparrow WL Aphelocoma californica California scrub jay Baeolophus inornatus oak titmouse Buteo jamaicensis red-tailed hawk Callipepla californica California quail Calypte anna Anna’s hummingbird Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus cactus wren Cathartes aura turkey vulture Chamaea fasciata wrentit Contopus sordidulus western wood-pewee Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow Corvus corax common raven Dryobates nuttallii Nuttall’s woodpecker Empidonax difficilis pacific-slope flycatcher Geococcyx californianus greater roadrunner Haemorhous mexicanus house finch Icterus cucullatus hooded oriole Leiothlypis celata orange-crowned warbler Melanerpes formicivorus acorn woodpecker Melozone crissalis California towhee Mimus polyglottos northern mockingbird Molothrus ater brown-headed cowbird Myiarchus cinerascens ash-throated flycatcher Patagioenas fasciata band-tailed pigeon Petrochelidon pyrrhonota cliff swallow Phainopepla nitens phainopepla Pipilo maculatus spotted towhee Polioptila caerulea blue-gray gnatcatcher Polioptila californica californica coastal California gnatcatcher FT/SSC Psaltriparus minimus bushtit Sayornis nigricans black phoebe Sayornis saya Say’s phoebe Selasphorus sasin Allen’s hummingbird 5.2.c Packet Pg. 404 Attachment C –Wildlife Species Observed List Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project C-2 Coastal California Gnatcatcher and Cactus Wren Focused Survey Results Table C-1: Wildlife Species Observed List Scientific Name* Common Name Special-Status Rank** Sitta carolinensis white-breasted nuthatch Spinus lawrencei Lawrence’s goldfinch Spinus psaltria lesser goldfinch Stelgidopteryx serripennis northern rough-winged swallow Thryomanes bewickii Bewick’s wren Toxostoma redivivum California thrasher Troglodytes aedon house wren Turdus migratorius American robin Tyrannus verticalis western kingbird Tyrannus vociferans Cassin’s kingbird Vireo huttoni Hutton’s vireo Zenaida macroura mourning dove Mammals Neotoma sp. woodrat Odocoileus hemionus mule deer Otospermophilus beecheyi California ground squirrel Sciurus niger* eastern fox squirrel Sylvilagus audubonii desert cottontail * Non-native species ** Special-Status Rank FT Federally Threatened SSC Species of Special Concern – any species, subspecies, or distinct population of fish, amphibian, reptile, bird, or mammal native to California that currently satisfies one or more of the following criteria: - is extirpated from California or, in the case of birds, in its primary seasonal or breeding role; - is listed as Federally-, but not State-, threatened or endangered; meets the State definition of threatened or endangered but has not formally been listed. - is experiencing, or formerly experienced, serious (noncyclical) population declines or range retractions (not reversed) that, if continued or resumed, could qualify it for State threatened or endangered status; or - has naturally small populations exhibiting high susceptibility to risk from any factor(s), that if realized, could lead to declines that would qualify it for State threatened or endangered status. WL Watch List - taxa that were previously designated as “Species of Special Concern” but no longer merit that status, or which do not yet meet SSC criteria, but for which there is concern and a need for additional information to clarify status. 5.2.c Packet Pg. 405 Attachment D References 5.2.c Packet Pg. 406 Attachment D – References Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Project D-1 Coastal California Gnatcatcher and Cactus Wren Focused Survey Results Benson, T.A. 2020. Personal communication regarding the regional status of coastal California gnatcatcher and cactus wren. California State University at San Bernardino, Instructional Support Technician. July 21, 2020. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2020. RareFind 5, California Natural Diversity Data Base, California. Data base report on threatened, endangered, rare or otherwise sensitive species and communities for Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Orange Counties. eBird. 2020. eBird: An online database of bird distribution and abundance [web application]. eBird, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. Accessed online at: http://www.ebird.org. Hamilton Biological. 2019. CEQA Review, Canyon Loop Trail Project, City of Diamond Bar. Submitted to the City of Diamond Bar. October 14, 2019. Holland, R. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. Rea, A.M. and K.L. Weaver. 1990. The Taxonomy, Distribution, and Status of Coastal Cactus Wrens. Western Birds 21(3): 81-126. Sawyer, J.O., Keeler-Wolf, T., and J. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation (Second Edition). California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California, USA. Shuford, W. D., and Gardali, T., editors. 2008. San Diego Cactus Wren. In California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA). 2020. Custom Soil Resource Report for Los Angeles County, California, Southeastern Part. Accessed online at: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1997. Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) Presence/Absence Survey Guidelines. February 28, 1997. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica). Federal Register 72(243): 72010-72213. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010. Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) 5- Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Accessed online at: https://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/SpeciesStatusList/5YR/20100929_5YR_CAGN.pdf. U.S. Geological Survey. 1981. San Dimas, California 7.5-Minute Topographic Quadrangle Map. xeno-canto. 2020. xeno-canto: sharing bird sounds from around the world. Accessed online at: http://www.xeno-canto.org. 5.2.c Packet Pg. 407 Steve Tye Nancy A. Lyons Andrew Chou Ruth M. Low Jennifer “Fred” Mahlke Mayor Mayor Pro Tem Council Member Council Member Council Member City of Diamond Bar | 21810 Copley Drive Diamond Bar CA 91765-4178 www.DiamondBarCA.gov | 909.839.7000 1 July 1, 2020 Michael Mirelez Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians Cultural Resource Coordinator P.O. Box 1160 Thermal, CA 92274 RE: CEQA Consultation Request for the Canyon Loop Trail Project, City of Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, California. Coordinator Mirelez, The City of Diamond Bar (City) proposes to develop the Canyon Loop Trail Project (Project). The Project involves the improvement of an existing 1.29-mile hardpan trail. Proposed improvements consist of the realignment of the trail to improve drainage and minimize erosion of the trail, enhance the use of the trail where gradients are steep, re-grade cross-slopes and add amenities such as directional and interpretive signage, rest areas with benches, small shade shelters, climbing steps with cobblestone swale channelization, and water diverting improvements where necessary (see Figure 1). The Canyon Loop Trail is located within the central portion of the Summitridge Park Trail System. This trail is adjacent to the Diamond Bar Center (1600 Grand Avenue), and connects to the Ridge Route Trail to the north, and the Grand View Trail to the south. The Assessor’s Parcel Number is 8701-059-904 (see Figures 2 and 3). This Project will comply with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) regulations as well as Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52). The City will be the CEQA Lead Agency. We are contacting you because the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians requested to be notified and provided information, under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1 subdivisions (b), (d) and (e)), also known as AB 52, regarding projects with the City’s jurisdiction and within the traditional territory of the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians. Please consider this letter and preliminary Project information as the formal notification of the proposed Project. The City is requesting to consult with the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians in order to identify tribal cultural resources that may be impacted by the proposed Project. The point of contact for the City is below. 5.2.d Packet Pg. 408 2 City of Diamond Bar Point of Contact Information Name/Title: Ryan Wright, Director of Parks and Recreation, City of Diamond Bar Address: 21810 Copley Drive City: Diamond Bar, California 91765 Tel: 909-839-7061 E-Mail: rwright@diamondbarca.gov Cogstone Resource Management, Inc. (Cogstone) has been retained to assist the City with their cultural resources assessment of the Project Area. The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was contacted on May 19, 2020 to perform a search of the Sacred Lands File. The NAHC responded on June 2, 2020 and reported positive results for Native American sacred sites and/or heritage resources located within the Project Area or the immediate vicinity. Cogstone requested a record search of the Project Area and a half-mile buffer from the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) located at California State University, Fullerton on May 19, 2020 and received the results on June 23, 2020. Results of the record search determined that no previously recorded resources are located within the Project Area and two resources are located within a half-mile radius of the Project Area. A survey for the Project is upcoming. The City would appreciate receiving any comments, issues and/or concerns relating to cultural resources, sacred lands, and tribal cultural resources that you may have within the Project Area. All information provided will be kept confidential. Please respond within 30 days, pursuant to PRC 21080.3.1(d), if you would like to consult on this Project. If you have any questions or concerns with the Project, please do not hesitant to contact Ryan Wright at the City of Diamond Bar at the address above or via email rwright@diamondbarca.gov or phone 909-839-7061. Thank you for your assistance. Ryan Wright Ryan Wright, Director of Parks and Recreation Attachments: Project vicinity map Project location map Project aerial map 5.2.d Packet Pg. 409 3 Figure 1. Project vicinity map 5.2.d Packet Pg. 410 4 Figure 2. Project location map 5.2.d Packet Pg. 411 5 Figure 3. Project aerial map 5.2.d Packet Pg. 412 Steve Tye Nancy A. Lyons Andrew Chou Ruth M. Low Jennifer “Fred” Mahlke Mayor Mayor Pro Tem Council Member Council Member Council Member City of Diamond Bar | 21810 Copley Drive Diamond Bar CA 91765-4178 www.DiamondBarCA.gov | 909.839.7000 1 July 1, 2020 Anthony Morales San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians Chief P.O. Box 693 San Gabriel, CA 91778 RE: CEQA Consultation Request for the Canyon Loop Trail Project, City of Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, California. Chief Morales, The City of Diamond Bar (City) proposes to develop the Canyon Loop Trail Project (Project). The Project involves the improvement of an existing 1.29-mile hardpan trail. Proposed improvements consist of the realignment of the trail to improve drainage and minimize erosion of the trail, enhance the use of the trail where gradients are steep, re-grade cross-slopes and add amenities such as directional and interpretive signage, rest areas with benches, small shade shelters, climbing steps with cobblestone swale channelization, and water diverting improvements where necessary (see Figure 1). The Canyon Loop Trail is located within the central portion of the Summitridge Park Trail System. This trail is adjacent to the Diamond Bar Center (1600 Grand Avenue), and connects to the Ridge Route Trail to the north, and the Grand View Trail to the south. The Assessor’s Parcel Number is 8701-059-904 (see Figures 2 and 3). This Project will comply with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) regulations as well as Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52). The City will be the CEQA Lead Agency. We are contacting you because the San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians requested to be notified and provided information, under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1 subdivisions (b), (d) and (e)), also known as AB 52, regarding projects with the City’s jurisdiction and within the traditional territory of the San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians. Please consider this letter and preliminary Project information as the formal notification of the proposed Project. The City is requesting to consult with the San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians in order to identify tribal cultural resources that may be impacted by the proposed Project. The point of contact for the City is below. 5.2.d Packet Pg. 413 2 City of Diamond Bar Point of Contact Information Name/Title: Ryan Wright, Director of Parks and Recreation, City of Diamond Bar Address: 21810 Copley Drive City: Diamond Bar, California 91765 Tel: 909-839-7061 E-Mail: rwright@diamondbarca.gov Cogstone Resource Management, Inc. (Cogstone) has been retained to assist the City with their cultural resources assessment of the Project Area. The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was contacted on May 19, 2020 to perform a search of the Sacred Lands File. The NAHC responded on June 2, 2020 and reported positive results for Native American sacred sites and/or heritage resources located within the Project Area or the immediate vicinity. Cogstone requested a record search of the Project Area and a half-mile buffer from the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) located at California State University, Fullerton on May 19, 2020 and received the results on June 23, 2020. Results of the record search determined that no previously recorded resources are located within the Project Area and two resources are located within a half-mile radius of the Project Area. A survey for the Project is upcoming. The City would appreciate receiving any comments, issues and/or concerns relating to cultural resources, sacred lands, and tribal cultural resources that you may have within the Project Area. All information provided will be kept confidential. Please respond within 30 days, pursuant to PRC 21080.3.1(d), if you would like to consult on this Project. If you have any questions or concerns with the Project, please do not hesitant to contact Ryan Wright at the City of Diamond Bar at the address above or via email rwright@diamondbarca.gov or phone 909-839-7061. Thank you for your assistance. Ryan Wright Ryan Wright, Director of Parks and Recreation Attachments: Project vicinity map Project location map Project aerial map 5.2.d Packet Pg. 414 3 Figure 1. Project vicinity map 5.2.d Packet Pg. 415 4 Figure 2. Project location map 5.2.d Packet Pg. 416 5 Figure 3. Project aerial map 5.2.d Packet Pg. 417 Steve Tye Nancy A. Lyons Andrew Chou Ruth M. Low Jennifer “Fred” Mahlke Mayor Mayor Pro Tem Council Member Council Member Council Member City of Diamond Bar | 21810 Copley Drive Diamond Bar CA 91765-4178 www.DiamondBarCA.gov | 909.839.7000 1 July 1, 2020 Joseph Ontiveros Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians Cultural Resource Director P.O. Box 487 San Jacinto, CA 92581 RE: CEQA Consultation Request for the Canyon Loop Trail Project, City of Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, California. Director Ontiveros, The City of Diamond Bar (City) proposes to develop the Canyon Loop Trail Project (Project). The Project involves the improvement of an existing 1.29-mile hardpan trail. Proposed improvements consist of the realignment of the trail to improve drainage and minimize erosion of the trail, enhance the use of the trail where gradients are steep, re-grade cross-slopes and add amenities such as directional and interpretive signage, rest areas with benches, small shade shelters, climbing steps with cobblestone swale channelization, and water diverting improvements where necessary (see Figure 1). The Canyon Loop Trail is located within the central portion of the Summitridge Park Trail System. This trail is adjacent to the Diamond Bar Center (1600 Grand Avenue), and connects to the Ridge Route Trail to the north, and the Grand View Trail to the south. The Assessor’s Parcel Number is 8701-059-904 (see Figures 2 and 3). This Project will comply with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) regulations as well as Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52). The City will be the CEQA Lead Agency. We are contacting you because the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians requested to be notified and provided information, under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1 subdivisions (b), (d) and (e)), also known as AB 52, regarding projects with the City’s jurisdiction and within the traditional territory of the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians. Please consider this letter and preliminary Project information as the formal notification of the proposed Project. The City is requesting to consult with the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians in order to identify tribal cultural resources that may be impacted by the proposed Project. The point of contact for the City is below. 5.2.d Packet Pg. 418 2 City of Diamond Bar Point of Contact Information Name/Title: Ryan Wright, Director of Parks and Recreation, City of Diamond Bar Address: 21810 Copley Drive City: Diamond Bar, California 91765 Tel: 909-839-7061 E-Mail: rwright@diamondbarca.gov Cogstone Resource Management, Inc. (Cogstone) has been retained to assist the City with their cultural resources assessment of the Project Area. The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was contacted on May 19, 2020 to perform a search of the Sacred Lands File. The NAHC responded on June 2, 2020 and reported positive results for Native American sacred sites and/or heritage resources located within the Project Area or the immediate vicinity. Cogstone requested a record search of the Project Area and a half-mile buffer from the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) located at California State University, Fullerton on May 19, 2020 and received the results on June 23, 2020. Results of the record search determined that no previously recorded resources are located within the Project Area and two resources are located within a half-mile radius of the Project Area. A survey for the Project is upcoming. The City would appreciate receiving any comments, issues and/or concerns relating to cultural resources, sacred lands, and tribal cultural resources that you may have within the Project Area. All information provided will be kept confidential. Please respond within 30 days, pursuant to PRC 21080.3.1(d), if you would like to consult on this Project. If you have any questions or concerns with the Project, please do not hesitant to contact Ryan Wright at the City of Diamond Bar at the address above or via email rwright@diamondbarca.gov or phone 909-839-7061. Thank you for your assistance. Ryan Wright Ryan Wright, Director of Parks and Recreation Attachments: Project vicinity map Project location map Project aerial map 5.2.d Packet Pg. 419 3 Figure 1. Project vicinity map 5.2.d Packet Pg. 420 4 Figure 2. Project location map 5.2.d Packet Pg. 421 5 Figure 3. Project aerial map 5.2.d Packet Pg. 422 Steve Tye Nancy A. Lyons Andrew Chou Ruth M. Low Jennifer “Fred” Mahlke Mayor Mayor Pro Tem Council Member Council Member Council Member City of Diamond Bar | 21810 Copley Drive Diamond Bar CA 91765-4178 www.DiamondBarCA.gov | 909.839.7000 1 July 1, 2020 Andrew Salas Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation Chairman P.O. Box 393 Covina, CA 91723 RE: CEQA Consultation Request for the Canyon Loop Trail Project, City of Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, California. Chairman Salas, The City of Diamond Bar (City) proposes to develop the Canyon Loop Trail Project (Project). The Project involves the improvement of an existing 1.29-mile hardpan trail. Proposed improvements consist of the realignment of the trail to improve drainage and minimize erosion of the trail, enhance the use of the trail where gradients are steep, re-grade cross-slopes and add amenities such as directional and interpretive signage, rest areas with benches, small shade shelters, climbing steps with cobblestone swale channelization, and water diverting improvements where necessary (see Figure 1). The Canyon Loop Trail is located within the central portion of the Summitridge Park Trail System. This trail is adjacent to the Diamond Bar Center (1600 Grand Avenue), and connects to the Ridge Route Trail to the north, and the Grand View Trail to the south. The Assessor’s Parcel Number is 8701-059-904 (see Figures 2 and 3). This Project will comply with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) regulations as well as Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52). The City will be the CEQA Lead Agency. We are contacting you because the Gabrieleno - Kizh Nation requested to be notified and provided information, under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1 subdivisions (b), (d) and (e)), also known as AB 52, regarding projects with the City’s jurisdiction and within the traditional territory of the Gabrieleno - Kizh Nation. Please consider this letter and preliminary Project information as the formal notification of the proposed Project. The City is requesting to consult with the Gabrieleno - Kizh Nation in order to identify tribal cultural resources that may be impacted by the proposed Project. The point of contact for the City is below. 5.2.d Packet Pg. 423 2 City of Diamond Bar Point of Contact Information Name/Title: Ryan Wright, Director of Parks and Recreation, City of Diamond Bar Address: 21810 Copley Drive City: Diamond Bar, California 91765 Tel: 909-839-7061 E-Mail: rwright@diamondbarca.gov Cogstone Resource Management, Inc. (Cogstone) has been retained to assist the City with their cultural resources assessment of the Project Area. The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was contacted on May 19, 2020 to perform a search of the Sacred Lands File. The NAHC responded on June 2, 2020 and reported positive results for Native American sacred sites and/or heritage resources located within the Project Area or the immediate vicinity. Cogstone requested a record search of the Project Area and a half-mile buffer from the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) located at California State University, Fullerton on May 19, 2020 and received the results on June 23, 2020. Results of the record search determined that no previously recorded resources are located within the Project Area and two resources are located within a half-mile radius of the Project Area. A survey for the Project is upcoming. The City would appreciate receiving any comments, issues and/or concerns relating to cultural resources, sacred lands, and tribal cultural resources that you may have within the Project Area. All information provided will be kept confidential. Please respond within 30 days, pursuant to PRC 21080.3.1(d), if you would like to consult on this Project. If you have any questions or concerns with the Project, please do not hesitant to contact Ryan Wright at the City of Diamond Bar at the address above or via email rwright@diamondbarca.gov or phone 909-839-7061. Thank you for your assistance. Ryan Wright Ryan Wright, Director of Parks and Recreation Attachments: Project vicinity map Project location map Project aerial map 5.2.d Packet Pg. 424 3 Figure 1. Project vicinity map 5.2.d Packet Pg. 425 4 Figure 2. Project location map 5.2.d Packet Pg. 426 5 Figure 3. Project aerial map 5.2.d Packet Pg. 427 1 Kristina Santana From:Jonathan Hawes <jonathanhaweselmonte@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 1, 2021 11:05 AM To:Kristina Santana Subject:Public comment for the next city council meeting Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed CAUTION: This message originated outside of our City of Diamond Bar network. Good evening. My name is Jonathan Hawes. I served as El Monte City Clerk from 2013 to 2018. Since 2015 I have been a whistleblower on Andre Quintero and Team El Monte’s embezzlement of $10 million from the El Monte Promise Foundation scholarship fund. I have interviewed dozens of El Monte residents who have privately confirmed that Promise funds were used for fraudulent trips to Vietnam and Haiti, a bogus consultant in Salt Lake City, house repairs, and other criminal activities. I have myself been interviewed by the FBI about two dozen times. Documents proving the embezzlement have been submitted to the FBI and the District Attorney’s Office and are now available to the public online (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mH4CC1BCQtj4Lwa7ne9uR33Jf_yZlVrH/view?usp=sharing). I am asking the Diamond Bar City Council to call out these crimes and protect the vulnerable residents of one of the poorest cities in southern California. El Monte children, who should’ve been provided with college scholarships, were robbed. Andre Quintero and Team El Monte members must go to prison. If you have any questions, please call or text me at (626) 863‐ 2149. Thank you. 1 Kristina Santana From:Sheri Liebe <happy2bnappy2@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, January 23, 2021 9:24 AM To:Kristina Santana Subject:Canyon loop. Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed CAUTION: This message originated outside of our City of Diamond Bar network. Hello Kristina, My name is Sheri Liebe and I have been a resident here in Diamond Bar for over 30 years. I am a trail enthusiast and I am up in the trails at least twice a week and before the pandemic hit I was conducting hiking expeditions for the city. The trails are very busy now, and ever since the city has opened them up again it seems that more and more people are taking advantage of our beauty and space. For me it’s been pretty incredible to see all the families and residents using what our city has to offer. Currently the loop is in need of some repair, several areas where the stairs are have erosion around then making it unsafe to step on, some of the guide post have been uprooted, and I’m pretty sure the trail could use a good grooming? Because of the high traffic of people currently using our trails I feel it’s important to maintain our beauty of the area while keeping the safety of our residents and guest in mind. Having such a beautiful space should never be taken for granted and I hope we can do what’s necessary to keep our space safe while keeping its beauty intact. Much peace to you all, Sheri Liebe ྘ྙྚ 1 Kristina Santana From:Amer Holmes <amer.h.holmes@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 2, 2021 11:32 AM To:Kristina Santana Subject:Trail and birds Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed CAUTION: This message originated outside of our City of Diamond Bar network. I understand that the benches and construction project proposed will endanger the birds and permanently harm the ecosystem. I also understand that there is a way to do things without causing permanent harm to the ecosystem. Why not do things in a way that does not cause harm? Most decisions are made by weighing risk versus benefit. What is the benefit that would outweigh the unnecessary permanent harm in keeping with the values of this community? Personally, I chose to buy a home in Diamond Bar rather than other places due to the natural beauty many years ago. I would be sad if we lost that beauty that was the incentive to buy here in the first place. Please explain your rationale. Perhaps we should change the zoning from housing to keep it consistent with the desire to keep it free from development as is the current designation. Less confusion and more consistent. If we need money, we should look at ways to increase commerce without destroying our environment. Respectfully submitted, Amer Holmes 1 Kristina Santana From:stephanie hawkins <stephaniedawnhawkins@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 2, 2021 1:23 PM To:Kristina Santana Subject:FOR PUBLIC COMMENT Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed CAUTION: This message originated outside of our City of Diamond Bar network. Hello, As a resident of Diamond Bar, and a lover of our beautiful natural environment I would like to make the following request regarding the upcoming Canyon Loop Trail Improvements. I frequently enjoy the natural beauty of the canyon loop trail. When I am sad‐ this trail, with it's active bird life and trees often restores me a bit. I know many of my neighbors would agree that this trail is a precious resource. Please consider the trees and animals on the Canyon Loop Trail with their appropriate value. Please only make improvements that benefit the existing California Gnatcatcher and cactus wren birds. As well as all other animals that inhabit this trail region. I request that the city use light impact trail building techniques on this Canyon Trail Improvement project. To preserve the precious remaining natural resources in our city. Also, as the city is investing in the improvement of this region, I suggest that the city consider protecting the canyon loop trail from all future development. Therefore protecting their investment. thank you, Stephanie Dawn Hawkins ‐‐ To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Kristina Santana From:J S <sunwebmail@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 2, 2021 3:01 PM To:Kristina Santana Subject:For Public Comment at city council meeting 2/2/2021 Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed CAUTION: This message originated outside of our City of Diamond Bar network. Dear Diamond Bar City Councils, First, I want to thank each and everyone of you for working so hard for residents of Diamond Bar. Your jobs are under appreciated. You can’t pay me enough to be in your position. Second, there are a lot of talks about the possibility of new housing in Diamond Bar due to state requirements. If we’re going down that route, please do so with minimal impact to our environment. We love our open space, hiking trails, and ecosystem. Please do your best not to disturb them. Third, I understand the city is planning to widen trails north of the Diamond Bar Community Center, more specifically the canyon loop trail. As a resident myself who hiked in the area, I don’t believe that is necessary. I know you’re trying to do the right thing by giving us better amenities in the city. But we can save that money for other more important projects. Hikers enjoy natural terrain, not widen smooth trails. Plus, there are many plants, birds, insects, and animals that live in that sensitive area. We should co‐exist, not wipe them out so we can have easier walks. Again, thank you for representing us. When I tell my friend that I live in Diamond Bar, they think it’s Beverly Hills East. Take care. Jack Sun 1 Kristina Santana From:BARBARA ARMSTRONG <barbymast@aol.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 2, 2021 3:26 PM To:Kristina Santana Subject:For Public Comment Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed CAUTION: This message originated outside of our City of Diamond Bar network. Esteemed members of the City Council of Diamond Bar, I believe that it makes much more sense to repair and widen Canyon Trail Loop which is in a wildlife habitat within the City of Diamond Bar, with people who carry picks and shovels and understand the environmental character of our community, than to go in with bulldozers that cannot pay attention to the environment even if the operator wanted it to. Sometimes a fine touch is much more cost efficient in the value of the finished product than a sledge hammer would be. This is one of those times. There may not be a second chance. We do not want to be a case study on how not to do things. Barbara Armstrong 1 Kristina Santana From:James Flournoy <flurnet@hotmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 2, 2021 3:46 PM To:Kristina Santana Cc:Brian A Jobst; Joan Licari Subject:Trail project public comment Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged CAUTION: This message originated outside of our City of Diamond Bar network. Trail sounds like a great Idea however reviewing the USFW and CDFW Mitigation plan for the similar habitat in the Montebello Hills Project which has similar endangered habitat We find that there is no construction, including brush Clerance, disturbing the topsoil, grading etc. ((gas powered tools) after nesting season starts Feb 15 until nesting is over. I can get that date if you need it Hand work ok but there are distance requirements We would like to help thanks Jim Flournoy 626 627 5993 cc Brian Jobst, Joan Licari‐ can you add anything ? I do not have time to call a meeting 1 Kristina Santana From:mmills8935@aol.com Sent:Tuesday, February 2, 2021 4:27 PM To:Kristina Santana Subject:FOR PUBLIC COMMENT Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged CAUTION: This message originated outside of our City of Diamond Bar network. Dear Sir: I would like to see the City Council send the Canyon Loop Trail Improvement plan sent back for re-consideration. There are better ways to "improve" the trail than by heavy construction equipment, which would frighten the resident birds and wildlife as well as destroy some of their habitat. I believe the Council should contact the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service about building a "low impact" trail with a correct management plan, a trail that all of us and the birds can enjoy. Respectfully, Melissa Mills Rowland Heights, CA 91748 (626) 810-1533 1 Kristina Santana From:James Hazlett <jimhazlett@ymail.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 2, 2021 5:03 PM To:Kristina Santana Subject:Statement to the Council on Trail Improvement Proposal CAUTION: This message originated outside of our City of Diamond Bar network. Madame Mayor and Members of the City Council: I urge you to vote against the Trail Improvement proposal on tonight's city council meeting agenda. This proposal presents a real threat to Diamond Bar's native habitat and wildlife areas. A decision now to widen and otherwise "improve" the existing, naturally-created trailways would almost certainly be devastating to the wildlife and native plants along our trails. I respectfully recommend that the Council request the assistance of state and federal conservation agencies who can conduct a low-impact trail and wildlife habitat study, resulting in a wildlife habitat management plan that will serve us now as well as future generations of Diamond Bar residents. On a broader but directly-related note, the land trails under study sit on land that has been paradoxically labeled "open-space" while it is zoned for housing. It becomes increasingly difficult to trust the city council to make these life-altering decisions, even though some of you claim to be proactive environmentalists or conservationists. It continues to be very troubling that our open spaces are zoned for housing, while these are diametrically opposed. Please vote against the Trail Improvement proposal on tonight's agenda. Respectfully submitted, Jim Hazlett 903 Golden Prados Dr Diamond Bar 949-892-0715 Jim 1 Kristina Santana From:Diamond Bar-Pomona Valley Sierra Club Task Force <dbpvsierraclubtaskforce@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 2, 2021 5:34 PM To:Kristina Santana Subject:Public Comments Tonight Canyon Loop Attachments:CanyonCommentsMasterRS.pdf CAUTION: This message originated outside of our City of Diamond Bar network. ‐‐ Dear Kristina, please submit these for tonights' meeting. Thank you. C. Robin Smith Diamond Bar - Pomona Valley Sierra Club Task Force C. Robin Smith, Chair 324 S. Diamond Bar Blvd. #230 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 909‐861‐9920 Desk Host Website: http://www.diamondbarisbeautiful.com https://angeles.sierraclub.org/conservation Find Us on Facebook February 2, 2021 [Public Comments, delivered electronically] RE: Canyon Loop Trail Improvement Honorable Mayor Lyons, City Councilmembers and Staff, The Diamond Bar - Pomona Valley Sierra Club is grateful for the opportunity to speak about the conservation of Canyon Loop Trail wildlife habitat. The Sierra Club prioritizes education and liaison in environmental literacy, while modeling ecological integrity. Reconciling outdated notions of conservation with the latest ecological sciences to agencies, trades and the public, especially the youth, is at the heart of our practicum. Authentic Conservation Collaborates We truly appreciate the effort put into the Canyon Loop Trail Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. We also vigorously urge the City to invite and request guidance and help with a “low impact” trail build from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. This would be in coordination with the California Dept. Fish and Wildlife. We recommend the City rely on the expertise of these trustee agencies, as written in their comments on the project. The success of this collaboration will be a testament to the authenticity of City decision-makers’ intentions to enact land use conservation in Diamond Bar. Background The Canyon Loop Trail project, originally was set for approval without CEQA analysis. The city stamped it “categorical exempt” in October 2019. This means, the city would have moved forward on yet another project without biological regard for a sensitive and rare habitat. The Diamond Bar - Pomona Valley Sierra Club Task Force challenged the exemption and is very grateful, the City chose to perform an IS/MND. . Conservation Concerns After analyzing the IS/MND conclusions, we remain deeply concerned that the city may not yet, fully comprehend the value of learning authentic conservation tradecraft, from those whose job it is to assure best outcomes in land conservation management. The written conversation in the IS/MND process, downplays the ecological value of the site and appears to prefer conventional engineering trades to lead the project; while remaining soft in committing to use recommendations from state and federal conservation trustee agencies. This understandable scenario is observed in many contract cities, due to the ingrained use of familiar, conventional landscape contractors. Conservationists recognize, that landscape, nursery, engineering - and even arborist trades (!), lack the proprietary education of conservation tradecraft for California natural communities (wildlife habitats), including building trails without heavy equipment. Wildlife habitat management is different than recreational land management practices. Tradecraft and Cumulative Impacts Similar to conventional agriculture practices, the landscape and nursery trades are frequently indifferent towards learning about and performing restorative or regenerative conservation. (I have personally heard quite a few landscape managers say, “there is no proﬁt in pursuing California native landscaping because it does not require additional maintenance, water and products, that ornamental landscapes do. Services is where we make our proﬁts.”) Corporate landscape and nursery trades cause immense damage to the environment by systematically installing invasive or improper plant pallets; using chemical fertilizer and pesticides, using excessive irrigation and untrained ﬁeld labor. Such practices have been proven to not only damage the broader environment but also the local planting plan being managed, which usually fails within a couple years or causes damage beyond its borders. Landscape companies make large proﬁts from continual replacement of failed plant material, which depends on chemicals. Another confusing and complex derailment of best conservation practice comes from the unregulated ecological consulting industry, which can suffer honest mistakes in reporting and sometimes, succumb to political pressure. Developers and Lead Agencies frequently hire consultants which favor the instructions of their employer. Such land management practices, resulting in cumulative, incremental habitat losses, on land that is also zoned for housing, may open the door for future speculation land use development. Canyon Loop Trail is designated Open Space and also, zoned for Low Residential housing, according to the IS/MND. This parcel has no authentic conservation plan in place, at this time. The Building Industry Association of Southern California, formed a dedicated legal effort to remove the Coastal California Gnatcatcher from federal protection lists, to achieve unlimited development approval in coastal sagescrub hillsides, where gnatcatchers live. Loss of habitat is the main cause of gnatcatcher extinction. So far, the California Gnatcatcher remains protected. Comprehending this situation, reveals a plausible reason why the City of Diamond Bar may wish to perform projects to extirpate the birds, on land zoned for potential future housing. Cumulative Habitat Losses Since the city’s incorporation, natural open spaces in Diamond Bar have been dwindling away due to permissive, incremental conversion of natural watersheds, streams and habitats and transformed into ornamental, (and invasive) high maintenance landscapes. Some examples are: Sycamore Canyon Park, the corner of Diamond Bar Blvd. and Gold Rush, and Pantera Park. It appears the vegetation conversions resulted from the CEQA categorical exemption placed on the City’s Parks & Recreation Master Plan 2011. The omission of identifying existing biological conditions in the Master Plan, appears to have set in motion, land management habits which favor expediency, not quality. Business as usual, industrial landscaping methods continue to increase ecological degradation and maintenance costs today. Potential Solutions A reliable solution for any city to embrace authentic conservation, would be to form a collaborative, conservation commission or subcommittee, tasked to learn about and oversee city conservation land management practices. This effort would proactively address land management methods, which could avoid expensive damage and rising maintenance costs. (We can all understand the value of prevention and informed, careful planning.) Through this entity, the City of Diamond Bar could discover the extraordinary beneﬁts of authentic conservation, especially potential revenue pathways. The Diamond Bar - Pomona Valley Sierra Club Task Force is a notable conservation team, accountable to the Sierra Club, Angeles Chapter, Conservation Program. We are available to serve City of Diamond Bar residents and its local government. The Canyon Loop Trail project is one of our main interests and we cherish the opportunity of participating in meaningful conversations about this rare, ecologically rich trail, which is a signiﬁcant contributor to the Puente Hills and Tonner Canyon regions. Respectfully Submitted, C. Robin Smith, chair Diamond Bar - Pomona Valley Sierra Club dbpvSierraClubTaskForce@gmail.com. 951-675-6760 References: California Dept. Fish and Wildlife, Canyon Loop Trail Comments, Nov. 2020 California Botanic Garden, Claremont Manual of California Vegetation. https://vegetation.cnps.org California Native Plant Society, cnps.org Theodore Payne Foundation, California Native “Nature’s Best Hope”, by Dr. Douglas Tallamy “The New American Landscape”, Edited by Thomas Christopher The Building Industry Association of Southern California, Coastal California Gnatcatcher Lawsuit 2017