Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES 2012-14RESOLUTION NO. 201214 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ADOPTING NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. PL 2012-087 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DOG PARK ON 1.35 ACRES OF UNIMPROVED LAND WITHIN PANTERA PARK, 738 PANTERA DRIVE. A. RECITALS. (i) The City of Diamond Bar proposes development of a 1.35 -acre dog park located within Pantera Park (the "Project" hereinafter,) (ii) In accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000 et. Seq., the City prepared an Initial Study and Negative Declaration dated February 1, 2012, (the "1S/ND") to analyze the proposed Project. (iii) On February 3, 2012, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15072, 15073, 21091 and 21092 a Notice of Availability and Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration was published within the Inland Valley Daily ,Bulletin and the San Gabriel Valley Daily Tribune. In addition, on February 3, 2012, copies of the Notice were posted on-site and at community designated posting sites. Notices were mailed to residents and property owners within a 1,000 -foot radius of the project site. (iv) A public review period for the proposed IS/ND was provided from February 3, 2012 through February 22, 2012. Copies of the proposed ISIND were made available for public review at the Diamond Bar Library, City Hall, and the City's website. (v) In accordance with CEQA Guidelines, the ISIND was circulated to interested parties and agencies for public comment. In response to the circulation of the ISIND, the City received written and oral comments regarding the adequacy of the ISIND. The City caused preparation of written responses where required to all comments which raised project related environmental issues. The City has incorporated the comments and responses into the ND where appropriate. 2012-14 (vi) On March 20, 2012 the City Council held a duly noticed public meeting on the IS/ND. At the meeting, interested parties were provided an opportunity to present oral and written. comments regarding the 18IND. On March 20, 2012, the City Council concluded the public meeting. B. RESOLUTION. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined and resolved by the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar, as follows: The 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. The City Council finds and determines that the public and governmental agencies have been afforded ample notice and opportunity to comment on the IS/ND. 3. In accordance with CEQA, the City Council finds and determines that the ISIND has been independently analyzed by the City and its staff, and that the IS/ND represents the independent judgment of the lead agency with respect to the Project. 4. The Project will not result in significant impacts to the environment; that said ISIND is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for the Project based on the finding that the documents reflect the independent judgment of the lead agency; that it has considered the IS/ND with any comments and responses received during the public review and meeting process; and further finding on the basis of said documents that there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment. 5. The City Council, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said meetings determined that the ISIND was prepared in compliance with the requirements of California Environmental Quality Act and State CEQA Guidelines. 6. The City Council approves and adopts the IS/ND for the proposed Project, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference as the environmental documentation for the Project. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 20t' DAY OF MARCH 2012, BY THE CITY COUNCIL. OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. By: Lin hang, ayor 2 2012-14 I, Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar, at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 201h day of March 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Council Member: Everett, Herrera, Tye, MPT/Tanaka, M/Chang NOES: Council Member: None ABSTAIN: Council Member: None ABSENT: 'Council Member: None ATTEST: Tom e Cribbins, City Clerk City of Diamond Bar 2012--14 DL1.�I01'D I3.�1� NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY t INTENT TO ADOPT NEGATIVE DECLARATION City of Diamond Bar, 21810 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 (909) 839-7030 NOTICE. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA": Public Resources Code, Section 21100 et seq.), the City of Diamond Bar has determined that the project referenced herein will not have a significant effect on the environment. A draft Negative Declaration has been prepared for review and approval in connection with the proposed project. PROJECT TITLE: Dog Park at Pantera Park PROJECT ADDRESS: 738 Pantera Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The City is proposing a dog park on 1.35 acres of unimproved land within Pantera Park, an existing 23 -acre public sports park. The dog park will consist of two enclosures where dogs will be allowed off -leash: a 39,000 square -foot area for large dogs over 25 pounds; and a 19,400 square -foot area for small dogs under 25 pounds. The dog park will be open 30 minutes before sunrise to 30 minutes after sunset seven days per week. The property is zoned Low Density Residential (RL) with an underlying General Plan land use designation of Park. PROPERTY OWNER: City of Diamond Bar, 21810 Copley Dr., Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: City of Diamond Bar, Community Services Department, 21810 Copley Dr., Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Environmental Determination: In accordance with CEQA Section 15070, the City prepared a Negative Declaration for this project. Pursuant to CEQA Section 15105, the public review period for the Negative Declaration begins February 3, 2012, and ends February 22, 2012. The Diamond Bar City Council will consider whether or not to adopt the proposed Negative Declaration at the following regularly scheduled meeting: TIME OF MEETING: 6:30 p.m. DATE OF PUBLIC MEETING: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 LOCATION: South Coast Air Quality Management District/ Government Center Auditorium 21865 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, California 91765 Copies of the Initial Study, documenting the reasons to support the finding that said project would not have a significant effect on the environment, are available for review between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. Monday through Thursday and 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on Friday, at the following locations: ® City of Diamond Bar, Community Development Department/Planning Division, 21810 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA Diamond Bar Library, 1061 Grand Avenue, Diamond Bar, CA, and The City of Diamond Bar's website at www.DiamondBarCA.gov EXHIBIT "A"' ComDev/Dog Park at Pantera Park/Notice of Intent CITY OF DIAMOND BAR - 21810 COPLEY ➢RIVE - DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 - TEL. (909) 839-7030 - FAX (909) 861-3117 1. Project title: Dog Park at Pantera Park 2. Lead agency name and address: City of Diamond Bar, 21610 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA, 91765 3. Contact person and phone number: Natalie Tobon, Planning Technician, 949839-7034 4. Project location: 738 Pantera Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 5. Project sponsor's name and address: City of Diamond Bar, 21810 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 6. General Plan Designation: Park 7. Zoning: Low Density Residential (RL) 8. Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or of --site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary) The project site is within Pantera Park, an existing 23 -acre park located at 738 Pantera Drive, where 15.5 acres are developed and 7.5 acres are undeveloped. The project site is located in 1.35 acres of the undeveloped land on a rough graded pad. Current amenities at the existing park include lighted basketball courts, lighted softball. fields, community building, picnic tables, soccer field overlay, lighted tennis courts, tot lot, restroorns, batting cages, concession stand, paved walking trail, and 166 parking spaces, which include six accessible stalls. Other amenities planned for the site include: ® ADA accessible drinking fountain with pet bowl • Hose bibs for additional water access • Trash receptacles • Park benches • ADA Accessible walkway leading to trail • Doggie walk bags in each enclosure for clean-up by pet owners The dog park will be open 30 minutes before sunrise to 30 minutes after sunset, to be consistent with _ hours of operation with other parks in the City. In addition, the proposed dog park is within an existing park. The gates to the dog park will be locked at « •time by City maintenance staff. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings) North: Pantera Park in RL (Low Density Residential) zone. South: Undeveloped park area and Single -Family Residential in RL (Low Density Residential) zone located approximately 490 feet to the south. West: Pantera Elementary School in RL (Love Density Residential) zone. East: Undeveloped hillside in RL (Low Density Residential) zone. Page 2 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): None ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Biological Resources Greenhouse Gas Emissions Land Use/Planning PopulationlHousing Trans portationlTraffic Agricultural Resources Cultural Resources Hazards & Hazardous Materials Mineral Resources Public Services Utilities/Service Systems DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: Air Quality Geology/Soils Hydrology/Water Quality Noise Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance X 1 find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Prepared By: r Signature: f�. ' � )iDate: February 1, 2012 Printed Natalie Tobon, For: City of Diamond Bar Name: Planning Technician Approved for Publicatio Date: February 1, 2012 Greg Gubman, AICP, Community Development Director Page 3 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. if there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15463(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a.) Earlier Analysis Used, Identify and state where they are available for review. b.) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c.) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances), Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, including a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. S) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. Page 4 _ATRT��fih Impact Discussion: The proposed project is lot surrounded by undeveloped hillsides, Pantera E located 400 feet south of the project site. The movement or structures are proposed that would located in a depressed grade where the tallest Therefore, no impacts would occur. ated within an existing park and the adjacent area is ementary School, and single-family residential homes project site was previously roughly graded. No earth block any scenic vistas. In addition, the project site is proposed structure is a six-foot high chain link fence. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited _T to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state Potentially X scenic highway? Potentially Significant Less than No Significant Unless Significant Impact Impact itigation Impact ISSUES Incorporated I. AESTHETICS. Would the project. a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X Impact Discussion: The proposed project is lot surrounded by undeveloped hillsides, Pantera E located 400 feet south of the project site. The movement or structures are proposed that would located in a depressed grade where the tallest Therefore, no impacts would occur. ated within an existing park and the adjacent area is ementary School, and single-family residential homes project site was previously roughly graded. No earth block any scenic vistas. In addition, the project site is proposed structure is a six-foot high chain link fence. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited _T to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state X scenic highway? Impact Discussion: The project does not propose to cut down and trees or remove any features other than ruderal grasses and a few shrubs in an already disturbed area. Therefore, no impacts would occur. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of theX site and its surroundings? Impact Discussion: The site is surrounded by undeveloped hillsides, Pantera Elementary School, and single-family residential homes located 400 fleet south of the project site. The site is an unimproved, highly disturbed area within a developed community park and will be developed with a dog park to allow two off -leash areas with regular oversight. Daily maintenance will be provided by the landscape maintenance contractor under contract with the City. The contractor will provide the following services: emptying refuse cans; cleaning park user amenities such as drinking fountain and benches, and removing fecal droppings, leaves, and trash; and raking wood chips to ensure they remain evenly distributed. City staff will provide the following maintenance services: Inspections on a weekly basis; re -supplying disposable plastic pick up bags; repairing fencing and broken, bent, or weathered signs displaying rules; filling holes dug by dogs; removing graffiti promptly; replenishing wood chips periodically; and spraying wood chips at least twice per year with an enzyme -based disinfectantldeodorant to control odors. Therefore, the proposed project will not degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surrounding. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would X adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Impact Discussion: No lighting is proposed. Therefore, no impacts would occur. Page 5 Potontialiy Potentially Significant Less than No Significant Unless Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact ISSUES Incorporated II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Range Assessment project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project. a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps X prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Impact Discussion: The project site is an unimproved, highly disturbed area within a developed community park and is not designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Project implementation would not result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impacts to farmlands. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Impact Discussion: Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, no impacts would result from the construction or operation of the proposed project. c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), X or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(8))? impact Discussion: The project site is an unimproved, highly disturbed area within a developed community park and there are no forestland, timberland or timberland zoned Timberland Production uses that are occurring on-site or in the immediate vicinity. Thus, the proposed project does not involve changes in the existing environment that could conflict with existing zoning or cause of rezoning of forestland, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to X non -forest use? Impact Discussion: The project site is an unimproved, highly disturbed area within a developed community park and there are no forest land uses that are located on-site or in the immediate vicinity. Thus, the proposed project does not involve changes in the existing environment that could result in 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 X non-agricultural use? Page 6 Impact Discussion: The project site is an unimproved, highly disturbed area within a developed community park and there are no farmland uses that are located on-site or in the immediate vicinity. Thus, the proposed project does not involve changes in the existing environment that could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agrioultural uses. Impact Discussion for a -d: The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has developed the Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodolog to assist public agencies to determine whether or not a project may generate significant adverse localized air quality impacts for projects that are less than or equal to five acres. The project would not generate significant adverse localized air impacts because the total area of the project site is 1.30 acres. It is not yet known how heavily the proposed dog park will be used, so it would be speculative to estimate vehicle trip generation for the purposes of assessing air impacts resulting from mobile source (i.e., vehicular) emissions. A heavily used dog park in Huntington Beach, located at Talbert Avenue and Edwards Street, and approximately the same size as the proposed dog park, was used to approximate potential worst-case air quality and traffic impacts. The Huntington Beach facility generates approximately 400 vehicle trips on a Saturday, which is a weekend peak day. It is likely that that this park is more intensively used than the proposed Diamond Bar facility because it is located near higher density housing (where the homes have very small private yard areas) than the neighborhoods that surround Pantera Park. As such, it is reasonable to conclude that the proposed dog park will be less intensively used and will generate fewer vehicle trips than the Huntington Beach facility does. For purpose of this analysis, in a very rare event where there is heavy usage of the proposed dog park, 400 vehicles trips would not result in a significant air quality impact. Construction activities are minimal with minimal grading to install the ADA accessible pathway to the dog park. Therefore, dust generation and construction vehicle emissions would be negligible. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of T_ Y people? Impact Discussion: Operation of the dog park may result in some objectionable odors due to dog excrement; however, these odors would be limited to the immediate areas within the off -leash areas (approximately 1.35 acres). Signs will be posted on-site stating that dog owners must clean up after their Page 7 Potentially Potentially Significant Less than No Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Significant Impact Impact ISSUES nce rpor'ated III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significant criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations, Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? X b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an X existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including X releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X concentrations? Impact Discussion for a -d: The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has developed the Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodolog to assist public agencies to determine whether or not a project may generate significant adverse localized air quality impacts for projects that are less than or equal to five acres. The project would not generate significant adverse localized air impacts because the total area of the project site is 1.30 acres. It is not yet known how heavily the proposed dog park will be used, so it would be speculative to estimate vehicle trip generation for the purposes of assessing air impacts resulting from mobile source (i.e., vehicular) emissions. A heavily used dog park in Huntington Beach, located at Talbert Avenue and Edwards Street, and approximately the same size as the proposed dog park, was used to approximate potential worst-case air quality and traffic impacts. The Huntington Beach facility generates approximately 400 vehicle trips on a Saturday, which is a weekend peak day. It is likely that that this park is more intensively used than the proposed Diamond Bar facility because it is located near higher density housing (where the homes have very small private yard areas) than the neighborhoods that surround Pantera Park. As such, it is reasonable to conclude that the proposed dog park will be less intensively used and will generate fewer vehicle trips than the Huntington Beach facility does. For purpose of this analysis, in a very rare event where there is heavy usage of the proposed dog park, 400 vehicles trips would not result in a significant air quality impact. Construction activities are minimal with minimal grading to install the ADA accessible pathway to the dog park. Therefore, dust generation and construction vehicle emissions would be negligible. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of T_ Y people? Impact Discussion: Operation of the dog park may result in some objectionable odors due to dog excrement; however, these odors would be limited to the immediate areas within the off -leash areas (approximately 1.35 acres). Signs will be posted on-site stating that dog owners must clean up after their Page 7 dog(s). Because dog owners would be required to properly dispose of dog fecal matter in the provided receptacles, the amount of dog waste present on-site at any one time should not be enough to create objectionable odors. In addition, daily maintenance contractors will be emptying refuse cans and removing fecal droppings, leaves, and trash. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant. Potentially Potentially Significant Less than No Significant Unless Significant Impact ISSUES Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, X policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of f=ish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Impact Discussion: The project site is an unimproved, highly disturbed area within a developed community park. There are no species that are identified as candidate, sensitive, or special status species are known to exist in the local vicinity due to the urbanized conditions. The proposed project would not result in significant adverse impact to Federal or State listed or other designated species. Therefore, no impacts would occur. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, X policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Impact Discussion: As previously stated, the project site is an unimproved, highly disturbed area within a developed community park. No riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities exist on-site. In addition, no blueline streams are located within the project site. Therefore, no impacts would occur. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but X not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.,) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Impact Discussion: As previously stated, the project site is an unimproved, highly disturbed area within a developed community park. There are no federally protected wetlands located at the existing park. In addition, no blueline streams are located within the project site. Therefore, no impacts would occur. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native X resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Impact Discussion: No migratory wildlife corridors or native wildlife nurseries exist in the project area. Therefore, no impacts would occur. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Impact Discussion: The project site is an unimproved, highly disturbed area within a developed community park and does not include protected habitat. The proposed project does not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation ordinance. The project would meet the City's tree protection ordinance because there are no protected trees on the project site and the project does not require any trees to be removed. Therefore, no impacts would occur. Page 8 Impact Discussion: There are no adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plans or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans applicable to the project area. Therefore, no impacts would occur. Potentially Potentially Significant Less than No Significant Unless Significant Impact ISSUES Impact Mitlgabon Impact ISSUES a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a Incorporated f} Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an. X local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? Impact Discussion: There are no adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plans or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans applicable to the project area. Therefore, no impacts would occur. impact Discussion: The project site is located in an unimproved area within an existing park. The proposed project may have a significant adverse impact if it would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. This section of the CEQA Guidelines defines a historical resource as one listed in or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Places (per state law), included in a local register of historical resources (as defined by state law) or identified as significant in an historical resource survey (meeting the requirements of state law) or determined by the lead agency (City of Diamond Bar) to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California, provided the determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be "historically significant" if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Places. In this case, the existing site is not listed in nor eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Places, not listed in a local registrar of historical resources or identified as significant in an historical resource survey, nor has it been determined to be historically significant by the City because it does not meet the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Places. The project site has previously been roughly graded. There will only be minimal grading for the ADA accessible walking. Improvements will be noninvasive. Any extant subsurface resources will remain undisturbed. Therefore, it does not meet the definition of a historical resource contained in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and is therefore less than significant impact. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of X formal cemeteries? Impact Discussion: No known human remains occur on-site and due to the level of past disturbance, it is not anticipated that human remains exist within the project site. There will be minimal grading at the site for the ADA compliant walkway and possible minimal grading done for the entrance of the dog park. Therefore, the impacts would be less than significant. Page 9 Potentially Potentially Significant Less than No Significant Unless Significant Impact ISSUES Impact I Mitlgotion rated Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a X historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an. X archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or X site or unique geologic feature? impact Discussion: The project site is located in an unimproved area within an existing park. The proposed project may have a significant adverse impact if it would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. This section of the CEQA Guidelines defines a historical resource as one listed in or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Places (per state law), included in a local register of historical resources (as defined by state law) or identified as significant in an historical resource survey (meeting the requirements of state law) or determined by the lead agency (City of Diamond Bar) to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California, provided the determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be "historically significant" if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Places. In this case, the existing site is not listed in nor eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Places, not listed in a local registrar of historical resources or identified as significant in an historical resource survey, nor has it been determined to be historically significant by the City because it does not meet the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Places. The project site has previously been roughly graded. There will only be minimal grading for the ADA accessible walking. Improvements will be noninvasive. Any extant subsurface resources will remain undisturbed. Therefore, it does not meet the definition of a historical resource contained in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and is therefore less than significant impact. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of X formal cemeteries? Impact Discussion: No known human remains occur on-site and due to the level of past disturbance, it is not anticipated that human remains exist within the project site. There will be minimal grading at the site for the ADA compliant walkway and possible minimal grading done for the entrance of the dog park. Therefore, the impacts would be less than significant. Page 9 Impact Discussion: No active faults are known to traverse the project site and the project site is not located within, or immediate adjacent to an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Therefore, no impacts related to fault proximity will occur as a result of the proposed project. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Impact Discussion: Southern California has numerous active and potentially active faults that could produce strong ground shaking that could impact the project site. The City of Diamond Dar is in proximity to the San Andreas and Sierra Madre Fault zone. However, there are no habitable structures proposed for this project. Therefore, there would be no impacts. iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? I I X Impact Discussion: The project area is located within a portion of the City that is not subject to liquefaction. In addition, no habitable structures are proposed for this project. Therefore, project implementation is not anticipated to result in the exposure of people or structures to potential impacts related to seismic ground failure or liquefaction. Therefore, no impacts would occur. iv) Landslides? Impact Discussion: The site is located outside known landslide areas. Project implementation would not expose people or structures to landslides. In additi8on, no habitable structures are proposed for this project. Therefore, no impacts would occur. b Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X Impact Discussion: The project site has been roughly graded. There will be additional minimal grading to install the ADA accessible pathway to the dog park. Project implementation would not result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil, therefore no impact would. occur in this regard. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would Potentially become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result Potentially Significant Less than No in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, Significant unless significant Impact liquefaction or collapse? Impact Mitigation Impact ISSUES Incorporated VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project,- roject:a) a)Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse affects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial X evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Impact Discussion: No active faults are known to traverse the project site and the project site is not located within, or immediate adjacent to an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Therefore, no impacts related to fault proximity will occur as a result of the proposed project. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Impact Discussion: Southern California has numerous active and potentially active faults that could produce strong ground shaking that could impact the project site. The City of Diamond Dar is in proximity to the San Andreas and Sierra Madre Fault zone. However, there are no habitable structures proposed for this project. Therefore, there would be no impacts. iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? I I X Impact Discussion: The project area is located within a portion of the City that is not subject to liquefaction. In addition, no habitable structures are proposed for this project. Therefore, project implementation is not anticipated to result in the exposure of people or structures to potential impacts related to seismic ground failure or liquefaction. Therefore, no impacts would occur. iv) Landslides? Impact Discussion: The site is located outside known landslide areas. Project implementation would not expose people or structures to landslides. In additi8on, no habitable structures are proposed for this project. Therefore, no impacts would occur. b Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X Impact Discussion: The project site has been roughly graded. There will be additional minimal grading to install the ADA accessible pathway to the dog park. Project implementation would not result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil, therefore no impact would. occur in this regard. 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 X X in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? impact Discussion: The project site has not been identified as being located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, and would not become unstable as a result of project implementation. In addition, no habitable structures are proposed for this project. Therefore, no impacts would occur. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1804.2 of the California Building Code (2007), creating substantial risks to life X or roper# ? Page 10 Impact Discussion: The project site is not located on expansive soil. The existing pad where the dog park is proposed will not be graded. In addition, no habitable structures are proposed for this project. Therefore, potential impacts from expansive soils would be less than significant. Impact Discussion: The project site is not located on unstable soil. No septic systems are proposed. Therefore, there would be no impacts. ISSUES Potentially Significant Less than No Significant Unless Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, X that may have a significant impact on the environment? Impact Discussion: Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions will not directly be generated by the proposed dog park. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has developed the Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology to assist public agencies to determine whether or not a project may generate significant adverse localized air quality impacts for projects that are less than or equal to five acres. The project would not generate significant adverse localized air impacts because the total area of the project site is 1.35 acres. The proposed dog park is expected to generate fewer than 400 vehicle trips per day, which is not significant from a GHG standpoint. There will be minimal grading on the project site for the ADA accessible walkway. Therefore, the impacts would be less than significant. b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for X the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? impact Discussion: The proposed project is not subject to any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, no impacts would occur. Potentially Significant Less than No Significant Unless Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact ISSUES Incorporated VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAL& Would the project: I r Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous X materials? Impact Discussion: Operation of the proposed dog park would increase the amount of dog feces occurring at the project site. Approximately 75 percent of feces is water, and the remaining 25 percent is composed of undigested food residues, digestive secretions, and bacteria (both viable and dead). The pathogenic nature of viable bacteria in dog fecal matter is a public health concern. Some of the pathogens known to occur in dog feces can be transmitted to humans. Therefore, dog feces within a concentrated area have the potential to result in a pollutant load and health hazard. Viable bacteria present in fecal matter is not assimilated into plant material during the growth process as are nutrients and salts (also present in fecal Page 11 Potentially Potentially Significant Less than No Significant Unless Significant Impact Impact ISSUES coImpact Incorporated e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks of alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers X are not available for the disposal of waste water? Impact Discussion: The project site is not located on unstable soil. No septic systems are proposed. Therefore, there would be no impacts. ISSUES Potentially Significant Less than No Significant Unless Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, X that may have a significant impact on the environment? Impact Discussion: Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions will not directly be generated by the proposed dog park. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has developed the Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology to assist public agencies to determine whether or not a project may generate significant adverse localized air quality impacts for projects that are less than or equal to five acres. The project would not generate significant adverse localized air impacts because the total area of the project site is 1.35 acres. The proposed dog park is expected to generate fewer than 400 vehicle trips per day, which is not significant from a GHG standpoint. There will be minimal grading on the project site for the ADA accessible walkway. Therefore, the impacts would be less than significant. b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for X the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? impact Discussion: The proposed project is not subject to any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, no impacts would occur. Potentially Significant Less than No Significant Unless Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact ISSUES Incorporated VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAL& Would the project: I r Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous X materials? Impact Discussion: Operation of the proposed dog park would increase the amount of dog feces occurring at the project site. Approximately 75 percent of feces is water, and the remaining 25 percent is composed of undigested food residues, digestive secretions, and bacteria (both viable and dead). The pathogenic nature of viable bacteria in dog fecal matter is a public health concern. Some of the pathogens known to occur in dog feces can be transmitted to humans. Therefore, dog feces within a concentrated area have the potential to result in a pollutant load and health hazard. Viable bacteria present in fecal matter is not assimilated into plant material during the growth process as are nutrients and salts (also present in fecal Page 11 matter); however, pathogens would be inactivated during relatively long residence times. Dog owners would be required to pick up after their dog(s) and place it in the provided waste receptacles per the signs posted at the park; therefore, the amount of fecal matter remaining within the project area would be minimal. This impact is considered less than significant. Impact Discussion: The proposed use is not anticipated to result in the creation of health hazards following compliance with health and safety regulations. The proposed use would not use, generate or dispose of hazardous materials in large quantities. As stated above, hazardous materials used in construction and operation of the proposed project is subject to City, State, and Federal regulations, which reduces impacts to a less than significant level. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter X mile of an existing or proposed school? Impact Discussion: The proposed project would not involve the transport, use, handling, or disposal of notable quantities of hazardous materials, aside from normal landscaping applications. Therefore, the proposed project would not pose a health risk to nearby schools, and no significant impacts to schools would result from the construction and operation of the proposed project. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous Potentially materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Potentially Significant Less than No Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant Significant Unless. Significant Impact hazard to the public or the environment? Impact Mitigation impact ISSUES Incorporated b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions X involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Impact Discussion: The proposed use is not anticipated to result in the creation of health hazards following compliance with health and safety regulations. The proposed use would not use, generate or dispose of hazardous materials in large quantities. As stated above, hazardous materials used in construction and operation of the proposed project is subject to City, State, and Federal regulations, which reduces impacts to a less than significant level. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter X mile of an existing or proposed school? Impact Discussion: The proposed project would not involve the transport, use, handling, or disposal of notable quantities of hazardous materials, aside from normal landscaping applications. Therefore, the proposed project would not pose a health risk to nearby schools, and no significant impacts to schools would result from the construction and operation of the proposed project. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code X Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Impact Discussion: The project area is an existing park. The existing use does not use, handle, or store hazardous materials. Development of the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment. Therefore no impacts would occur in this regard. 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 X airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Impact Discussion: The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of an airport. The nearest airport is Brackett Field Airport, which is approximately 6 miles northeast of the project site. No impacts would occur in this regard. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in X the project area? Impact Discussion: The project site is not located within an airport land use plan with within two miles of an airport. The nearest airport is Brackett Field Airport, which is approximately 6 miles northeast of the project site. No impacts would occur in this regard. g) impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted X emergency response pian or emer enc evacuation plan? Page 12 Impact Discussion: Emergency vehicles would continue to have access to project related and surrounding roadways upon completion of the proposed project. The proposed project would not impact access to emergency response. In addition, the proposed project would not place temporary or permanent barriers on existing roadways or reconfigure existing roadways. Therefore, no impacts would result from the construction and operation of the proposed project. Impact Discussion: The project site is an unimproved, highly disturbed area within a developed community park and the surrounding areas are predominantly built out with Pantera Elementary School and single- family residential homes located approximately 400 feet away. The proposed project is not anticipated to create hazardous fire conditions by exposing people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fres. Therefore, no impacts would occur. Potentially substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be Potentially Significant Less than No a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local Significant Unless Significant Impact groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing Impact ation impact X ISSUES Incorporated h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are X adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Impact Discussion: The project site is an unimproved, highly disturbed area within a developed community park and the surrounding areas are predominantly built out with Pantera Elementary School and single- family residential homes located approximately 400 feet away. The proposed project is not anticipated to create hazardous fire conditions by exposing people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fres. Therefore, no impacts would occur. IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X requirements? Impact Discussion: The proposed project does not create any proposed discharge of water that would be regulated by the Walnut Valley Water District. There will be an ADA accessible drinking fountain with a pet bowl and hose bibs for additional water access as part of the proposed project. However, these fountains will be used for drinking purposes and the amount of water utilized is anticipated to be minimal. Therefore, impact is considered less than significant. b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere Potentially substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be Potentially Significant Less than No a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local Significant Unless significant Impact groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing Impact Mitigation Impact X ISSUES Incorporated IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X requirements? Impact Discussion: The proposed project does not create any proposed discharge of water that would be regulated by the Walnut Valley Water District. There will be an ADA accessible drinking fountain with a pet bowl and hose bibs for additional water access as part of the proposed project. However, these fountains will be used for drinking purposes and the amount of water utilized is anticipated to be minimal. Therefore, impact is considered less than significant. b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be X a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing X nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Impact Discussion: The water demand of the proposed project is minimal (one ADA accessible drinking fountain with a pet bowl). Therefore, no impacts would occur. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or X river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Impact Discussion: Minor grading is required to create the access paths. Since the site is not being paved, the amount of existing runoff is not expected to change. Therefore, there will be no impacts. Page 13 ISSUES Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Inciorgation Less than Significant Impact No Impact d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or X area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or X river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface X runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or X X provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Impact Discussion for d -e: The project site currently drains to the southwest. The run-off does not affect any body of water or the surrounding areas. The drainage pattern of the site will not be altered as a result of the project. No additional paved areas are proposed except for a handicap accessible pathway. The impact is considered less than significant. f) Otherwise substantially degrade waterquality? I I IX Impact Discussion: The proposed project would result in an increase in the amount of dog feces and urine occurring within the project area. The pollutants that have the potential to be introduced to the project area include nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus), pathogens, and salts. Viable bacteria present in fecal matter is not assimilated into plant material during the growth process as are nutrients and salts (also present in fecal matter), and pathogens would be inactivated because they would live out their life cycles. Dog owners would be required to pick up after their dog(s); therefore, the amount of fecal matter remaining within the project area with the potential for degrading water quality would be minimal. This impact is considered less than significant. g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map X or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would X impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the X failure of a levee or dam? Impact Discussion for g -i: The project site is not located within a flood zone. Additionally, the City of Diamond Bar is not subject to any major flood hazards, or potential inundation due to nearby dam failures. Furthermore, the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map designated the entire City as within a Flood Zone "X". Flood Zone "X" is identified as an area of 0.2 percent annual chance of flood. The proposed project would not involve the placement of structures within a 100 -year flood hazard area. j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? I X Impact Discussion: The proposed project site is approximately 40 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean and there are no large bodies of water within the vicinity of the project site that would cause inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Therefore, no impacts would result from the construction and operation of the proposed project. Page 14 Potentially Potentialiy Significant Less than No Significant Unless Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact ISSUES Inwr orated X. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project. a Physically divide an established community? Impact Discussion: The proposed project would not disruptor physically divide an established community because the proposed dog park is located within an existing park and subject site is surrounded by a school, residential uses, and undeveloped hillside area. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but to limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or X zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Impact Discussion: The proposed project will not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of the agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. In addition, the proposed dog park use is consistent with recreational uses associated with public park facilities. Therefore, no impact would occur in this regard. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural X community conservation plan? Impact Discussion: The proposed project site is not included in any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation pian. Potantiaiiy Potentially Significant Less than No Significant Unless Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact ISSUES Incorporated Xl. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that X would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 1:7:L:7:= Impact Discussion: The project site is within an existing park and not identified as a site with known mineral resources that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impacts to mineral resources. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific X plan or other land use plan? Impact Discussion: The proposed project will not 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, because the site contains no known mineral resources. Page 15 Impact Discussion for a -d: There will be minimal grading to install the ADA accessible pathway to the dog park. There will be a temporary increase in noise levels during grading of the pathway, but it will not be substantial and will remain within noise limits established by the City. Any impacts would be temporary and of minimal duration. In addition, implementation of the grading hours would restrict construction and grading activities to 7:00 am to 7:00 pm, per the City's Noise Ordinance. The off -leash areas are located approximately 400 feet from the nearest residences. Nuisance noise generated from a concentration of barking dogs using the park has the potential to result in an increase in ambient noise levels during daylight hours. Also, barking incidents would be sporadic and are not expected to be of long duration to significantly increase the ambient noise levels. The hours of operation are limited to 30 minutes before sunrise to 30 minutes after sunset to be consistent with the other parks within the City, including Pantera Park. The City will post signs with rules stating that unruly dogs are not allowed in the dog park (see Appendix 1 for other rules pertaining to the dog park). In addition, since the park is located 41.00 feet from the nearest residence, the impact would be considered a less than significant. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where Potentially such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public Potentially Significant Less than No airport or public use airport, would the project expose people Significant Unless Significant Impact ISSUES Impact Mitigation In orporated Impact Xli. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of project expose people residing or working in the project area to standards established in the local general plan or noise X excessive noise levels? ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne X vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the X project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the X project? Impact Discussion for a -d: There will be minimal grading to install the ADA accessible pathway to the dog park. There will be a temporary increase in noise levels during grading of the pathway, but it will not be substantial and will remain within noise limits established by the City. Any impacts would be temporary and of minimal duration. In addition, implementation of the grading hours would restrict construction and grading activities to 7:00 am to 7:00 pm, per the City's Noise Ordinance. The off -leash areas are located approximately 400 feet from the nearest residences. Nuisance noise generated from a concentration of barking dogs using the park has the potential to result in an increase in ambient noise levels during daylight hours. Also, barking incidents would be sporadic and are not expected to be of long duration to significantly increase the ambient noise levels. The hours of operation are limited to 30 minutes before sunrise to 30 minutes after sunset to be consistent with the other parks within the City, including Pantera Park. The City will post signs with rules stating that unruly dogs are not allowed in the dog park (see Appendix 1 for other rules pertaining to the dog park). In addition, since the park is located 41.00 feet from the nearest residence, the impact would be considered a less than significant. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public X airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to X excessive noise levels? Impact Discussion: Construction of the proposed project would have no impact with regards to airports. The project area is not located within 15 miles of any public airport or within an airport land use plan. The project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, no impacts would occur. Page 16 Impact Discussion for a -c: The proposed project is a dog park within an existing park. There is no housing proposed, therefore, will not displace housing or people as a result of this project. The size and nature of the proposed project is unlikely to induce a demand for new housing units. ISSUES Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Less than Significant Impact No Impact XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES. Potentialiy Signifcant Less than Me Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Signifcant Impact Impact ISSUES governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered Incor orated Impact X111, POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project. governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause Incorporated a) induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for X indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other any of the public services: infrastructure)? i) Fire protection? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating ii) Police protection? X the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? iii) Schools? X c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the iv) Parks? X construction of replacement housing elsewhere? v) Other public facilities? Impact Discussion for a -c: The proposed project is a dog park within an existing park. There is no housing proposed, therefore, will not displace housing or people as a result of this project. The size and nature of the proposed project is unlikely to induce a demand for new housing units. ISSUES Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES. a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts Significant Less than No associated with the provision of new or physically altered Unless Significant Impact governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered Mitigation Impact ISSUES governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause Incorporated XV. RECREATION. significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for X any of the public services: i) Fire protection? X ii) Police protection? X iii) Schools? X X iv) Parks? X v) Other public facilities? X Impact Discussion: The proposed project is located within an existing park. The space is well within those anticipated in the City's General Plan and Parks and Recreation Master Plan 2611, and would not require the provision of new or altered governmental facilities for fire protection, police protection, or other public services. Page 17 Potentially Potentially Significant Less than No Significant Unless Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact ISSUES Incorporated XV. RECREATION. a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial X 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 X have an adverse physical eff=ect on the environment? Page 17 Impact Discussion for a -b: Funding for the construction and ongoing maintenance of the proposed dog park is available and budgeted for. The proposed project would have no physical impact on other recreational facilities and would provide additional developed parkland within the City Limits and is consistent with the existing use. No adverse impacts to recreational facilities are anticipated. Therefore, the impact would be considered less than significant. Impact Discussion: The proposed project will not conflict with any plans, ordinance, or policy establishing measure of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system which takes into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non -motorized travel and relevant components or the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit. All roadways and driveways are existing and will not be relocated. The proposed project will not conflict with any applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. For the reasons discussed in Section III (Air Quality), the worst-case estimate of trips generated is 400 vehicles per day, which would average 40 one-way—or 20 round trips—per hour in a 10 -hour day. For purpose of this analysis, in a very rare event where there is a significant use of the dog park, 400 additional vehicles trips on the adjacent roadways will still fall far short of those roadway capacities. Therefore, the impacts are considered to be less than significant impacts c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an Pctontfally increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in Potentially Significant Less than No substantial safety risks? Significant Impact Unless tgation Significant Impact Impact ISSUES €ncomorated XVI. TRANSPORTATION I TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non -motorized travel and relevant components X of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county X congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Impact Discussion: The proposed project will not conflict with any plans, ordinance, or policy establishing measure of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system which takes into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non -motorized travel and relevant components or the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit. All roadways and driveways are existing and will not be relocated. The proposed project will not conflict with any applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. For the reasons discussed in Section III (Air Quality), the worst-case estimate of trips generated is 400 vehicles per day, which would average 40 one-way—or 20 round trips—per hour in a 10 -hour day. For purpose of this analysis, in a very rare event where there is a significant use of the dog park, 400 additional vehicles trips on the adjacent roadways will still fall far short of those roadway capacities. Therefore, the impacts are considered to be less than significant impacts c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in X X substantial safety risks? impact Discussion: The proposed project will not result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks because there is no airport nearby. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses X (e.g., farm equipment)? Impact Discussion: The proposed project would not create any hazards due to design features or incompatible uses, access to the project site would be required to comply with all City design standards, which would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. Page 18 Impact Discussion: The proposed project would not significantly impact the adequacy of existing and future emergency services, The roadways and driveways are existing and will not be relocated. Therefore, no impact would occur in this regard. f) Result in inadequate parking supply? 1 1 7 X Impact Discussion: The proposed project will provide adequate parking with onsite parking spaces. There are 166 existing parking spaces, including six accessible parking spaces, and existing street parking. No parking problems have been observed at the park and is not anticipated to be a foreseeable problem, In addition, the City has an agreement with the Pomona Unified School District (PUSb), to park at Pantera Elementary when there are special events at Pantera Park. If there is a parking shortage in the future, staff would negotiate a modified the parking agreement to include days when there are no special events at the park. Therefore, parking impacts resulting from dog park usage will be less than significant. g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding Potentially public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise Potentially Significant Less than No decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Significant Unless Significant Impact ISSUES Impact Mifigabon Impact XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project., a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Incorporated.. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? Regional Water Quality Control Board? X Impact Discussion: The proposed project would not significantly impact the adequacy of existing and future emergency services, The roadways and driveways are existing and will not be relocated. Therefore, no impact would occur in this regard. f) Result in inadequate parking supply? 1 1 7 X Impact Discussion: The proposed project will provide adequate parking with onsite parking spaces. There are 166 existing parking spaces, including six accessible parking spaces, and existing street parking. No parking problems have been observed at the park and is not anticipated to be a foreseeable problem, In addition, the City has an agreement with the Pomona Unified School District (PUSb), to park at Pantera Elementary when there are special events at Pantera Park. If there is a parking shortage in the future, staff would negotiate a modified the parking agreement to include days when there are no special events at the park. Therefore, parking impacts resulting from dog park usage will be less than significant. g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding Potentially public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise Potentially Significant Less than X decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Significant Unless Significant Impact Impact Discussion: The roadways and driveways are existing and will not be relocated. Therefore significant impacts would not result from the operation of the proposed project, Impact Discussion for a -b: There are no new water or wastewater treatment facilities proposed for the project. Therefore, no impacts will occur. c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage Potentially facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of Potentially Significant Less than No which could cause significant environmental effects? Significant Unless Significant Impact ISSUES Impact Mitigation Incorporated Impact XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project., a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable X Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the X construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Impact Discussion for a -b: There are no new water or wastewater treatment facilities proposed for the project. Therefore, no impacts will occur. c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of X which could cause significant environmental effects? Impact Discussion: No new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities are required. Therefore, no impacts will occur. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded X entitlements needed? Page 19 Impact Discussion: There is a sufficient water supply available to serve the project from existing resources. Therefore, no impacts will occur. Impact Discussion: The project would not trigger the need for new construction or expansion of existing facilities. Therefore, no impacts will occur. f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to Potentially Significant Potentially X No Impact accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? Potentially Significant Less than No g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations Significant Unless Significant Impact ISSUES Impact Mitigation Impact of other current projects, and the effects of probable future sustaininglevels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal Incorporated e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of X capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the major periods of California history or prehistory? the provider's existing commitments? Impact Discussion: The project would not trigger the need for new construction or expansion of existing facilities. Therefore, no impacts will occur. f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to Potentially Significant Potentially Significant Unless Incorporated Mitigation Incorporated X No Impact accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife X X related to solid waste? species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- elfsustaining Impact Discussion for f -g: Dog feces and trash would be picked up on a regular basis and deposited in appropriate receptacles. No significant amounts of solid waste would be generated. All solid waste materials generated at the project site would be disposed of in accordance with applicable state, federal, and local statutes and regulations. Therefore, no impacts would occur. ISSUES Potentially Significant Potentially Significant Unless Incorporated Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife X viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- elfsustaining of other current projects, and the effects of probable future sustaininglevels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal X 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? Impact Discussion: The project site does not contain the habitat of a fish or wildlife species and therefore construction of the proposed project would not cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. Likewise, approval of the proposed project is not anticipated to eliminate examples of 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 X viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? _ Impact Discussion: The cumulatively considerable impacts of the individually limited project are not expected to be significant and are in keeping with the long-range considerations of the City's General Plan. Therefore, no impacts would occur. Page 20 Impact Discussion: No substantial direct or indirect adverse environmental effects on human beings can be expected from this project due to conditions of project approval and proposed mitigation measures. Natalie Tobon Name 2/1/2012 Date Planning Technician -OL STitle Attachments: Appendix 1 - Memorandum from Bob Rose to Greg Gubman regarding Dog Park Information dated October 24, 2011 Page 21 Potentially Potentially Significant Less than No Significant Unless Significant Impact Impact Mitigation lated Impact ISSUES In c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or X indirectly? Impact Discussion: No substantial direct or indirect adverse environmental effects on human beings can be expected from this project due to conditions of project approval and proposed mitigation measures. Natalie Tobon Name 2/1/2012 Date Planning Technician -OL STitle Attachments: Appendix 1 - Memorandum from Bob Rose to Greg Gubman regarding Dog Park Information dated October 24, 2011 Page 21 411" 11111134 "t 1 e General Plan of the City of Diamond Bar adopted July 25, 1995 2. General Plan of the City of Diamond Bar, Environmental Impact Report and Addendurn dated July 25, 1995 3. Municipal Code, City of Diamond Bar 4. Diamond Bar Park and Recreation Master Plan 2011 adopted July 19, 2011 5. Memorandum from Bob Rose to Greg Gubman regarding Dog Park Information dated October 24, 2011 6, Pantera Park Mitigated Negative Declaration, dated March 5, 1995 7. South Coast Air Quality Management District — Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, dated June 2003, Revised July 2003 8. All documents cited above are available for review at the City of Diamond Bar, Community Development Department, 21810 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. The office hours are Monday through Thursday between 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., and Friday between 7:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Page 22