On the agenda: La Verne meeting — Data Center (Jan 14)

CITY OF LA VERNE
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
Marlene Carney, Commissioner
Keny Chang, Commissioner
Jeremy Conrad, Commissioner
Erin Duffy, Commissioner
Matthew Ramos, Commissioner

City Hall Council Chambers
3660 D Street
La Verne, CA 91750
(909) 596-8706
www.laverneca.gov

Wednesday, January 14, 2026 - 6:30 p.m.
City Hall Council Chambers
3660 “D” Street, La Verne, CA 91750
Attendance and participation at the City of La Verne Planning Commission meetings are welcomed and
appreciated. Community engagement provides the Planning Commission with valuable information. Regular
Meetings are held on the 2nd Wednesday of every month. In compliance with the American Disabilities Act, any
person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should
contact the City Clerk’s Office at (909) 596-8726 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting.
The Council Chambers will be open to the public at 6:00 p.m. Materials related to an item on this agenda,
submitted to the Planning Commission after distribution of the agenda packet, are available for public inspection
at the meeting or in the Community Development Department during normal business hours.

CALL TO ORDER
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
MINUTES – September 10, 2025 and December 10, 2025

Planning Commission Agenda – January 14, 2026
Page 2
PUBLIC COMMENT
This is the time set aside for anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission on
items not listed in any other place on this agenda.
California Law does not allow the Planning Commission to take action in response to
your statements at this meeting. Your concerns may be referred to staff or set for
hearing at a later date.
PUBLIC HEARINGS

1.

CASE NOS.:
RESOLUTION
NOS.:
APPLICANT:
PROPOSAL:

113-25GPA, 114-25ZC, 115-25MPA, 116-25PM, 103-25PM, AND
117-25PPR
1349 & 1350
BRETHREN HILLCREST HOMES
THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS AN UPDATE TO THE
BRETHREN HILLCREST HOMES (HILLCREST) MASTER
PLAN INVOLVING PORTIONS OF NEIGHBORHOODS 5 AND
10 WITHIN THE EXISTING 53-ACRE HILLCREST
COMMUNITY.
NORTH GATEWAY AND SOUTH GATEWAY SITES:
DEMOLITION OF 4 RESIDENTIAL HOMES WHICH ARE NOT
CURRENTLY PART OF THE HILLCREST MASTER PLAN
COMMUNITY AND CONSTRUCTION OF 7 SINGLE-FAMILY
HOMES IN THEIR PLACE TO BE ADDED TO
NEIGHBORHOOD 5 OF THE HILLCREST MASTER PLAN
COMMUNITY.
ZONE CHANGE SITE: 2715, 2717, AND 2719 PARK AVENUE
WOULD BE ADDED TO NEIGHBORHOOD 5 OF THE
HILLCREST MASTER PLAN. THIS CHANGE DOES NOT
INVOLVE ANY DEMOLITION OR CONSTRUCTION.
MASTER PLAN CHANGE SITE: PARCELS COMPOSING OF
APPROXIMATELY 0.95 ACRE OF NEIGHBORHOOD 10 OF
THE HILLCREST MASTER PLAN WILL BE REDESIGNATED
FROM NEIGHBORHOOD 10 TO NEIGHBORHOOD 5, AS THE
EXISTING DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THESE PARCELS MATCH
THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN OF NEIGHBORHOOD 5
WHICH INCLUDES INDEPENDENT LIVING UNITS. THE
PROPERTIES TO BE REDESIGNATED INCLUDE 3 DUPLEX
RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES AND 1 SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE.

Planning Commission Agenda – January 14, 2026
Page 3
ADDRESSES:

2712, 2713, 2715, 2717, 2719, 2730 PARK AVENUE AND 2703
A STREET

ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION: Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)
STAFF:

Candice Bowcock, Principal Planner

OTHER MATTERS

PLANNING COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS
DIRECTOR COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
The next meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled to be held February 11, 2026
at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 3660 “D” Street, La Verne, CA 91750.
Proof of Posting

_____________
Date

I declare under penalty of perjury that I am employed by the City of La
Verne in the Community Development Department; and that I posted this
agenda in the City Hall Council Chambers and the City’s website on
January 8, 2026.
__________________________________________
Signature

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE LA VERNE PLANNING COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2025
ACTION MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING – 6:30 p.m. – Chairperson Simison called the meeting to order at 6:30

p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Led by Chairperson Simison
ROLL CALL Commissioner Keny Chang, Commissioner Jeremy Conrad, Commissioner Erin
Duffy, Vice-Chairperson Thomas Allison, and Chairperson Jason Simison.

Commissioners present: Allison, Chang, Duffy, and Simison
Absent: Conrad
Advisory Staff Present: Principal Planner Candice Bowcock, Assistant Planner Valerie Chin,
City Engineer Cody Howing, Assistant City Attorney Ivy M. Tsai, and Administrative
Secretary Natalie Hiatt.
MINUTES June 11, 2025 – It was moved by Commissioner Chang and seconded by Vice-

Chairperson Allison to approve the minutes of the June 11, 2025 meeting. The motion
carried by a 4-0 vote.
PUBLIC COMMENT – None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Project: Case Nos. 71-25CUP and 72-25CUP – Conditional Use Permit for Grocery Outlet
to allow for the sale of general alcohol for off-site consumption in conjunction with a
grocery store within the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan at 1504 Foothill Boulevard.
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve Case Nos. 71-25CUP and 72-25CUP and
adopt Resolution No. 1345 and Resolution No. 1346 based on the staff report presented to them,
and the findings and conditions of approval.
Presentation: The presentation was made by Assistant Planner Valerie Chin.
Public Comment: Steve Rawlings of Rawlings Consulting was present on behalf of Grocery
Outlet. Mr. Rawlings stated that the grocery store is rapidly expanding, and they have a loyal
customer base. Mr. Rawlings estimated an opening date in late first quarter or early second
quarter.
Commissioner Comments: Commissioner Duffy stated having a range of grocery options is
good for the community.
It was moved by Commissioner Chang and seconded by Commissioner Duffy to approve
Resolution 1345 and Resolution 1346 allowing the operation of a grocery store and allowing

the sale of general alcohol for off-site consumption at 1504 Foothill Boulevard. Motion carried
by a 4-0 vote.

Project: Case No. 23-22VAC – A street vacation of Bunnelle Avenue from Baseline Road
to SR 210.
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Case No. 23-22VAC and adopt
Resolution 1347 based on the staff report presented to them.
Presentation: The presentation was made by City Engineer Cody Howing.
Public Comment: None
Commissioner Comments: Vice-Chairperson Allison asked Mr. Howing if there were any
concerns with the street vacation.
Assistant City Attorney Tsai stated that the Commission’s decision is to determine consistency
with the General Plan.
Commissioner Duffy asked if drainage is a concern.
Mr. Howing stated that the water would drain to a catch basin.
Commissioner Chang asked if the City would still have access to the street after the vacation.
Mr. Howing stated that the City would have access if needed.
It was moved by Vice-Chairperson Allison and seconded by Chairperson Simison to approve
Resolution 1347 certifying that the Street Vacation is consistent with the adopted General Plan.
Motion carried by a 4-0 vote.
OTHER MATTERS

None
PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS

Commissioner Chang stated his excitement for the Trader Joe’s store opening.
Vice-Chairperson Allison stated that he is happy to do his civic duty.
Commissioner Duffy thanked everyone for accommodating her lack of childcare.
Chairperson Simison thanked the Planning staff. He announced that tonight would likely be his
last meeting after serving on the Planning Commission for ten years. Chairperson Simison
stated that this was a great experience.
Vice-Chairperson Allison announced that he did not reapply for Planning Commission. He
stated that it has been a privilege to serve.
Page 2|3

DIRECTOR COMMENTS –

Ms. Bowcock thanked Chairperson Simison and Vice-Chairperson Allison on behalf of the City
and staff.
ADJOURNMENT – The meeting was adjourned at 7:02 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,

Natalie Hiatt, Secretary

Page 3|3

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE LA VERNE PLANNING COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 2025
ACTION MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING – 6:30 p.m. – Commissioner Duffy called the meeting to order at 6:30

p.m.
INTRODUCTION OF NEW PLANNING COMMISSIONERS – Marlene Carney is a 23-year

resident of La Verne.
Matt Ramos is a 3-year resident of La Verne with a background in Planning and Community
Development.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS – Postponed to the next meeting.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Led by Commissioner Carney
ROLL CALL Commissioner Marlene Carney, Commissioner Jeremy Conrad, Commissioner
Keny Chang, Commissioner Erin Duffy and Commissioner Matt Ramos

Commissioners present: Carney, Duffy, and Ramos
Absent: Chang and Conrad
Advisory Staff Present: Community Development Director Eric Scherer, Principal Planner
Candice Bowcock, Assistant City Attorney Lisa Kranitz, and Administrative Secretary
Natalie Hiatt.
MINUTES – September 10, 2025 – Postponed to the next meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENT – None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Project: Case No. 46-24VAR – Extension request for a variance to allow for a porch and
additions for a single-family residence with a substandard garage at 2435 Magnolia
Avenue.
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve a one-year extension of Case Nos. 4624VAR.
Presentation: The presentation was made by Community Development Director Eric Scherer on
behalf of Associate Planner Parker Stringfellow.
Public Comment: The property owner Brian Bustamante was present. Mr. Bustamante stated
that the project is larger than anticipated but he has installed a new electrical panel in
preparation.

Commissioner Comments: The Commissioners had no comments.
It was moved by Commissioner Carney and seconded by Commissioner Ramos to approve the
one-year extension of Case No. 46-24VAR. Motion carried by a 3-0 vote.
Project: Case No. 112-25SPA – Old Town La Verne Specific Plan Amendment to revise
the minimum density requirement in the Mixed-Use 1 land district.
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Case No. 112-25SPA and adopt
Resolution 1348 based on the staff report presented to them.
Presentation: Mr. Scherer recused himself due to a conflict of interest and stated that he would
not be returning to the meeting. The presentation was made by Principal Planner Candice
Bowcock.
Public Comment: None
Commissioner Comments: The Commissioners all stated their understanding for the
adjustments made.
It was moved by Commission Ramos and seconded by Commissioner Carney to approve
Resolution No. 1348 revising the minimum density in the Mixed-Use 1 district of the Old Town
La Verne Specific Plan area from 38 to 20 DU/Acre. Motion carried by a 3-0 vote.
OTHER MATTERS

Ms. Kranitz stated that a large project for Hillcrest will be brought to the Commission on
January 14, 2026. Ms. Bowcock added that the project is on the City website.
PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS

Commissioner Carney stated that this was a good experience.
Commissioner Duffy stated that Old Town looks very festive.
DIRECTOR COMMENTS –

None
ADJOURNMENT – The meeting was adjourned at 6:47 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,

Natalie Hiatt, Secretary

Page 2|2

City of La Verne, Planning Commission
Agenda Report
DATE:

January 14, 2026

TO:

Planning Commission

FROM:

Candice Bowcock, Principal Planner

SUBJECT:

Case Nos.: 113-25GPA, 114-25ZC, 115-25MPA, 116-25PM, 103-25PM,
and 117-25PPR - Brethren Hillcrest Gateway Project – General Plan
Amendment, Zone Change, Master Plan Amendment, Parcel Mergers, and
Precise Plan of Design Review

AGENDA SUMMARY
The Planning Commission will consider the Brethren Hillcrest Gateway Project, a
proposed expansion and update to the Hillcrest continuing care retirement community
located in southern La Verne. The project includes redevelopment of the North and South
Gateway sites through the demolition of four existing residential units, construction of
seven new single-family homes, and renovation of three existing homes. In addition to
Parcel Mergers and Precise Plan Review, which have been conditionally approved by the
Design Review Committee subject to the project receiving all other required approvals, the
North and South Gateway sites will require a General Plan Amendment, zone change and
Master Plan Amendment. Additionally, the overall project includes two additional sites, a
Zone Change site and a Master Plan Change site, which will formally integrate these
properties into Neighborhood 5 of the Hillcrest Master Plan. The proposed Gateway
Project will be consistent with the objectives of the Hillcrest Master Plan, enhance
connectivity between the East and West campuses, and provide modern, marketable
homes for older adult residents. The Planning Commission has approval authority over the
required Master Plan Amendment and will make a recommendation to the City Council on
the needed General Plan Amendment and zone change.
In conjunction with the project components, the Planning Commission will consider the
Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) that was prepared for the project. The Planning
Commission may adopt the MND for purposes of the Master Plan Amendment, Precise
Plan Review and Parcel Mergers and make recommendations to the City Council for use
of the MND for the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Development Review Committee recommend that the Planning Commission
approve Case Number 115-25MPA contingent on the approval of the other related case
files, and recommends approval of Case Numbers 113-25GPA and 114-25ZC to the City
Council based on this report and the conditions of approval. Staff further recommends that
the Planning Commission adopt the MND and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program for the non-legislative approvals and recommend that the City Council adopt the
same for the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change.

Hillcrest Gateway Project
January 14, 2026
Page 2

BACKGROUND
Brethren Hillcrest Homes has been a well-established, non-profit, continuing care
retirement community in La Verne since 1947. Founded by the Brethren Church, the
community provides a full continuum of care for older adults, including independent
residential homes, assisted living, memory care, and skilled nursing facilities. Residents
typically enter the community in independent living homes, with access to higher levels of
care as needed, all within a social and purpose-driven environment.
Hillcrest has pursued strategic growth and enhancements over the years. In 2021, the
Hawthorne Project added 14 new homes, demonstrating the organization’s ability to
manage expansion and meet market demand. Recently, Hillcrest acquired several
neighboring properties that offer opportunities to better connect the East and West
campuses and further the community’s overall Master Plan vision. The proposed Gateway
Project builds on these past initiatives to improve connectivity, create attractive entrances,
replace outdated or underperforming housing, and enhance the overall resident
experience.
This project specifically addresses Neighborhoods 5 and 10 of the Master Plan,
incorporating previously privately held parcels into the Hillcrest campus, providing new,
modern homes for older adults, and renovating existing structures to meet contemporary
design, accessibility, and safety standards. The Gateway Project aligns with the City’s
Housing Element by providing new units for older adults, improving campus circulation,
and enhancing the security, functionality, and aesthetics of the Hillcrest community.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Brethren Hillcrest Gateway Project includes multiple components, each corresponding
to specific case numbers for approvals. The project involves redevelopment of the North
and South Gateway sites, a Zone Change site, and a Master Plan Change site, all of
which require several entitlements to incorporate these parcels into the Hillcrest Master
Plan community. Each site is briefly described below, followed by a summary of the
various cases.
The Sites:
North and South Gateway Sites
The proposed physical development portion of the project takes place on the North
Gateway Site (2730 and 2712 Park Avenue, and 2703 and 2691 A Street) and South
Gateway Site (2681 A Street). There are currently seven existing homes on these sites;
four will be demolished and seven new homes will be added as discussed in more detail
below under Case No. 117-25PPR: Precise Plan Review – North and South Gateway
Sites. In addition to the PPR which has already been approved by the Development
Review Committee for both sites and the parcel map for the North Site, the project also
requires a Master Plan Amendment to add these parcels into Neighborhood 5 of the
Hillcrest Master Plan as well as a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change.
Zone Change Site (Not a part of the proposed physical development)
The 0.27 acre parcel located at 2715, 2717, and 2719 Park Avenue (AIN: 8381-012-013)
was never re-zoned as a part of previous Hillcrest Homes entitlement actions. Although

Hillcrest Gateway Project
January 14, 2026
Page 3

the parcel has been owned and operated by Hillcrest Homes since 1998, its current zoning
designation remains Planned Residential 4.5 dwelling units per acre (PR 4.5D). The
proposed zone change will rezone the property from PR 4.5D to Institutional, making the
zoning consistent with all other Hillcrest Homes properties within the campus. A parcel
merger is also being proposed for this site.
In conjunction with the rezoning, the proposed Master Plan Amendment will designate the
parcel as a part of Neighborhood 5 within the Brethren Hillcrest Homes Master Plan,
aligning it with the existing land use designation applied to the Hillcrest properties located
immediately to the south. Additionally, the lot merger of 2715, 2717, and 2719 Park
Avenue (AIN 8381-012-013) with 2713 Park Avenue (AIN 8381-012-029) will result in a
single integrated parcel that is consistent with current ownership and operational use by
Hillcrest Homes. The General Plan identifies this parcel as Community Facility; therefore,
a General Plan Amendment is not required for this parcel.
Master Plan Site (Not a part of the proposed physical development)
Two parcels of approximately 0.95 acres will be redesignated in the Master Plan from
Neighborhood 10 to Neighborhood 5 as the existing development within these parcels
matches the development of Neighborhood 5 which includes independent living units.
The Cases:
Case No. 113-25GPA: General Plan Amendment – North and South Gateway Sites:
This amendment proposes a General Plan change from Low-Density Residential (0–5
du/ac) to Community Facility for the North and South Gateway sites to accommodate the
expansion of the Hillcrest continuing care retirement community.

Hillcrest Gateway Project
January 14, 2026
Page 4

Case No. 114-25ZC: Zone Change:
The Zone Change proposes rezoning of the North (2730 and 2712 Park Avenue) and
South Gateway (2681 A Street) sites and the Zone Change Site (2715, 2717, and 2719
Park Avenue), from PR4.5D to Institutional. This zoning is consistent with the Community
Facility land use designation and the intended use as part of the Hillcrest Master Plan
community.

Case No. 115-25MPA: Master Plan Amendment:
The Master Plan Amendment incorporates the North Gateway Site (2730 and 2712 Park
Avenue, and 2703 and 2691 A Street) and South Gateway Site (2681 A Street) and the Zone
Change Site (2715, 2717, and 2719 Park Avenue) into Neighborhood 5 of the Hillcrest
Master Plan and redesignates the approximately 0.95 acres Master Plan Site from
Neighborhood 10 to Neighborhood 5. This amendment reflects the existing development
pattern, integrating three duplex structures and one single-family residence into
Neighborhood 5. Neighborhood 10 will continue to focus on resident activities and
administrative functions. The amendment ensures consistency of land use and design within
the Hillcrest campus. The Master Plan Amendment conforms to the requirements of Chapter
18.60 of the La Verne Municipal Code as the residential units will comply with the front, rear,
and side setbacks, the height of the structures will not exceed 35 feet., lot coverage does
not exceed 45%, and landscaping will be 25% percent of a site.
See exhibits on the next page.

Hillcrest Gateway Project
January 14, 2026
Page 5

Existing Hillcrest Master Plan Neighborhood:

Proposed Hillcrest Master Plan Neighborhood:

Hillcrest Gateway Project
January 14, 2026
Page 6

Case No. 116-25PM: Parcel Merger – North Gateway Site
A Parcel Merger is requested to merge three parcels 2730 and 2712 Park Avenue and
2703 A Street (AIN 8381-010-028, AIN 8381-010-033, and 8381-010-043) comprising the
North Gateway Site into one parcel. The Development Review Committee approved this
application, contingent on approval of the other Case files. No appeal was filed.

Case No. 103-25PM: Parcel Merger – Zone Change Site
A Parcel Merger is requested to merge the Zone Change Site 2715, 2717, and 2719 Park
Avenue (AIN 8381-012-013) with the property adjacent to the south 2713 Park Avenue
(AIN 8381-012-029) into one parcel. The Development Review Committee approved this
application, contingent on approval of the other Case files. No appeal was filed.

Hillcrest Gateway Project
January 14, 2026
Page 7

Case No. 117-25PPR: Precise Plan Review – North and South Gateway Sites:
A Precise Plan Review is requested to approve site layout, architecture, circulation,
landscaping, and utilities for the North and South Gateway sites. The review ensures that
the proposed seven new homes and three renovated homes comply with the design
standards of the Hillcrest Master Plan and the City’s planning requirements. The project
also includes reconstruction of curb, gutter, sidewalks, and driveway aprons along Park
Avenue and A Street, along with public paseos connecting the East and West campuses.
A total of 24 trees (not protected) will be removed, and seven mature trees will be retained
as part of the landscape plan. Upon completion, the North and South Gateway sites will
contain ten dwelling units operating as part of the continuing care retirement community,
with a net increase of three units. The Development Review Committee approved this
application, contingent on approval of the other Case files. No appeal was filed; however,
the following information is provided for an overall understanding of the Project.
Site Plan Description
The proposed Hillcrest Homes project consists of ten residential units organized along a
private internal drive and divided into two distinct areas: Gateway North and Gateway
South, both designed to comply with the Hillcrest Master Plan for Neighborhood 5. Across
all units, the site plan incorporates generous landscaping, pedestrian pathways, and
internal circulation that reflect the Hillcrest community’s existing design character. Each
home maintains a 521 sq. ft. garage, a building footprint ranging from 2,089 to 2,134 sq.
ft., and a private patio of approximately 245 sq. ft. In addition to the new residential units,
three existing buildings on the site will remain and be renovated, contributing to the
preservation and updating of the Hillcrest campus environment.
Elevations
The elevations reflect a contemporary Craftsman architectural style characterized by
varied massing, detailed roof forms, and a mix of natural materials. The homes have a
prominent front-facing gable that defines the main entry and garage elevation. The roof
design consists of a combination of pitched gable and hip elements finished with asphalt
shingles, with the gable ends featuring a slightly lower pitch and open eaves consistent
with Craftsman-style detailing. Exterior cladding includes horizontal lap siding as the
primary material, complemented by vertical siding within the gable ends. A stone veneer
wraps the lower portion of the exterior walls. Windows are primarily single- or double-hung
with white trim arranged in a balanced pattern across the façades. The main entry on the
east elevation is recessed and sheltered by a small porch supported by a column and
covered by a shed-style roof. The front elevation also includes an attached two-car garage
with a sectional garage door that integrates into the overall building design. Overall, the
elevation design combines Craftsman-inspired features with contemporary materials to
create a cohesive and visually appealing residential character compatible with the Hillcrest
community. The paint colors will be earth tones featuring browns, greens, blues, tans, and
burgundy.
Gateway North (Buildings 1–4)
This northern cluster includes four homes, each designed with a minimum 25-foot setback
from the curb, consistent with the master plan requirements. These units frame the

Hillcrest Gateway Project
January 14, 2026
Page 8

northern entry to the Hillcrest neighborhood and establish a cohesive, campus-like
frontage along the access road.
Gateway South (Buildings 5–7)
Buildings 5, 6, and 7 comprise the southern portion of the project and similarly meet the
minimum 25-foot setback to the curb along Park Avenue, maintaining consistency with the
Hillcrest Master Plan. Driveways serving these units provide at least 28 feet of backup
space from the two-car garages, ensuring safe and adequate vehicle maneuvering. Three
existing buildings will remain. Hillcrest has plans to update the exterior of the structures to
be more aesthetically pleasing for the community.
Parking
All seven proposed senior residential units include a two-car garage and a driveway, which
ensures that each home fully meets the La Verne Municipal Code requirement for on-site
resident parking. In addition, the project provides three guest parking spaces within the
South Gateway area, located off the internal driveway.
A previous parking analysis for the Hillcrest community was completed when Hillcrest
Village was approved by the Planning Commission in November 2002. That analysis
determined that Hillcrest is permitted to count on-street parking on its internal private
streets toward its overall parking supply. At that time, Hillcrest had a total of 199 available
parking spaces, made up of 80 on-street spaces, 65 spaces in the Mountain View Drive
parking lot, and 54 spaces in the lot behind the entry monument. Only 113 spaces were
required for all Hillcrest residential units and community facilities, leaving the campus with
a surplus of 86 parking spaces. Hillcrest also provides its own resident shuttle service with
scheduled pick-ups Monday through Friday, further reducing the need for on-site parking.
The La Verne Municipal Code requires two garage spaces per unit and one guest space
per two units for retirement housing; however, the Code allows the Planning Commission
to reduce this requirement to 0.75 spaces per unit plus one guest space per every five
units when certain conditions are met, such as the availability of a resident transportation
system and limits on the number of resident vehicles. Hillcrest meets these conditions
through its free shuttle service and by limiting resident parking to garage and driveway
spaces.
On November 5, 2019, the Planning Commission determined that the Hillcrest community
did not require one guest space per unit and applied the reduced standard of one guest
space for every five units. Therefore, only two guest parking spaces are required for this
development, which are located in the South Gateway area.
Staff finds that the project is consistent with the General Plan and complies with all
applicable specific plan, zoning, and subdivision standards. The proposed site plan
provides a safe, functional, and environmentally sensitive layout with appropriate grading,
circulation, parking, and pedestrian and bicycle access, as well as adequate open-space
areas. The architectural design is compatible with surrounding development and maintains
the community’s established character and design standards. Landscaping has been
thoughtfully incorporated to provide visual relief, promote water efficiency, preserve

Hillcrest Gateway Project
January 14, 2026
Page 9

significant trees, and enhance the public environment. In addition, the project incorporates
defensible space measures and other design features that support safety and security for
residents and the public.
Compatibility with Surrounding Uses
The project sites are located in the southern portion of La Verne and are surrounded
primarily by residential uses. The residences proposed for demolition at 2692 and 2712
Park Avenue were constructed prior to 1948, while the remaining residences on the sites
were built by 1964. None of the residences to be demolished qualify as historically
significant.
The South Gateway site is bounded by single-family and multi-family residences to the
north and south, Park Avenue to the west, and A Street to the east. The North Gateway
site is bounded by single-family residences to the north and south, Park Avenue to the
west, and single-family and multi-family residences to the east. The Zone Change Site is
surrounded to the north, south, and west by multi-family residences and to the east by
Park Avenue. The Master Plan Change site is bordered by A Street to the east, the South
Gateway site to the south, the North Gateway site to the west, and single-family
residences to the north. The Hillcrest campus abuts the project sites to the east and west,
and the Gateway Project would formally integrate the subject sites into the Hillcrest Master
Plan community.
Environmental Determination - Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)
In September 2024, the City Council approved a consultant agreement with LSA
Associates, Inc. to prepare the environmental review document required for the Project,
which resulted in an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration. A notice of intent to
adopt a mitigated negative declaration was sent to the Los Angeles County Recorder’s
office on November 3, 2025 and published in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin on November
3, 2025 and posted on the City’s website. The MND was circulated between November 3
and November 24, 2025 and revisions were made in response to the comment letter
received from the Los Angeles County as well as to address minor clerical errors. None of
the changes required the MND to be recirculated as no new mitigation measures were
needed and no new significant impacts were disclosed. These changes are incorporated
into a Final MND dated December 2025.
The mitigated negative declaration identified potentially significant impacts in the following
areas: biology with regard to raptors and other migratory birds; cultural resources with
regard to one of the homes being demolished having been the place where the Chrondek
timer use in racing was developed; cultural resources with regard to archaeological
resources and possible discovery of human remains; geology and soils with respect to
paleontological resources; vibration impacts; tribal cultural resources. The mitigation
measures set forth in the Final MND and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
will reduce these impacts to below a level of significance. The project also has the
potential to create impacts in the following areas: geology as to areas other than
paleontological; hazards; and hydrology. Impacts in the noted areas will be reduced below
a level of significance due to the regulatory compliance measures identified in the MND.
Noise impacts will be reduced below a level of significance based on both mitigation and

Hillcrest Gateway Project
January 14, 2026
Page 10

regulatory measures. The mitigation measures are set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Programs. The Environmental documents can be seen here:
https://www.laverneca.gov/643/Hillcrest-Gateway-Project.
Planning Commission Actions
The Planning Commission is authorized to approve, conditionally approve or deny the
Master Plan Amendment and make recommendations on Case Numbers 113-25GPA and
114-25ZC. Before approving the above, the Planning Commission must first adopt the
MND and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and recommend that the City
Council adopt the same for the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change.
Public Notice and Case Number Clarification
A notice was sent out to the surrounding neighborhood inviting them to a Neighborhood
Workshop/Scoping Session that was held on December 9, 2024. A few adjacent residents
attended the meeting and no concerns were raised. The Notice of Public Hearing for the
Development Review Committee meeting was mailed to all adjacent property owners
within 300’ of the subject property on November 26, 2025 and published in the Inland
Valley Daily Bulletin on November 28, 2025.
The project was originally noticed under Case Nos. 88-25GPA, 27-25ZC, 26-25MPA, 2525PM, 103-25PM, and 24-25PPR. Following identification of a clerical error in the
numbering, new case numbers have been assigned for accuracy and long-term tracking:
113-25GPA, 114-25ZC, 115-25MPA, 116-25PM, 103-25PM, and 117-25PPR. All future
staff reports, environmental documents, and notices will use these corrected case
numbers. The original notices remain valid under State and local requirements.

Attachments:
1.
2.

3.

4.

Plans
Conditional Approval Letter (116-25PM, 103-25PM, and 117-25PPR)
2a: Exhibit A: Draft Conditions of Approval
2b.: Exhibit B:Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Draft Planning Commission Resolution Number 1349 (MND)
3a.: Exhibit A: Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
3b: Exhibit B: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Draft Planning Commission Resolution Number 1350
4a.: Exhibit A: Draft City Council Resolution (113-25GPA)
4b: Exhibit B: Draft City Council Ordinance (114-25ZC)

CEDG ARCHITECTS
ARCHITECTURE //
BUILD //
LANDSCAPE //
// 401 e. columbia ave.

pomona, ca 91767
// 909.625.3916
// cedgarchitects.com
// [email protected]

STAMP

10-31-2025

HILLCREST GATEWAY PROJECT

CONSULTANTS

2712 & 2730 PARK AVENUE, LA VERNE, CA 91750

PROJECT DIRECTORY

LEGAL DESCRIPTION

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

OWNER

8381-010-028 (2730 PARK AVENUE)
FIREY AND RHORER'S SUB OF THE SOTO TRACT OF THE RANCHO SAN JOSE LOT
COM AT MOST W COR OF LOT 11 TR # 17459 TH SW ON SE LINE OF PARK AVE
76.76 FT WITH A UNIFORM DEPTH OF 130.77 FT S 72¢30' E PART OF LOT 5

NEW 9 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES FOR BRETHREN HILLCREST HOMES.

PROJECT

VICINITY MAP
130.77'

2

A

1,568 SQ.FT.

521 SQ.FT.

2,089 SQ.FT.

245 SQ.FT.

2

3

A

1,568 SQ.FT.

521 SQ.FT.

2,089 SQ.FT.

245 SQ.FT.

2

4

A

1,568 SQ.FT.

521 SQ.FT.

2,089 SQ.FT.

245 SQ.FT.

2

5

B

1,582 SQ.FT.

545 SQ.FT.

2,127 SQ.FT.

302 SQ.FT.

2

6

C

1,583 SQ.FT.

551 SQ.FT.

2,134 SQ.FT.

152 SQ.FT.

2

7

A

1,568 SQ.FT.

521 SQ.FT.

2,089 SQ.FT.

245 SQ.FT.

2

76.76'

76.76'
40.00'

E
A0.00
A0.10
A0.11
A0.20
A0.30

COVER SHEET AND OVERALL SITE PLAN
ENLARGED SITE PLAN, CONCEPT GRADING PLAN, PARKING PLAN
FIRE HYDRANT LOCATION PLAN/CONCEPT FIRE RISER PLAN
SITE DEMOLITION & TREE PROTECTION PLAN
SITE LIGHTING PLANS AND UTILITY PLAN

A1.10
A1.20
A1.30
A1.40
A1.50
A1.60
A1.70

BUILDING 1 FLOOR PLAN, ROOF PLAN AND ELEVATIONS
BUILDING 2 FLOOR PLAN, ROOF PLAN AND ELEVATIONS
BUILDING 3 FLOOR PLAN, ROOF PLAN AND ELEVATIONS
BUILDING 4 FLOOR PLAN, ROOF PLAN AND ELEVATIONS
BUILDING 5 FLOOR PLAN, ROOF PLAN AND ELEVATIONS
BUILDING 6 FLOOR PLAN, ROOF PLAN AND ELEVATIONS
BUILDING 7 FLOOR PLAN, ROOF PLAN AND ELEVATIONS

A STREET

245 SQ.FT.

100.00'

YES, INSTALL PER NFPA-13

100.00'

AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLERS:

PROJECT SITE

75.00'

V

127.77'

2
A0.11

125.77'

P.P.

COVER SHEET
AND OVERALL
SITE PLAN
REVISIONS
-

--

-

--

-

--

243.52'

2681
765 SF

2683

COLOR ELEVATIONS - BUILDING 1 & 2
COLOR ELEVATIONS - BUILDING 3 & 4
COLOR ELEVATIONS - BUILDING 5 & 6
COLOR ELEVATIONS - BUILDING 7

765 SF

DATE:

XX / XX / 2024

SCALE:

AS NOTED

JOB NO:

23109

DWN BY:

CCW

CHK BY:

EGP

'

.00

70

A2.10
A2.20
A2.30
A2.40

BLDG 5

BLDG 6

(SHEET A1.50)

(SHEET A1.60)

A4.10 PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN

BLDG 7

2675
779 SF

(SHEET A1.70)
3'

2,089 SQ.FT.

2

TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION:

C.O.

C.O.

.7

521 SQ.FT.

A

I-2

BLDG 4
(SHEET A1.40)

71

1,568 SQ.FT.

1

TYPE OF OCCUPANCY USE:

BLDG 3
(SHEET A1.30)

75.00'

PARKING PROVIDED

HABITABLE
AREA

10,041 SQ.FT. (8381-010-028)
12,759 SQ.FT. (8381-010-033)
28,939 SQ.FT. (8381-010-006)

A ST

115.10'

GARAGE

PRIVATE
PATIO

FLOOR
PLAN TYPE

LOT AREA:

BRETHREN HILLCREST HOMES
2705 MOUNTAIN VIEW DRIVE
LA VERNE, CA 91750

127.77'

SHEET INDEX
BUILDING
FOOTPRINT

UNIT
NUMBER

I (INSTITUTIONAL)/PR4.5D
(RESIDENTIAL: 4.5 DU/ACRE)

EST

PARK AVENUE

UNIT SUMMERY TABLE

ZONING:

CR

RK

401 E. COLUMBIA AVENUE, POMONA, CA 91709
PHONE: 909.625.3916

BLDG 2
(SHEET A1.20)

ST

PA

CITY OF LA VERNE

BLDG 1
(SHEET A1.10)

ST

GOVERNING AGENCY:

OD

HILL
CRE

8381-010-028, 8381-010-033 &
8381-010-006

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT

CEDG, INC.

ELM

2681 A STREET
LA VERNE, CA 91750
APNS:

R

130.77'

AV

401 E. COLUMBIA AVENUE, POMONA, CA 91709
PHONE: 909.625.3916

1
A0.11

GN
OL
AVE IA

CEDG, INC.

WO

HILLCREST GATEWAY PROJECT

APPLICANT

2712 PARK AVENUE
LA VERNE, CA 91750

ER

8381-010-006 (2681 A STREET)
FIREY AND RHORER'S SUB OF THE SOTO TRACT OF THE RANCHO SAN JOSE LOT
COM NE ON SE LINE OF LOT 4,100 FT FROM MOST S COR OF SD LOT TH NW
PARALLEL WITH NE LINE OF SD LOT TO SE LINE OF PARK AVE TH NE THEREON
115.10 FT TH SE PARALLEL WITH SD NE LINE TO SW LINE OF A ST TH SE THEREON 70
FT TH SW TO BEG PART OF LOTS 4 AND LOT 19

PLE

K D

E

ARCHITECT

BRETHREN HILLCREST HOMES
2730 PARK AVENUE
LA VERNE, CA 91750

OA

AV

OWNER:
PROJECT ADDRESS:

LLY

MA

8381-010-033 (2712 PARK AVENUE)
FIREY AND RHORER'S SUB OF THE SOTO TRACT OF THE RANCHO SAN JOSE 0.30
MORE OR LESS AC NE 100 FT OF NW 127.77 FT OF SE 230.77 FT OF LOT 4

MA

EEL

2705 MOUNTAIN VIEW DRIVE
LA VERNE, CA 91750

BUILDING DATA

WH

BRETHREN HILLCREST HOMES

HO

SHEET NO.
230.77'

1

OVERALL SITE PLAN
1"=50'-0"

A0.00

CEDG ARCHITECTS
DOMESTIC WATER
& FIRE LINE, TYP.

ARCHITECTURE //
BUILD //
LANDSCAPE //

130.77'

EXISTING PUBLIC FIRE
HYDRANT, TYP.

WATER METER
// 401 e. columbia ave.

10'-0"

300'-0" RADIUS

4" DIA ABS SEWER

C.O.
C.O.

C.O.

200 AMP
ELEC
MAIN

200 AMP
ELEC
MAIN

// 909.625.3916
// cedgarchitects.com
// [email protected]

3" DIA ABS SEWER

(E) FIRE HYDRANT

FIRE SPRINKLER
RISER

COMM

COMM

SOLAR

SOLAR

STAMP
76.76'

0"
76.76'

300'-

pomona, ca 91767

C.O.

AVENUE

FIRE SPRINKLER RISER

EXISTING PUBLIC FIRE
HYDRANT, TYP.
300'-0"

BLDG 1

BLDG 2

(SHEET A1.10)

(SHEET A1.20)

1590 SF

1590 SF

10-31-2025

130.77'

(E) PHONE BOX

CONSULTANTS

40.00'

(E) MANHOLE

(E) CABLE BOX
127.77'

FIRE SPRINKLER
RISER

(SHEET A1.40)

1590 SF

1590 SF

FIRE SPRINKLER
RISER

SOLAR

SOLAR

COMM

COMM

200 AMP
ELEC
MAIN

WATER METER

300'-0"

C.O.

EXISTING PUBLIC FIRE
HYDRANT, TYP.

8'-4"

(SHEET A1.30)

11'-10"

100.00'

A

DOMESTIC WATER
& FIRE LINE, TYP.

P.P.

BLDG 4

3" DIA ABS SEWER

300'-0" RADIUS

300'-0" RADIUS
'-0"
300

BLDG 3

100.00'

PARK

STREET

PARK AVENUE

8'-4"

10'-0"

3" DIA ABS SEWER

200 AMP
ELEC
MAIN

C.O.
C.O.

4" DIA ABS SEWER

EXISTING PUBLIC FIRE
HYDRANT, TYP.

PROJECT

HILLCREST GATEWAY PROJECT
127.77'

1

EXISTING PUBLIC FIRE
HYDRANT, TYP.

ENLARGED SITE PLAN/ CONCEPT FIRE SPRINKLER RISER PLAN - NORTH LOT

APPLICANT

1"-20'-0"

BRETHREN HILLCREST HOMES
2705 MOUNTAIN VIEW DRIVE
LA VERNE, CA 91750

300'-0" RADIUS

EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT LOCATION PLAN

3

1"-80'-0"

ALL FIRE HYDRANTS SHALL MEASURE 6"" X 4"" X 2-1/2"", BRASS OR BRONZE, CONFORMING TO AMERICAN WATER
WORKS ASSOCIATION STANDARD C503, OR APPROVED EQUAL.

DUMPSTERS AND CONTAINERS WITH AN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY OF 1.5 CUBIV YARDS OR MORE SHALL NOT BE
STORED IN BUILDINGS OR PLACED WITHIN 5 FEET OF COMBUSTIBLE WALLS, OPENINGS OR COMBUSTIBLE ROOF
EAVES, UNLESS AREAS CONTAIN DUMPSTERS OR CONTAINERS OR CONTAINERS ARE PROTECTED BY AN APPROVED
AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM. FIRE CODE 304.3.3.

SMOKE ALARMS SHALL RECEIVE THEIR PRIMARY POWER FROM THE BUILDING WIRING PROVIDED THAT SUCH WIRING
IS SERVED FROM A COMMERCIAL SOURCE AND SHALL BE EQUIPPED WITH A BATTERY BACKUP. RESIDENTIAL CODE
R314.4

T
ST
A

765 SF

3" DIA ABS
SEWER
FIRE SPRINKLER
RISER

SOLAR

SOLAR

COMM

COMM

4" DIA ABS SEWER

2675

200 AMP
ELEC
MAIN

-

--

-

--

-

--

779 SF

UNIT 6
1,436 SF

C.O.

FIRE HYDRANT
LOCATION
PLAN & SITE
PLAN
REVISIONS

3" DIA ABS
SEWER

UNIT 7
'

1590 SF

200 AMP
ELEC
MAIN

WATER
METER

FIRE SPRINKLER
RISER

73

IN EACH SLEEPING ROOM.
OUTSIDE EACH SEPARATE SLEEPING AREA IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY OF THE BEDROOMS.
ON EACH ADDITIONAL STORY OF THE DWELLING, INCLUDING BASEMENTS AND HABITABLE ATTICS BUT NOT
INCLUDING CRAWL SPACES AND UNINHABITABLE ATTICS.
IN DWELLINGS OR DWELLING UNITS WITH SPLIT LEVELS AND WITHOUT AN INTERVENING DOOR BETWEEN THE
ADJACENT LEVELS, A SMOKE ALARM INSTALLED ON THE UPPER LEVEL SHALL SUFFICE FOR THE ADJACENT LOWER
LEVEL PROVIDED THAT THE LOWER LEVEL IS LESS THAN ONE FULL STORY BELOW THE UPPER LEVEL.

NEW
EASEMENT
230.77'

200 AMP
ELEC. SERVICE

WHEN MORE THAN ONE SMOKE ALARM IS REQUIRED TO BE INSTALLED WITHIN AN INDIVIDUAL DWELLING UNIT THE
ALARM DEVICES SHALL BE INTERCONNECTED IN SUCH A MANNER THAT THE ACTUATION OF ONE ALARM WILL
ACTIVATE ALL OF THE ALARMS IN THE INDIVIDUAL UNIT. RESIDENTIAL CODE R314.3
6.

1603 SF

IRRIGATION
WATER
METER

2683

3" DIA ABS
SEWER

C.O.

SMOKE ALARMS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS:

4.

UNIT 5

DOMESTIC
WATER
& FIRE LINE,
TYP.

ALL REQUIRED PUBLIC FIRE HYDRANTS SHALL BE INSTALLED, TESTED AND ACCEPTED PRIOR TO BEGINNING
CONSTRUCTION. FIRE CODE 501.4

1.
2.
3.

765 SF

71
.

5.

2681

WATER
METER

115.10'

4.

C.O.

'
.00
70

3.

243.52'

4" DIA ABS SEWER

C.O.

PARK AVENUE

2.

APPROVED BUILDING ADDRESS NUMBERS, BUILDING NUMBERS OR APPROVED BUILDING IDENTIFICATION SHALL BE
PROVIDED AND MAINTAINED SO AS TO BE PLAINLY VISIBLE AND LEGIBLE FROM THE STREET FRONTING THE PROPERTY.
THE NUMBERS SHALL CONTRAST WITH THEIR BACKGROUND, BE ARABIC NUMERALS OR ALPHABET LETTERS, AND BE A
MINIMUM OF 4 INCHES HIGH WITH A MINIMUM STROKE WIDTH OF 0.5 INCH. FIRE CODE 505.1

P.P.

E
RE

FIRE DEPARTMENT NOTES
1.

125.77'

IRRIGATION
WATER
METER

DOMESTIC
WATER
& FIRE LINE,
TYP.

DATE:

XX / XX / 2024

SCALE:

AS NOTED

JOB NO:

23109

DWN BY:

CCW

CHK BY:

EGP

SHEET NO.

COMM
SOLAR

2

ENLARGED SITE PLAN/ CONCEPT FIRE SPRINKLER RISE PLAN - SOUTH LOT
1"-20'-0"

A0.11

19'-6"

16'-0"

19'-6"

27'-8"

// 909.625.3916

NO WORK PROPOSED

// [email protected]

BLDG 2

(SHEET A1.10)

(SHEET A1.20)

1590 SF

STAMP

1590 SF

10-31-2025

130.77'

10'-0"

11'-8" I.D.
PRECAST CONC.
PIPE

1590 SF

BLDG 1

1'-10"

(SHEET A1.20)
1'-10"

(SHEET A1.10)

AVENUE

76.76'

76.76'

BLDG 2

// cedgarchitects.com

76.76'

76.76'

5'-0"

BLDG 1

5'-0"

32'-5"
SETBACK

32'-5"
SETBACK

AVENUE

pomona, ca 91767

26'-3"

26'-3"

1590 SF

// 401 e. columbia ave.

6'-0"

13'-8"

6'-0"

ARCHITECTURE //
BUILD //
LANDSCAPE //

13'-8"

27'-8"

19'-6"

10'-0"

130.77'

16'-0"

10'-0"

19'-6"

2'-0"

2'-0"

CEDG ARCHITECTS
130.77'

130.77'

CONSULTANTS

40.00'

40.00'

10'-0"

127.77'

8'-4"

8'-4"

10'-0"

127.77'

8'-4"

(SHEET A1.30)

(SHEET A1.40)

1590 SF

1590 SF

BLDG 4

(SHEET A1.30)

(SHEET A1.40)

1590 SF

1590 SF

9'-3"

9'-3"

100.00'

BLDG 4

11'-10"

11'-10"

BLDG 3

100.00'

BLDG 3

PARK

PARK

8'-4"

10'-0"

UTOPIA BOLLARD LIGHTING
BLD1-D 35LED/30 UNV WH, TYP
OF 17. SET BASE IN CONC. &
INSTALL PER MANUF.
INSTRUCTIONS & CEC.

6'-0"

16'-0"

12'-0"

6'-7"

10'-11"

16'-0"

18'-0"

34'-5"

6'-0"

16'-0"

18'-0"

34'-5"

9'-10"

20'-6"

25'-0"

20'-6"

20'-0"

25'-0"

9'-10"

100.00'

100.00'

20'-0"

10'-11"

16'-0"

12'-0"

PROJECT

127.77'

6'-7"

HILLCREST GATEWAY PROJECT

2

127.77'

SITE UTILITY PLAN - NORTH

1

1"-20'-0"

SITE LIGHTING PLAN - NORTH

APPLICANT

1"-20'-0"

BRETHREN HILLCREST HOMES
2705 MOUNTAIN VIEW DRIVE
LA VERNE, CA 91750

9"
34'-

A

ST
70
.00
'

26
"
'-7

'
.00

18'-8"

"

18'-8"

115.10'

'-7

8'-0"

3

SITE LIGHTING PLAN - SOUTH
1"-20'-0"

5'-4"

28'-11"

5'-4"

230.77'

230.77'

REVISIONS

779 SF

12

--

-

--

-

--

'

'-3
"

-

71
.

1590 SF

2675

SITE LIGHTING
PLANS AND
PARKING
PLAN

73

UNIT 7
28'-3"

28'-11"

PARK AVENUE

'

12
'-3
"

71

1590 SF

779 SF

.7
3

UNIT 7

2675

37'-11"

"

'-4

39

29'-0"

37'-11"

1"-20'-0"

T
765 SF

1,436 SF

70

26

4"

'39

29'-0"

UTILITY SITE PLAN - SOUTH

5'-4"

14'-2"

20'-10"

26'-2"

2683

UNIT 6

765 SF

8'-0"

28'-3"

765 SF

1603 SF

1,436 SF

115.10'

2681

8'-0"

UNIT 5

2683

UNIT 6

1603 SF

PARK AVENUE

25'-9"

A

765 SF

8'-0"

19'-6"

19'-9"

ST

2681

19'-9"

4

26'-5"

T
E
RE

19'-6"

21'-9"

5'-4"

14'-2"

26'-2"

26'-5"

21'-9"

20'-10"

243.52'

UNIT 5

243.52'

P.P.

125.77'

25'-9"

P.P.

125.77'

E
RE

9"

34'-

DATE:

XX / XX / 2024

SCALE:

AS NOTED

JOB NO:

23109

DWN BY:
CCW
UTOPIA BOLLARD LIGHTING
CHK BY:
EGP
BLD1-D 35LED/30 UNV WH, TYP
OF 17. SET BASE IN CONC. &
INSTALL PER MANUF.
SHEET NO.
INSTRUCTIONS & CEC.

A0.30

CEDG ARCHITECTS

46'-8"
1'-612"

ARCHITECTURE //
BUILD //
LANDSCAPE //

21'-512"

23'-8"

4

4

-

// 401 e. columbia ave.

pomona, ca 91767
2'-2"

// 909.625.3916
// cedgarchitects.com

2'-2"

2'-2"

2'-2"

// [email protected]

7'-312"

W.I.C.

BEDROOM#1

BATH#1

4:12
15'-212"

10-31-2025

4:12

4:12

36'-912"

2'-2"

10'-212"

1'-2"
2'-2"

2'-2"

4:12

STAMP

W.I.C.

BATH#2
24'-5"

2'-2"

GARAGE

CONSULTANTS

STOR.

3'-812"

5

6

-

-

BEDROOM#2

2'-2"

4:12

2'-712"

4:12

-

57'-3"

57'-3"

6

-

14'-312"

4:12

5

11'-0"

KITCHEN

4:12

20'-512"

20'-10"

2'-2"

PATIO

20'-10"

1'-2"

LIVING
ROOM

4:12

4:12

4:12

2'-2"

2'-2"

DINING

2'-2"
2'-2"

2'-2"

3

3

11'-0"
1'-612"

8

4

16 (FT)

1

18'-8"

18'-8"

1/8" = 1'-0"

BUILDING 1 NORTH ELEVATION

4

BUILDING 1 FLOOR PLAN

0

4

8

2'-0"

0

8

4

16 (FT)
APPLICANT

1/8" = 1'-0"

16 (FT)

BUILDING 1 SOUTH ELEVATION

3

1/8" = 1'-0"

HILLCREST GATEWAY PROJECT

BRETHREN HILLCREST HOMES
2705 MOUNTAIN VIEW DRIVE
LA VERNE, CA 91750

18'-8"

2

0

46'-8"

15'-10"

18'-8"

BUILDING 1 ROOF PLAN

PROJECT

16'-312"

0

4

8

16 (FT)

1/8" = 1'-0"

BUILDING 1
FLOOR PLAN,
ROOF PLAN
AND
ELEVATIONS

18'-8"

18'-8"

18'-8"

18'-8"

REVISIONS
-

--

-

--

-

--

DATE:

XX / XX / 2024

SCALE:

AS NOTED

JOB NO:

23109

DWN BY:

CCW

CHK BY:

EGP

SHEET NO.

6

BUILDING 1 EAST ELEVATION
1/8" = 1'-0"

0

4

8

16 (FT)

5

BUILDING 1 WEST ELEVATION
1/8" = 1'-0"

0

4

8

16 (FT)

A1.10

CEDG ARCHITECTS

46'-8"
1'-612"
21'-512"

ARCHITECTURE //
BUILD //
LANDSCAPE //

23'-8"

4

4

-

// 401 e. columbia ave.

pomona, ca 91767
2'-2"

// 909.625.3916
// cedgarchitects.com

2'-2"

2'-2"

2'-2"

7'-312"

W.I.C.

10'-212"

2'-2"

4:12

STAMP

2'-2"

2'-2"

// [email protected]

BEDROOM#1

BATH#1

2'-2"

W.I.C.

BATH#2
GARAGE

24'-5"

2'-2"

36'-912"

4:12

4:12

10-31-2025

15'-212"

4:12

CONSULTANTS

6

-

-

BEDROOM#2

2'-712"

4:12

4:12

-

2'-2"

5

57'-3"

6

-

14'-312"

4:12

3'-812"

11'-0"

KITCHEN

2'-2"

20'-10"

2'-2"

20'-10"

4:12
LIVING
ROOM

PATIO

DINING

2'-2"

4:12

4:12

2'-2"

4:12

20'-512"

5

57'-3"

STOR.

2'-2"
2'-2"

2'-2"

3

3

-

15'-10"
2'-0"

8

4

16 (FT)

1

18'-8"

18'-8"

1/8" = 1'-0"

BUILDING 2 NORTH ELEVATION

4

BUILDING 2 FLOOR PLAN

0

4

8

1'-612"

0

8

4

16 (FT)
APPLICANT

1/8" = 1'-0"

16 (FT)

BUILDING 2 SOUTH ELEVATION

3

1/8" = 1'-0"

HILLCREST GATEWAY PROJECT

BRETHREN HILLCREST HOMES
2705 MOUNTAIN VIEW DRIVE
LA VERNE, CA 91750

18'-8"

2

0

46'-8"

11'-0"

18'-8"

BUILDING 2 ROOF PLAN

PROJECT
16'-312"

0

4

8

16 (FT)

1/8" = 1'-0"

BUILDING 2
FLOOR PLAN,
ROOF PLAN
AND
ELEVATIONS

18'-8"

18'-8"

18'-8"

18'-8"

REVISIONS
-

--

-

--

-

--

DATE:

XX / XX / 2024

SCALE:

AS NOTED

JOB NO:

23109

DWN BY:

CCW

CHK BY:

EGP

SHEET NO.

6

BUILDING 2 EAST ELEVATION
1/8" = 1'-0"

0

4

8

16 (FT)

5

BUILDING 2 WEST ELEVATION
1/8" = 1'-0"

0

4

8

16 (FT)

A1.20

CEDG ARCHITECTS

46'-8"
1'-612"

2'-0"
16'-312"

11'-0"

4

4

-

-

ARCHITECTURE //
BUILD //
LANDSCAPE //

15'-10"

// 401 e. columbia ave.

pomona, ca 91767
2'-2"

2'-2"

// 909.625.3916
// cedgarchitects.com

2'-2"

4:12

// [email protected]

4:12

2'-2"

2'-2"

STAMP

2'-2"

DINING

4:12
3'-812"

LIVING
ROOM

PATIO

20'-10"

20'-512"

20'-10"

4:12

10-31-2025

2'-2"
11'-0"

4:12

6

-

-

6

BEDROOM#2

-

-

24'-5"

2'-2"

4:12

5

57'-3"

5

14'-312"

CONSULTANTS

57'-3"

4:12

2'-2"

2'-712"

KITCHEN

4:12

4:12

W.I.C.

BATH#2

15'-212"

2'-2"

36'-912"

GARAGE

2'-2"

4:12
2'-2"

BATH#1

10'-212"

2'-2"

W.I.C.

2'-2"

4:12

2'-2"

7'-312"

BEDROOM#1

2'-2"

2'-2"

3

3

-

23'-8"
1'-612"

8

4

16 (FT)

1

18'-8"

18'-8"

1/8" = 1'-0"

BUILDING 3 NORTH ELEVATION

4

BUILDING 3 FLOOR PLAN

0

4

8

0

8

4

16 (FT)
APPLICANT

1/8" = 1'-0"

16 (FT)

BUILDING 3 SOUTH ELEVATION

3

1/8" = 1'-0"

46'-8"

BRETHREN HILLCREST HOMES
2705 MOUNTAIN VIEW DRIVE
LA VERNE, CA 91750

18'-8"

2

0

HILLCREST GATEWAY PROJECT

18'-8"

BUILDING 3 ROOF PLAN

PROJECT
21'-512"

0

4

8

16 (FT)

1/8" = 1'-0"

BUILDING 3
FLOOR PLAN,
ROOF PLAN
AND
ELEVATIONS

18'-8"

18'-8"

18'-8"

18'-8"

REVISIONS
-

--

-

--

-

--

DATE:

XX / XX / 2024

SCALE:

AS NOTED

JOB NO:

23109

DWN BY:

CCW

CHK BY:

EGP

SHEET NO.

6

BUILDING 3 EAST ELEVATION
1/8" = 1'-0"

0

4

8

16 (FT)

5

BUILDING 3 WEST ELEVATION
1/8" = 1'-0"

0

4

8

16 (FT)

A1.30

CEDG ARCHITECTS

46'-8"
1'-612"

2'-0"
16'-312"

15'-10"

4

4

-

-

ARCHITECTURE //
BUILD //
LANDSCAPE //

11'-0"

// 401 e. columbia ave.

pomona, ca 91767
2'-2"

2'-2"

// 909.625.3916
// cedgarchitects.com

2'-2"

4:12

2'-2"

4:12

2'-2"

// [email protected]

STAMP

2'-2"

20'-10"

20'-10"

LIVING
ROOM

20'-512"

DINING

4:12

PATIO

10-31-2025

4:12

2'-2"

3'-812"

KITCHEN

4:12

6

-

-

6

BEDROOM#2

-

-

4:12

BATH#2

2'-2"

W.I.C.
15'-212"

4:12

GARAGE
36'-912"

24'-5"

2'-2"

4:12

5

57'-3"

5

14'-312"

CONSULTANTS

57'-3"

4:12

2'-2"

2'-712"

11'-0"

2'-2"

4:12
2'-2"

BATH#1

2'-2"

2'-2"

3

3
21'-512"

23'-8"
46'-8"

8

4

16 (FT)

1

18'-8"

18'-8"

1/8" = 1'-0"

BUILDING 4 NORTH ELEVATION

4

BUILDING 4 FLOOR PLAN

0

4

8

0

8

4

16 (FT)
APPLICANT

1/8" = 1'-0"

16 (FT)

BUILDING 4 SOUTH ELEVATION

3

1/8" = 1'-0"

1'-612"

BRETHREN HILLCREST HOMES
2705 MOUNTAIN VIEW DRIVE
LA VERNE, CA 91750

18'-8"

0

HILLCREST GATEWAY PROJECT

18'-8"

2

PROJECT

-

-

BUILDING 4 ROOF PLAN

7'-312"

10'-212"

W.I.C.

2'-2"

2'-2"

4:12

2'-2"

BEDROOM#1

0

4

8

16 (FT)

1/8" = 1'-0"

BUILDING 4
FLOOR PLAN,
ROOF PLAN
AND
ELEVATIONS

18'-8"

18'-8"

18'-8"

18'-8"

REVISIONS
-

--

-

--

-

--

DATE:

XX / XX / 2024

SCALE:

AS NOTED

JOB NO:

23109

DWN BY:

CCW

CHK BY:

EGP

SHEET NO.

6

BUILDING 4 EAST ELEVATION
1/8" = 1'-0"

0

4

8

16 (FT)

5

BUILDING 4 WEST ELEVATION
1/8" = 1'-0"

0

4

8

16 (FT)

A1.40

3'-3"

CEDG ARCHITECTS

38'-3"
2'-1012"

2'-1"

-

-

3

7'-0"

ARCHITECTURE //
BUILD //
LANDSCAPE //

14'-312"

19'-0"

2'-2"

3

// 401 e. columbia ave.

pomona, ca 91767

5'-612"

4'-8"

2'-2"

7'-0"

4:12

// cedgarchitects.com
// [email protected]

14'-812"

7'-0"

// 909.625.3916

2'-2"

STAMP

PATIO

4:12

10-31-2025

35'-4"

14'-812"

BEDROOM#2

LIVING ROOM

2'-2"

2'-2"

14'-312"

4:12

DINING

W.I.C.
CONSULTANTS

-

6

5

BATH
#2

-

6

KITCHEN

28'-4"

5

60'-4"

4:12

-

56'-11"

4:12

BATH
#1

4:12

2'-2"

GARAGE

14'-312"

4:12

25'-0"

2'-2"

W.I.C.

2'-2"

4:12

2'-2"

2'-2"

BEDROOM#1

2'-2"
2'-2"

-

2'-2"

-

4

PROJECT

4

14'-512"

22'-11"

HILLCREST GATEWAY PROJECT

37'-412"

8

4

16 (FT)

1

17'-412"

17'-412"

1/8" = 1'-0"

BUILDING 5 NORTH ELEVATION

4

BUILDING 5 FLOOR PLAN

0

4

8

8

4

16 (FT)
APPLICANT

1/8" = 1'-0"

16 (FT)

BUILDING 5 SOUTH ELEVATION

3

1/8" = 1'-0"

0

BRETHREN HILLCREST HOMES
2705 MOUNTAIN VIEW DRIVE
LA VERNE, CA 91750

17'-412"

2

0

17'-412"

BUILDING 5 ROOF PLAN

0

4

8

16 (FT)

1/8" = 1'-0"

BUILDING 5
FLOOR PLAN,
ROOF PLAN
AND
ELEVATIONS

17'-412"

17'-412"

17'-412"

17'-412"

REVISIONS
-

--

-

--

-

--

DATE:

XX / XX / 2024

SCALE:

AS NOTED

JOB NO:

23109

DWN BY:

CCW

CHK BY:

EGP

SHEET NO.

6

BUILDING 5 EAST ELEVATION
1/8" = 1'-0"

0

4

8

16 (FT)

5

BUILDING 5 WEST ELEVATION
1/8" = 1'-0"

0

4

8

16 (FT)

A1.50

CEDG ARCHITECTS

39'-712"
1'-2"

-

3

-

2'-2"
12'-43

10'-23

4"

ARCHITECTURE //
BUILD //
LANDSCAPE //

34'-612"

3'-11"

4"

3

// 401 e. columbia ave.

pomona, ca 91767
// 909.625.3916

7'-0"

2'-2"

4:12

2'-2"
// cedgarchitects.com

PATIO

// [email protected]

STAMP

13'-212"

KITCHEN
DINING

4:12

10-31-2025

1'-2"
2'-2"

4:12

4'-2"

2'-2"

LIVING ROOM
25'-1012"

2'-2"

4:12

W.I.C.

BATH
#2

CONSULTANTS

5

6

21'-7"

63'-012"

-

4:12

4:12

-

63'-012"

BEDROOM#1
-

5

6

W.I.C.

2'-2"

22'-1012"

BATH
#1

BEDROOM#2

4:12

2'-2"

2'-2"

24'-1"

GARAGE

14'-312"

2'-2"

2'-2"

4:12

1'-2"

2'-2"

2'-2"

-

3'-11"

4

0

8

4

16 (FT)

BUILDING 6 FLOOR PLAN

1

17'-0"

17'-0"

4

HILLCREST GATEWAY PROJECT

39'-712"

1/8" = 1'-0"

BUILDING 6 NORTH ELEVATION

23'-3"

0

4

8

8

4

16 (FT)
APPLICANT

1/8" = 1'-0"

16 (FT)

BUILDING 6 SOUTH ELEVATION

3

1/8" = 1'-0"

0

BRETHREN HILLCREST HOMES
2705 MOUNTAIN VIEW DRIVE
LA VERNE, CA 91750

17'-0"

2

12'-512"

17'-0"

BUILDING 6 ROOF PLAN

PROJECT

4

0

4

8

16 (FT)

1/8" = 1'-0"

BUILDING 6
FLOOR PLAN,
ROOF PLAN
AND
ELEVATIONS

17'-0"

17'-0"

17'-0"

17'-0"

REVISIONS
-

--

-

--

-

--

DATE:

XX / XX / 2024

SCALE:

AS NOTED

JOB NO:

23109

DWN BY:

CCW

CHK BY:

EGP

SHEET NO.

6

BUILDING 6 EAST ELEVATION
1/8" = 1'-0"

0

4

8

16 (FT)

5

BUILDING 6 WEST ELEVATION
1/8" = 1'-0"

0

4

8

16 (FT)

A1.60

CEDG ARCHITECTS

57'-3"
36'-912"
7'-312"

4

ARCHITECTURE //
BUILD //
LANDSCAPE //

20'-512"

15'-212"

14'-312"

4

-

// 401 e. columbia ave.

pomona, ca 91767
// 909.625.3916
// cedgarchitects.com
// [email protected]

2'-2"

2'-712"

2'-2"

20'-10"

2'-2"

1'-612"

1'-612"

-

11'-0"

6
-

2'-2"

4:12

46'-8"

6

-

2'-2"

5

CONSULTANTS
LIVING
ROOM

-

46'-8"

23'-8"

2'-2"

11'-0"

BEDROOM#2

5

4:12

10-31-2025

BATH#2

BEDROOM#1

4:12

4:12

PATIO

W.I.C.

W.I.C.

BATH#1

4:12

4:12

4:12

4:12

2'-2"

16'-312"

3'-812"

2'-2"

2'-2"

STAMP

4:12
2'-2"

2'-2"

2'-0"

15'-10"

21'-512"
2'-2"

2'-2"

2'-2"

DINING

KITCHEN

GARAGE

4:12

4:12

2'-2"
2'-2"

2'-2"

3

3

-

PROJECT

10'-212"

24'-5"

20'-10"

HILLCREST GATEWAY PROJECT

57'-3"

8

4

16 (FT)

1

18'-8"

18'-8"

1/8" = 1'-0"

BUILDING 7 NORTH ELEVATION

4

BUILDING 7 FLOOR PLAN

0

4

8

8

4

16 (FT)
APPLICANT

1/8" = 1'-0"

16 (FT)

BUILDING 7 SOUTH ELEVATION

3

1/8" = 1'-0"

0

BRETHREN HILLCREST HOMES
2705 MOUNTAIN VIEW DRIVE
LA VERNE, CA 91750

18'-8"

2

0

18'-8"

BUILDING 7 ROOF PLAN

0

4

8

16 (FT)

1/8" = 1'-0"

BUILDING 7
FLOOR PLAN,
ROOF PLAN
AND
ELEVATIONS

18'-8"

18'-8"

18'-8"

18'-8"

REVISIONS
-

--

-

--

-

--

DATE:

XX / XX / 2024

SCALE:

AS NOTED

JOB NO:

23109

DWN BY:

CCW

CHK BY:

EGP

SHEET NO.

6

BUILDING 7 EAST ELEVATION
1/8" = 1'-0"

0

4

8

16 (FT)

5

BUILDING 7 WEST ELEVATION
1/8" = 1'-0"

0

4

8

16 (FT)

A1.70

December 9, 2025

Brethren Hillcrest Homes
Attn: Mike Townsend and Christine Carrasco
2705 Mountain View Drive
La Verne, CA 91750
Subject: Brethren Hillcrest Gateway Project
Approval of Case Numbers 116-25PM, 103-25PM, and 117-25PPR
Recommendation on Case Numbers 113-25GPA, 114-25ZC and 115-25MPA
Dear Mr. Townsend and Ms. Carrasco:
The Development Review Committee (DRC) has reviewed the applications for the
Brethren Hillcrest Gateway Project, consisting of:


Case No. 113-25GPA – General Plan Amendment to change the land use
designation of North Gateway Site (AIN 8381-010-028, 8381-010-033, 8381-010043) and South Gateway Site (AIN: 8381-010-006) from Low-Density Residential to
Community Facility.



Case No. 114-25ZC – Zone Change to change the zoning of the North Gateway
Site, South Gateway Site, and Zone Change Site (AIN: 8381-012-013) from
PR4.5D to Institutional.



Case No. 115-25MPA – Master Plan Amendment to add North Gateway Site,
South Gateway Site and Zone Change Site into Neighborhood 5 of the Hillcrest
Master Plan and to redesignate the Master Plan Site (AIN XXX) from Neighborhood
10 to Neighborhood 5.



Case No. 116-25PM – Parcel Merger, North Gateway Site (AIN 8381-010-028,
8381-010-033, 8381-010-043)



Case No. 103-25PM – Parcel Merger, Zone Change Site (AIN 8381-012-013 and
8381-012-029)



Case No. 117-25PPR – Precise Plan Review, North and South Gateway Sites for
the demolition of four units and construction of seven units.

The DRC reviewed the Final MND and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

Page 2

The DRC recommends approval of Case Nos. 113-25GPA, 114-25ZC, and 11525MPA. In making these recommendations the DRC reviewed the draft
approvals that were included as exhibits to the staff report and concurs with all of
the findings set forth therein.
The DRC finds that the proposed parcel mergers and precise plan are consistent
with the General Plan, zoning, and Hillcrest Master Planas proposed in the
pending applications, and other City ordinances. The project has been reviewed
for site layout, architecture, circulation, landscaping, and utilities, and meets the
design standards established for the Hillcrest continuing care retirement
community. The proposed improvements, including the reconstruction of curb,
gutter, sidewalks, driveway aprons, and public paseos, as well as the landscape
plan, are consistent with City requirements.
The Development Review Committee hereby approves Case Nos. 116-25PM,
103-25PM, and 117-25PPR, contingent on the approval of the related case files
and subject to compliance with the Master List of Conditions of Approval (Exhibit
A).
This approval of Case No. 117-25PPR is granted based on the following findings
in accordance with La Verne Municipal Code § 18.16.100:
1. The project is consistent with the General Plan and complies with all
applicable specific plan, zoning, and subdivision requirements.
2. The site plan is safe, functional, and environmentally sensitive, providing
adequate grading, circulation, parking, pedestrian/bicycle access, and
open space.
3. The proposed architecture maintains community character and standards
and is compatible with surrounding development.
4. Landscaping provides visual relief, promotes water efficiency, preserves
significant trees, and enhances the public environment.
5. The design incorporates defensible space measures to ensure safety and
security for residents and the public.
Case Nos. 103-25PM and 116-25PM are approved in accordance with La Verne
Municipal Code § 16.14.040 as the mergers comply with the general plan and all
applicable requirements of the zoning code.
The approvals of Case Nos. 117-25PPR, 103-25PM and 116-25PM are all
conditioned on compliance with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
that is proposed to be adopted with the other approvals and attached hereto as
Exhibit B.

Page 3

Please ensure that all required improvements, dedications, and conditions of
approval are completed or bonded prior to final plan approval or occupancy, as
applicable.
If you have any questions regarding this approval, please contact Principal
Planner, Candice Bowcock at the Community Development Department at
[email protected] or at (909) 596-8706.
Sincerely,
Eric Scherer, AICP
Community Development Director
By:

C: Building Dept.

Exhibit A: Master List of Conditions of Approval
Exhibit B: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

DRAFT
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Case Numbers: 113-25GPA, 114-25ZC, 115-25MPA, 116-25PM, 103-25PM, and
117-25PPR
Brethren Hillcrest Gateway Project
The above applications are interdependent and therefore there is a “master” list of
conditions for the entire project. They are as follows:
1. Approval is based on updated submitted plans. All improvements shall conform
to the approved plans on file with the Community Development Department.
Plans not up to date at the time of approval shall be corrected and submitted to
the Community Development Department prior to submittal of plans for plan
check. All plans shall be consistent with one another. Changes shall be reviewed
and subject to approval by the Community Development Department.
2. Applicant, owner, developer, and/or successors in interest are responsible for
complying with conditions. “Applicant” in this report and conditions of approval
means owner, developer, and successors in interest.
3. The applications are interdependent. Approval of each application is contingent
upon approval of all. If any are denied, all are denied. However, changes in
architectural details, landscaping, and similar changes to the precise plan that do
not alter the basic layout of the subdivision may be made without affecting the
group of approvals.
4. Violations of any of the conditions of approval shall be grounds for revocation of
this approval.
5. The applicant shall comply with all checked conditions on the attached list
entitled “Standard Conditions”.
6. An affidavit acknowledging and agreeing to all conditions stated herein and the
standard list of conditions shall be signed and returned to the Community
Development Department prior to the issuance of grading permits.
7. The Hillcrest Resident Handbook shall include provisions for maintenance of
common open spaces and private streets and the keeping vehicle access areas
clear; maintenance of all landscaping; appropriate storage of trash receptacles;
prohibition of motion-detector or other bright lights adjacent to single-family
properties; provision of automatic, roll-up garage doors; appropriate location of
trash receptacles for pickup; and limitations on use of guest parking spaces and
RV parking (within a garage only) shall be prepared by the applicant and
submitted for review and approval by the City Attorney, City Engineer, and

DRAFT Conditions Of Approval – Hillcrest Gateway

Community Development Department prior to recordation. A signed and
recorded copy shall be provided to the City prior to occupancy.
8. Applicant shall adhere to all mitigation monitoring measures and programs as
described in the adopted initial study and mitigated negative declaration for the
project.
9. The engineer or surveyor shall set durable monuments to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer, in conformance with 66495 of the Subdivision Map Act.
10. Final improvement plans shall be accompanied by adequate plans for drainage
improvements prepared by a registered professional engineer, to be reviewed
and approved by the City Engineer.
11. Development of the Parcel Merger shall be consistent with the General Plan and
the La Verne Municipal Code.
12. The Parcel Merger Map shall comply with all applicable provisions of Title 16 of
the La Verne Municipal Code and the subdivision map act.
13. The applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend (with legal counsel acceptable to
the City), and hold harmless the City and any agency or instrumentality thereof,
and its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, and agents from and
against any and all liabilities, claims, actions, causes of action, proceedings,
suits, damages, judgments, liens, levies, costs, and expenses of whatever
nature, including reasonable attorney’s fees and disbursements (collectively
“Claims”) arising out of or in any way relating this project, any discretionary
approvals granted by the City related to the development of the project, or the
environmental review conducted under the California Environmental Quality Act,
Public Resources Code Section 21000 et. seq., for the project. If the City
Attorney is required to enforce any conditions of approval, all costs, including
attorney’s fees, shall be paid for by the applicant/developer or successors in
interest. The proposed project shall connect to, and where necessary, grant
easements for utilities.
14. Comprehensive engineering, geologic and soils reports based on adequate test
borings shall be performed pursuant to Section 66490 of the Subdivision Map
Act. If there are subsequent geologic and soils reports they shall be submitted for
approval by the City Engineer. Additional geotechnical investigations shall
evaluate the potential hazards posed by shallow groundwater and shall include, if
necessary, design and engineering recommendations to mitigate potential safety
hazards.
15. Applicant shall provide the City with verification of the approved map(s) with the
Recorder’s Office of the County of Los Angeles prior to issuance of grading
permits.

DRAFT Conditions Of Approval – Hillcrest Gateway

16. The applicant shall pay required fees to the Los Angeles County Sanitation
District associated with the connection to sewer lines as required by the LA
County Sanitation District.
17. Easements for all utilities including water, sewer, and storm drains shall be
provided to the City as required by the City Engineer and Public Works Director.
18. All proposed on-site facilities for electric, gas, telephone, and cable television
shall be placed underground. Cable television conduits shall be installed to the
satisfaction of the local cable company.
19. The existing overhead power line to the rear of the properties shall be placed
underground to the satisfaction of Southern California Edison and the Public
Works Director, unless the applicant demonstrates to the City Engineer and the
Public Works Director that the adjacent property owners do not support this
request.
20. Telephone, gas, electric, and cable companies shall be consulted for planning,
construction and proper placement of service facilities prior to installation of
those facilities. Transformer vaults shall not block access for emergency and fire
vehicles. All vaults, switch boxes and similar equipment shall be screened to the
extent possible considering safety and access. Location and screening of utility
vaults shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development
Department prior to issuance of building permits.
21. Improvement plans and necessary letters of credit, cash bonds to secure the
construction of all streets, storm drains, water and sewer facilities, grading and
landscaping shall be submitted and approved by the City prior to recordation of
any final map.
22. Any retaining walls necessitated by grading shall be reviewed by Community
Development staff prior to issuance of grading permits.
23. Wall plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development
Department prior to issuance of building permits.
24. All walls shall be constructed of a decorative material, such as slump stone or
split face, subject to final approval by the Community Development Department.
25. Interior fence design, location, materials and colors shall be reviewed and
approved by the Community Development Department and the Fire Department
prior to issuance of building permits.
26. Any encroachment permit shall be obtained from the Public Works Department
prior to any work in the existing public right-of-way.

DRAFT Conditions Of Approval – Hillcrest Gateway

27. Soils treatment shall comply with all recommendations in the soils report
reviewed and approved by the City Engineer.
28. All additional requirements of the City Engineer, City Traffic Engineer, and Public
Works Department shall be met prior to issuance of building permits.
29. The applicant shall comply with all National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System requirements and Low Impact Development Standards. The applicant
must comply with the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPP). There shall
be a street maintenance program, including continual cleaning of surrounding
public streets, and a program to control displaced earth from grading and soil
eroded by rains during construction using temporary control measures such as
sandbagging, perimeter berming and temporary sediment basins.
30. The applicant shall comply with all South Coast Air Quality Management District
requirements. During grading, a watering program shall be established to
adequately reduce on and off-site dust. Grading is prohibited during high wind
conditions.
31. The applicant shall comply with the City’s noise ordinance during the construction
period. Hours of operation shall be 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. or dusk, whichever is earlier,
Monday through Saturday. No construction-related disturbances to the
neighborhood shall occur outside allowable hours without prior approval by the
City Manager.
32. The applicant shall provide a safe method of adequate vector control prior to
clearance and grading. All refuse and debris shall be removed from the property,
and the property shall be kept clean and litter free.
33. Guest parking shall be marked and reserved for temporary use by guests and not
used as adjunct parking by residents. Parking in undesignated areas shall be
prohibited.
34. Garage doors shall be automatic roll-up types.
35. The Hillcrest Resident Handbook shall require the retention of a landscape
service that includes removal of green waste from the property.
36. Waste Management shall review and approve plans to ensure access by refuse
trucks to pick up trash and recycling receptacles. There shall be a designated
area of sufficient size on the individual properties for trash and recycling
receptacles. Receptacles shall be moved to designated pick-up spots for pick up
on trash days and otherwise be kept out of sight.

DRAFT Conditions Of Approval – Hillcrest Gateway

37. The storage of any motor home, recreational vehicle, trailer, dismounted camper
unit or boat shall be permitted only within a garage.
38. Style, material, height, and illumination levels of on-site light fixtures shall be
reviewed, approved and installed prior to occupancy of any unit. The lighting plan
shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. Lighting shall be
directed to the project site and not spill out onto adjacent properties. No bright
lights or bright motion detection lights shall be installed adjacent to single-family
properties.
39. Final landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the City Landscape
Architect for approval prior to issuance of building permits.
40. The applicant shall install a dedicated irrigation meters to the satisfaction of the
Public Works Department.
41. A landscape maintenance plan shall be submitted to the City Landscape
Architect for approval and upon approval shall be incorporated fully or by
reference into The Hillcrest Resident Handbook.
42. Mailbox design and location shall be reviewed and approved by the Community
Development Department and the U.S.P.S.
43. The homes shall contain the details, windows, garages, walls, gates, trim, and all
other features shown on the elevations unless the City approves revised
elevations. Construction drawings shall include the same quality and design as
shown on the approved elevations. Any changes shall specifically be subject to
the review and advance approval by the Community Development Department.
44. The required fire flow shall be installed and made serviceable before and during
the time of construction involving combustible materials.
45. Before construction begins involving combustible materials, the site shall be
accessible to the Fire Department by way of access roadways with an adequate
surface of not less than twenty feet and capable of supporting imposed loads of
equipment and other requirements of the Fire Department, with adequate
roadway turning radius. Access shall be maintained in serviceable condition
during construction.
46. Fire hydrants shall be installed as directed by the Fire Department.
47. Fire sprinklers shall be installed in each structure to the satisfaction of the Fire
Department.
48. All Fire Code requirements shall be met.

DRAFT Conditions Of Approval – Hillcrest Gateway

49. The applicant will be responsible to make any improvements necessary to public
utilities based on the proposed project’s impact to those utilities.
50. The applicant shall comply with all tree protection and mitigation conditions
outlined in the City’s Municipal Code, Chapter 18.78.
51. A Certified Arborist shall be present during construction activities that are within
the driplines of any significant trees; the Certified Arborist should be notified a
minimum of 48 hours prior to any work within the driplines.
52. The Certified Arborist shall inspect the significant trees and condition of
protective measures every 14 days during construction.
53. All refuse removal, vegetation removal and site cleanup done under the tree drip
line shall be done using hand equipment only.
54. Monitoring shall be conducted by a Certified Arborist, approved by the City
Community Development Director, for a minimum of five years and shall be
reported at least annually to the City for any significant trees.
55. Preserved and planted “heritage” trees (oaks) shall be maintained by The
Hillcrest Resident Handbook, may not be removed without City approval, and any
replacement shall be subject to the Heritage Tree Ordinance (LVMC 18.78).
56. Mitigation measures listed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration shall be
followed.

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
BRETHREN HILLCREST GATEWAY PROJECT
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared for use in implementing
mitigation for the:
Brethren Hillcrest Gateway Project
Case Nos. 88-25GPA, 27-25ZC, 26-25MPA, 25-25PM, 103-25PM, and 24-25PPR
The program has been prepared in compliance with State law and the Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND) prepared for the project by the City of La Verne (City).
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires adoption of a reporting or
monitoring program for those measures placed on a project to mitigate or avoid significant
effects on the environment (Public Resource Code Section 21081.6). The law states the
reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project
implementation.
The monitoring program contains the following elements:
1) The mitigation measures are recorded with the action and procedure necessary to ensure
compliance. In some instances, one action may be used to verify implementation of
several mitigation measures.
2) A procedure for compliance and verification has been outlined for each action necessary.
This procedure designates who will take action, what action will be taken and when, and
to whom and when compliance will be reported.
3) The program has been designed to be flexible. As monitoring progresses, changes to
compliance procedures may be necessary based upon recommendations by those
responsible for the program. As changes are made, new monitoring compliance
procedures and records will be developed and incorporated into the program.
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program includes mitigation identified in the MND.
MITIGATION MONITORING AND RESPONSIBILITIES
As the Lead Agency, the City is responsible for ensuring full compliance with the mitigation
measures adopted for the proposed project. The City will monitor and report on all mitigation
activities. Mitigation measures will be implemented at different stages of development
throughout the project site. In this regard, the responsibilities for implementation have been
assigned to the Applicant, Contractor, or a combination thereof. If during the course of project
implementation, any of the mitigation measures identified herein cannot be successfully
implemented, the City shall be immediately informed, and the City will then inform any affected
responsible agencies. The City, in conjunction with any affected responsible agencies, will
then determine if modification to the project is required and/or whether alternative mitigation
is appropriate.
REGULATORY COMPLIANCE MEASURES
Regulatory Compliance Measures are presented in instances where the proposed project
would not create a significant impact but would be required to adhere to regulatory
requirements in order to ensure impacts do not become significant. Regulatory Compliance
Measures outline compliance with various federal, State, and/or local acts, laws, rules,
regulations, municipal codes, etc.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

1

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
BRETHREN HILLCREST GATEWAY PROJECT
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

2

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
BRETHREN HILLCREST GATEWAY PROJECT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST
Project Name: Brethren Hillcrest Gateway Project

Mitigation Measure No. / Implementing
Action

Responsible
for
Monitoring

Applicant:
Date:
Timing of
Verification

Method of Verification

Brethren Hillcrest Homes
November 1, 2025
Verified
Date/
Initials

Sanctions
for NonCompliance

Biological Resources
MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-1: Vegetation
removal shall be conducted outside of the nesting
season (February 1, or January 1 for raptors, through
September 15). If avoidance of the nesting season is
not feasible, then a qualified biologist hired by the
project Applicant and approved by the City of La
Verne’s Community Development Director or
designee shall conduct a nesting bird survey within
three days prior to any disturbance of the site,
including demolition activities, tree removal, and/or
grading.
If a special-status species is located during the
survey, consultation with the local California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)
representative shall occur to determine what
avoidance actions are required. The qualified
biologist shall instruct construction personnel on the
sensitivity of the area. If an active avian nest is
identified, the biologist shall be present to delineate
the boundaries of a 100-foot exclusionary buffer area
and monitor the active nest to ensure that nesting
behavior is not adversely affected by construction
activities. Construction activities must occur outside
of the exclusionary buffer around the active nest. For
listed and raptor species, this buffer may be
expanded to up to 500 feet from the active nest at
the discretion of the qualified biologist in consultation
with the City Community Development Director or
designee and CDFW.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Community
Development
Director or
designee

Prior to the issuance
of demolition and
grading permits;
during demolition and
grading activities;
upon completion of
construction
monitoring

Evidence to the City:
1) the required preconstruction surveys have
been completed
2) consultation (as
applicable) with the
California Department of
Fish and Wildlife has
occurred

Withhold
demolition
and/or grading
permit, and/or
issuance of a
stop work
order

3) the establishment and
maintenance (as
applicable) of appropriate
buffer(s)
4) final report of findings
submitted to the
Community Development
Director or designee

3

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
BRETHREN HILLCREST GATEWAY PROJECT
Project Name: Brethren Hillcrest Gateway Project

Mitigation Measure No. / Implementing
Action

Responsible
for
Monitoring

Applicant:
Date:
Timing of
Verification

Method of Verification

Brethren Hillcrest Homes
November 1, 2025
Verified
Date/
Initials

Sanctions
for NonCompliance

The biologist shall have the authority to temporarily
halt construction if it occurs within an established
avian buffer or if new nesting activity occurs and a
new buffer is required. Encroachment into buffers
around active nests shall be conducted only at the
discretion of the biologist. Once the young have
fledged and left the nest, or the nest otherwise
becomes inactive under natural conditions,
construction activities within the buffer area may
occur or resume. Upon completion of construction
monitoring, the biologist shall prepare a report of
findings documenting the results of the
recommended protective measures described above
to document compliance with applicable State and
federal laws pertaining to the protection of nesting
birds. This measure shall be implemented to the
satisfaction of the City Community Development
Director or designee.

CULTURAL RESOURCES
MITIGATION MEASURE CUL-1: Prior to the
issuance of a demolition permit for the structures
located at 2712 Park Avenue, the project Applicant
shall submit to the City for review and approval,
information related to the provision of a
commemorative plaque to be constructed at this
address for this property. This information shall
describe the type, style, location, and content of the
plaque. The plaque shall be mounted permanently
near the sidewalk or other location on the property
where it is easy for the public to see and read and
shall include a depiction of the residence and a
summary about Ollie Riley inventing and
manufacturing the Chrondek timer in the kitchen and
garage of the property in 1953-1954. The plaque
shall also indicate that additional information can be

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Community
Development
Director or
designee

Prior to the issuance
of demolition permit
and building permit

Evidence to the City:
information describing the
type, style, location, and
content of the
commemorative plaque is
included on all
construction plans, pages,
and sheets

Withhold
demolition
permit or
building permit

4

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
BRETHREN HILLCREST GATEWAY PROJECT
Project Name: Brethren Hillcrest Gateway Project

Mitigation Measure No. / Implementing
Action

Responsible
for
Monitoring

Applicant:
Date:
Timing of
Verification

Method of Verification

Brethren Hillcrest Homes
November 1, 2025
Verified
Date/
Initials

Sanctions
for NonCompliance

found at the City Clerk’s office.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project
Applicant shall submit evidence to the City that the
commemorative plaque, as reviewed and approved
by the City, has been incorporated into the project
design.
This measure shall be implemented to the
satisfaction of the City of La Verne Community
Development Director, or designee.
MITIGATION MEASURE CUL-2: Prior to the
issuance of a demolition permit for the structures
located at 2712 Park Avenue, the project Applicant
shall submit evidence to the City that the California
Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms
523A (Primary Record), 523B (Building, Structure,
and Object Record), 523L (Continuation Sheet), and
523J (Location Map) for 2712 Park Avenue have
been offered and/or provided to the La Verne Public
Library (local history collection). In addition, this
documentation shall be offered to the La Verne
Historical Society, Pomona Public Library, Pomona
Historical Society, the National Hot Rod Association
(NHRA) Motorsports Museum, and/or similar groups
and institutions identified by the City.

Community
Development
Director or
designee

Prior to the issuance
of demolition permit

Evidence to the City:

Community
Development
Director or
designee

During grading and
construction activities

Evidence to the City:

California Department of
Parks and Recreation 523
Forms 523A (Primary
Record), 523B (Building,
Structure, and Object
Record), 523L
(Continuation Sheet), and
523J (Location Map) have
been offered to the La
Verne Public Library and
similar institutions/groups
by the City

Withhold
demolition
permit

This measure shall be implemented to the
satisfaction of the City of La Verne Community
Development Director, or designee.
MITIGATION MEASURE CUL-3: In the event that
cultural resources are discovered during project
activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find
(within a 60-foot buffer) shall cease and a qualified
archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

a qualified archaeologist
has been retained to
assess discovery, and

Issuance of a
stop work
order

5

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
BRETHREN HILLCREST GATEWAY PROJECT
Project Name: Brethren Hillcrest Gateway Project

Mitigation Measure No. / Implementing
Action

Responsible
for
Monitoring

Applicant:
Date:
Timing of
Verification

standards shall be hired to assess the find. Work on
the other portions of the project outside of the
buffered area may continue during this assessment
period. Additionally, the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel
Nation Cultural Resources Department (YSMN) shall
be contacted, as detailed within MM TCR-1,
regarding any pre-contact finds and be provided
information after the archaeologist makes his/her
initial assessment of the nature of the find, so as to
provide Tribal input with regards to significance and
treatment. This measure shall be implemented to the
satisfaction of the City of La Verne’s Community
Development Director or designee.

Verified
Date/
Initials

Sanctions
for NonCompliance

coordination with the
Yuhaaviatam of San
Manuel Nation Cultural
Resources Department
(YSMN) regarding the
nature of the find

MITIGATION MEASURE CUL-4: If significant precontact cultural resources, as defined by CEQA (as
amended, 2015), are discovered and avoidance
cannot be ensured, the archaeologist shall develop
a Monitoring and Treatment Plan, the drafts of which
shall be provided to YSMN for review and comment,
as detailed within MM TCR-1. The archaeologist
shall monitor the remainder of the project and
implement the Plan accordingly. This measure shall
be implemented to the satisfaction of the City of La
Verne’s Community Development Director or
designee.

Community
Development
Director or
designee

MITIGATION MEASURE CUL-5: If human remains
or funerary objects are encountered during any
activities associated with the project, work in the
immediate vicinity (within a 100-foot buffer of the
find) shall cease and the County Coroner shall be
contacted pursuant to State Health and Safety Code
§7050.5 and that code enforced for the duration of
the project. This measure shall be implemented to

Community
Development
Director or
designee

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Method of Verification

Brethren Hillcrest Homes
November 1, 2025

During grading and
construction activities

Evidence to the City:
1) preparation of a
Monitoring and Treatment
Plan, provided to YSMN
for review and comment

Issuance of
stop work
order

2) a qualified
archaeologist has been
retained to monitor the
remainder of the project

During grading and
construction activities

Evidence to the City:
Coordination with the
County Coroner as
necessary

Issuance of
stop work
order

6

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
BRETHREN HILLCREST GATEWAY PROJECT
Project Name: Brethren Hillcrest Gateway Project
Responsible
for
Monitoring

Mitigation Measure No. / Implementing
Action

Applicant:
Date:
Timing of
Verification

Method of Verification

Brethren Hillcrest Homes
November 1, 2025
Verified
Date/
Initials

Sanctions
for NonCompliance

the satisfaction of the City of La Verne’s Community
Development Director or designee.

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
MITIGATION MEASURE GEO-1: Prior to issuance
of grading permits, the City shall verify that the
following note is included on all grading plans:
“If any suspected paleontological resources (fossils)
are discovered during ground-disturbing activities,
the construction supervisor shall halt work within a
60-foot radius around the find and establish an
exclusionary buffer. Construction personnel shall not
collect or move any suspected paleontological
materials or further disturb any soils within the
exclusionary buffer, but construction activity may
continue unimpeded on other portions of the project
sites. Construction activity shall not resume within
the exclusionary buffer until a qualified paleontologist
(defined as an individual with an M.S. or Ph.D. in
paleontology or geology who is experienced with
paleontological procedures and techniques, who is
knowledgeable in the geology of California, and who
has worked as a paleontological mitigation project
supervisor for a least one year) can assess the
significance of the find. If the paleontologist
determines the find is not a paleontological resource,
no further evaluation shall be required within the
exclusionary buffer, and construction activity shall be
allowed to resume therein. However, if the
paleontologist
determines
the
find
is
a
paleontological resource, construction activity shall
not resume within the exclusionary buffer, and
Mitigation Measure GEO-2 shall apply.”
This

measure

shall

be

implemented

to

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Community
Development
Director or
designee

Prior to issuance of
grading permits

Evidence to the City:
grading plans include
instructions in the event a
paleontological resource
is detected

Withhold
grading permit

the

7

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
BRETHREN HILLCREST GATEWAY PROJECT
Project Name: Brethren Hillcrest Gateway Project

Mitigation Measure No. / Implementing
Action

Responsible
for
Monitoring

Applicant:
Date:
Timing of
Verification

Method of Verification

Brethren Hillcrest Homes
November 1, 2025
Verified
Date/
Initials

Sanctions
for NonCompliance

satisfaction of the City of La Verne’s Community
Development Director or designee.
MITIGATION MEASURE GEO-2: If the qualified
paleontologist determines paleontological resources
are encountered on the project sites, the
paleontologist shall prepare a Paleontological
Resource Impact Mitigation Plan to be implemented
during the balance of ground-disturbing activities.
Implementation of the Paleontological Resource
Impact Mitigation Plan shall include (but not be
limited to) the following:


Review of project-specific geotechnical report
data, with particular regard to location and depth
of earthmoving and the rock unit(s)
encountered;



Development of a formal agreement between
the project proponent and the San Bernardino
County Museum, Natural History Museum of
Los Angeles County, Western Science Center,
San Diego Natural History Museum, or
Riverside Municipal Museum for the final
disposition and permanent storage and
maintenance of any fossil collections and
associated data. Should any of these facilities
choose not to accept the fossil collections and
associated data, the project Applicant shall
consult with the Bonita Unified School District or
other educational institution to offer the fossil
collections and associated data for donation;



The construction schedule, term/schedule of
on-site paleontological monitor(s) and the
extent of areas and activities to be monitored;

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Community
Development
Director or
designee

During construction

Evidence to the City:
1) preparation of a
Paleontological Resource
Impact Mitigation Plan

Issuance of a
stop work
order

2) appropriate buffer
areas have been
established
3) formal agreement
between the project
proponent and
appropriate repository for
fossils
4) submittal of required
evaluation and report by a
qualified paleontologist to
the City.

8

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
BRETHREN HILLCREST GATEWAY PROJECT
Project Name: Brethren Hillcrest Gateway Project

Mitigation Measure No. / Implementing
Action


Authority of paleontological monitor(s) to
temporarily redirect construction activity in the
vicinity of any paleontological discovery;



Procedures for the evaluation and option to
recover large fossil specimens and for the
evaluation, recovery, and processing of small
fossil specimens;



Fossil specimen preparation, identification to
the lowest taxonomic level possible, curation,
and cataloging; and



A report of findings.

Responsible
for
Monitoring

Applicant:
Date:
Timing of
Verification

Method of Verification

Brethren Hillcrest Homes
November 1, 2025
Verified
Date/
Initials

Sanctions
for NonCompliance

The paleontologist shall monitor remaining grounddisturbing activities in native soils at the project sites
and shall be equipped to record and salvage fossil
resources that may be unearthed during
construction. The paleontologist shall temporarily
halt or divert construction equipment to allow
recording and removal of the unearthed resources.
Any fossils found shall be offered for curation at a
curation facility approved by the City. A report of
findings, including, when appropriate, an itemized
inventory of recovered specimens and a discussion
of their significance, shall be prepared upon
completion of the steps outlined above. The report
and inventory, when submitted to and approved by
the appropriate lead agency, will signify completion
of the program to mitigate impacts on paleontological
resources. This measure shall be implemented to the
satisfaction of the City of La Verne’s Community
Development Director or designee.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

9

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
BRETHREN HILLCREST GATEWAY PROJECT
Project Name: Brethren Hillcrest Gateway Project

Mitigation Measure No. / Implementing
Action

Responsible
for
Monitoring

Applicant:
Date:
Timing of
Verification

Method of Verification

Brethren Hillcrest Homes
November 1, 2025
Verified
Date/
Initials

Sanctions
for NonCompliance

NOISE
MITIGATION
MEASURE
NOI-1:
During
construction, the following measures shall be
implemented to reduce construction noise to within
the standards established in Section 8.20.050 of the
City’s Municipal Code.


Temporary Construction Barriers for
Mobile Construction Equipment. The
construction contractor shall erect a minimum
10-foot-high temporary construction barrier at
the project construction boundary of the North
Gateway site on all sides and South Gateway
site on the north, southeast, and south side.
The barriers shall be continuous with no gaps
or holes and may be any material that has a
minimum Sound Transmission Class (STC)
rating of 28.



Smart back-up alarms. The construction
contractor shall ensure construction vehicles
are equipped with smart back-up alarms that
automatically adjust the sound level of the
alarm in response to ambient noise levels or,
alternatively, employ human spotters to
ensure safety when mobile construction
equipment is moving in reverse in lieu of backup alarms.

City Building
Official and
Community
Development
Director, or
designee

During demolition,
grading, and
construction

Evidence to the City:
1) temporary construction
barrier is properly staged

Issuance of
stop work
order

2) construction equipment
is in proper working order

This measure shall be implemented to the
satisfaction of the City of La Verne Building Official
and City Community Development Director, or
designee.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

10

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
BRETHREN HILLCREST GATEWAY PROJECT
Project Name: Brethren Hillcrest Gateway Project

Mitigation Measure No. / Implementing
Action

Responsible
for
Monitoring

Applicant:
Date:
Timing of
Verification

Method of Verification

MITIGATION MEASURE NOI-2: Prior to issuance of
an occupancy permit, the City Director of
Development Services, or designee, shall verify that
the proposed project has obtained from an acoustical
engineer a memorandum confirming that the
heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC)
equipment would comply with Item No. 2 under PS7 Action in the City’s General Plan Update Public
Safety Element and Section 8.20.20 of the City Noise
Ordinance. Pursuant to Item No. 2 under PS-7 Action
in the City’s General Plan Update Public Safety
Element and Section 8.20.20 of the City Noise
Ordinance, noise generated from HVAC equipment
shall not exceed 55 A-weighted decibels (dBA)
during daytime hours and 50 dBA during nighttime
hours at the neighboring residential property. This
measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of
the City Community Development Director, or
designee.

City Building
Official and
Community
Development
Director, or
designee

Prior to issuance of
an occupancy permit

Evidence to the City:

MITIGATION MEASURE NOI-3: The construction
contractor shall prohibit large bulldozers and loaded
trucks, or require the use of light construction
equipment (e.g., small bulldozers and trucks), within
12 feet of any existing residential structure.
Additionally, the construction contractor shall probit
the use of jackhammers or require the use of hand
tools within six feet of an existing residential
structure. This measure shall be implemented to the
satisfaction of the City of La Verne Building Official
and City Community Development Director, or
designee.

City Building
Official and
Community
Development
Director, or
designee

During demolition,
grading, and
construction

Evidence to City:

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

heating, ventilation, and
air conditioning (HVAC)
equipment would comply
with Section 12.08.530 of
the Los Angeles County
Noise Ordinance

light construction
equipment and hand tools
are used in proximity to
existing residential
structures

Brethren Hillcrest Homes
November 1, 2025
Verified
Date/
Initials

Sanctions
for NonCompliance
Withhold
occupancy
permit

Issuance of
stop work
order

11

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
BRETHREN HILLCREST GATEWAY PROJECT
Project Name: Brethren Hillcrest Gateway Project

Mitigation Measure No. / Implementing
Action

Responsible
for
Monitoring

Applicant:
Date:
Timing of
Verification

Method of Verification

Brethren Hillcrest Homes
November 1, 2025
Verified
Date/
Initials

Sanctions
for NonCompliance

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
MITIGATION MEASURE TCR-1: The Yuhaaviatam
of San Manuel Nation Cultural Resources
Management Department (YSMN) shall be
contacted, as detailed in MM CUL-1, of any precontact cultural resources discovered during project
implementation and be provided information
regarding the nature of the find, so as to provide
Tribal input with regards to significance and
treatment. Should the find be deemed significant, as
defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), a Cultural
Resources Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall be
created by the archaeologist, in coordination with
YSMN, and all subsequent finds shall be subject to
this Plan. This Plan shall allow for a monitor to be
present that represents YSMN for the remainder of
the project, should YSMN elect to place a monitor
on-site. This measure shall be implemented to the
satisfaction of the City of La Verne Community
Development Director, or designee.

Community
Development
Director or
designee

MITIGATION MEASURE TCR-2: Any and all
archaeological/cultural documents created as a part
of the project (isolate records, site records, survey
reports, testing reports, etc.) shall be supplied to the
applicant and Lead Agency (i.e., City of La Verne) for
dissemination to YSMN. The Lead Agency and/or
applicant shall, in good faith, consult with YSMN
throughout the life of the project. This measure shall
be implemented to the satisfaction of the City of La
Verne Community Development Director, or
designee.

Community
Development
Director or
designee

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

During grounddisturbing activities

Evidence to the City:
1) YSMN has been
provided information of
any pre-contact cultural
resources discovered
during ground-disturbing
activities

Issuance of a
stop work
order

2) preparation of a
Cultural Resources
Monitoring and Treatment
Plan
3) a YSMN monitor has
been retained to be
present during remaining
ground-disturbing
activities
During grounddisturbing activities

Evidence to the City:
archaeological/cultural
documents prepared for
the project would be
supplied to the project
applicant and City for
dissemination to YSMN

Issuance of a
stop work
order

12

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
BRETHREN HILLCREST GATEWAY PROJECT
REGULATORY COMPLIANCE MEASURES
Project Name: Brethren Hillcrest Gateway Project

Regulatory Compliance Measure No. /
Implementing Action

Responsible
for
Monitoring

Applicant:
Date:
Timing of
Verification

Method of Verification

Brethren Hillcrest Homes
November 1, 2025
Verified
Date/
Initials

Sanctions
for NonCompliance

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
REGULATORY COMPLIANCE MEASURE GEO-1:
Prior to issuance of grading and/or building permits,
the project Applicant shall provide evidence to the
City for review and approval that proposed
structures, features, and facilities have been
designed and will be constructed in conformance
with applicable provisions of the 2022 edition of the
California Building Code (CBC) or the most current
edition of the CBC in effect at the time the project
Applicant’s development application is deemed
complete by the City.
Additionally, the project Applicant shall provide
evidence to the City that the recommendations cited
in the project-specific Geotechnical Investigation are
incorporated into project plans and/or implemented
as deemed appropriate by the City. Geotechnical
recommendations include, but are not limited to,
removal
of
existing
vegetation,
structural
foundations, floor slabs, utilities, septic systems, and
any other surface and subsurface improvements that
would not remain in place for use with the new
development. Remedial earthwork, overexcavation,
and ground improvement shall occur to depths
specified in the Geotechnical Investigation to provide
a sufficient layer of engineered fill or densified soil
beneath the structural footings/foundations, as well
as proper surface drainage devices and erosion
control. Expansion index and plasticity index testing
will be required at the completion of rough grading to
verify the properties of the near-surface soils. Fill

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Community
Development
Director or
designee

Prior to the issuance
of grading and/or
building permits

Evidence to the City:
1) design-level plans
comply with California
Building Code in effect at
the time of development
application submittal

Withhold
grading and/or
building
permits

2) design-level
geotechnical/soils/geologic
report has been prepared
and recommendations are
incorporated as applicable
3) verification testing has
been conducted by a
California-licensed
structural engineer

13

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
BRETHREN HILLCREST GATEWAY PROJECT
Project Name: Brethren Hillcrest Gateway Project

Regulatory Compliance Measure No. /
Implementing Action

Responsible
for
Monitoring

Applicant:
Date:
Timing of
Verification

Method of Verification

Brethren Hillcrest Homes
November 1, 2025
Verified
Date/
Initials

Sanctions
for NonCompliance

soils shall consist of very low expansive soils.
Construction of concrete structures in contact with
subgrade soils determined to be corrosive shall
include measures to protect concrete, steel, and
other metals.
A California-licensed structural engineer must
conduct verification testing upon completion of
ground improvements to confirm that the
compressible soils have been sufficiently densified.
Additionally, the structural engineer must determine
the ultimate thickness and reinforcement of the
building floor slabs based on the imposed slab
loading and verify seismic design parameters in
accordance with American Society of Civil Engineers
(ASCE) 7-16 Section 11.4.8. This measure shall be
implemented to the satisfaction of the City Director
of Building and Safety or designee.

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
REGULATORY COMPLIANCE MEASURE HAZ-1:
A comprehensive asbestos-containing materials
(ACM) survey and lead-based materials (LBM)
survey shall be completed prior to demolition or
renovation of 2692 Park Avenue, 2675 A Street,
2677 A Street, 2681 A Street, and 2683 A Street
within the South Gateway Site. If the ACM survey
reveals any manufactured construction material that
contains less than one percent asbestos by weight
pursuant to Title 8, CCR Section 1529: Asbestos and
if the LBM survey reveals lead levels below 0.7
milligram per square centimeter pursuant to Los
Angeles County Code Title 11, Chapter 11.28,
Section 11.28.010(c), no further survey or remedial
work is required. However, if ACM greater than one
percent asbestos by weight are identified within

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Community
Development
Director or
designee,
and/or Building
and Safety
Division, or
designee.

Prior to demolition or
renovation

Evidence to the City:
asbestos report/disposal
plan, a lead-based
materials report/disposal
plan, and SCAQMDapproved disposal tickets
to the City

Withhold
demolition or
renovation
permit

14

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
BRETHREN HILLCREST GATEWAY PROJECT
Project Name: Brethren Hillcrest Gateway Project

Regulatory Compliance Measure No. /
Implementing Action

Responsible
for
Monitoring

Applicant:
Date:
Timing of
Verification

Method of Verification

Brethren Hillcrest Homes
November 1, 2025
Verified
Date/
Initials

Sanctions
for NonCompliance

structures proposed for renovation or demolition,
Regulatory Compliance Measure HAZ-2 shall
apply. Furthermore, if lead levels at or above 0.7
milligram per square centimeter are identified,
Regulatory Compliance Measure HAZ-3 shall
apply. This measure shall be implemented to the
satisfaction of the City of La Verne Community
Development Director or designee, and/or Building
and Safety Division, or designee.
REGULATORY COMPLIANCE MEASURE HAZ-2:
Prior to the demolition of 2730 Park Avenue and
2712 Park Avenue within the North Gateway Site, as
well as demolition or renovation of any of the
properties within the South Gateway Site determined
under Regulatory Compliance Measure HAZ-1 to
contain ACM, all ACM shall be abated from the
demolition sites. An Asbestos Notification shall be
prepared and submitted to the South Coast Air
Quality Management District (SCAQMD) for
approval before any asbestos abatement may
commence. The contractor shall provide a
construction and demolition plan with disposal
tickets from an SCAQMD-approved disposal facility
and air clearances prior to final inspection, and an
asbestos report shall be provided to the City prior to
the issuance of a demolition or renovation permit.
This measure shall be implemented to the
satisfaction of the City of La Verne Community
Development Director or designee, and/or Building
and Safety Division, or designee.

Community
Development
Director or
designee,
and/or Building
and Safety
Division, or
designee.

REGULATORY COMPLIANCE MEASURE HAZ-3:
Prior to the demolition of 2730 Park Avenue and
2712 Park Avenue within the North Gateway Site, as
well as demolition or renovation of any of the
properties within the South Gateway Site

Community
Development
Director or
designee,
and/or Building

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Prior to demolition or
renovation

Evidence to the City:
1) asbestos notification
submitted to SCAQMD

Withhold
demolition or
renovation
permit

2) construction/demolition
plan with disposal tickets
from SCAQMD-approved
disposal facility and air
clearances
3) asbestos report
provided to the City

Prior to demolition or
renovation

Evidence to the City:
1) construction/demolition
plan with disposal tickets
from SCAQMD-approved

Withhold
demolition
permit

15

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
BRETHREN HILLCREST GATEWAY PROJECT
Project Name: Brethren Hillcrest Gateway Project

Regulatory Compliance Measure No. /
Implementing Action
determined under Regulatory Compliance
Measure HAZ-1 to contain LBP, all LBM shall be
abated from the demolition site with lead levels at or
above 0.7 milligram per square centimeter shall be
abated from the demolition site. Furthermore,
California Department of Health lead certified staff
would be required for all abatement work. The
contractor shall provide a construction and
demolition plan with disposal tickets from a South
Coast Air Quality Management District-approved
disposal facility and air clearances prior to final
inspection, and a lead report shall be provided to the
City prior to the issuance of a demolition or
renovation permit. This measure shall be
implemented to the satisfaction of the City of La
Verne Community Development Director or
designee, and/or Building and Safety Division, or
designee.

Responsible
for
Monitoring

Applicant:
Date:
Timing of
Verification

and Safety
Division, or
designee.

Method of Verification

Brethren Hillcrest Homes
November 1, 2025
Verified
Date/
Initials

Sanctions
for NonCompliance

disposal facility and air
clearances
2) lead report provided to
the City

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
REGULATORY COMPLIANCE MEASURE HYD-1:
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant
shall obtain coverage under the State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB) National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements for
Discharges of Stormwater Runoff Associated with
Construction and Land Disturbance Activities, Order
No. 2022-0057-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002
(Construction General Permit). This shall include
submission of Permit Registration Documents
(PRDs), including a Notice of Intent for coverage
under the permit to the SWRCB via the Stormwater
Multiple Application and Report Tracking System
(SMARTS). The Applicant shall provide the Waste
Discharge Identification Number (WDID) to the

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Public Works
Department
and/or the
Community
Development
Director, or
designee

Prior to the issuance
of demolition and
grading permits and
during construction

Evidence to the City:
1) submission of Permit
Registration Documents
(PRDs)
2) filing of the Notice of
Intent with the Regional
Water Quality Control
Board via submittal of a
copy of the Waste

Withhold
demolition
and/or grading
permit and/or
issuance of a
stop work
order

16

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
BRETHREN HILLCREST GATEWAY PROJECT
Project Name: Brethren Hillcrest Gateway Project

Regulatory Compliance Measure No. /
Implementing Action

Responsible
for
Monitoring

Applicant:
Date:
Timing of
Verification

Director of the City of La Verne Public Works
Department and the Community Development
Director or designee, to demonstrate proof of
coverage under the Construction General Permit.
Project construction shall not be initiated until a
WDID is received from the SWRCB and is provided
to the City, or designee. A Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared and
implemented for the proposed project in compliance
with the requirements of the Construction General
Permit. The SWPPP shall identify Construction Best
Management Practices (BMPs) to be implemented
to ensure that the potential for soil erosion and
sedimentation is minimized and to control the
discharge of pollutants in storm water runoff as a
result of construction activities. Upon completion of
construction and stabilization of the site, a Notice of
Termination shall be submitted via SMARTS.
REGULATORY COMPLIANCE MEASURE HYD-2:
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant
shall submit Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation
Plan (SUSMP) to the City of La Verne for review and
approval. The SUSMP shall demonstrate that the
proposed development plan includes BMPs for
source control, pollution prevention, site design, low
impact development (LID) implementation, and
structural treatment control. Best Management
Practices (BMPs) shall be designed and
implemented consistent with the requirements
outlined in the project-specific LID Studies and Los
Angeles County’s LID Standards Manual. Periodic
maintenance of any required bioretention basin and
landscaped areas during project occupancy and
operation shall be in accordance with the schedule
outlined in the SUSMP. This condition shall be

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Method of Verification

Brethren Hillcrest Homes
November 1, 2025
Verified
Date/
Initials

Sanctions
for NonCompliance

Discharger’s Identification
Number to the City
3) preparation of a
Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan,
identifying Construction
Best Management
Practices (BMPs)
4) submission of a Notice
of Termination via
SMARTS

Public Works
Department
and/or the
Community
Development
Director, or
designee

Prior to the issuance
of grading permits

Evidence to the City:
Submission of a Standard
Urban Stormwater
Mitigation Plan (SUSMP)
to the City

Withhold
grading permit

17

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
BRETHREN HILLCREST GATEWAY PROJECT
Project Name: Brethren Hillcrest Gateway Project

Regulatory Compliance Measure No. /
Implementing Action

Responsible
for
Monitoring

Applicant:
Date:
Timing of
Verification

Method of Verification

Brethren Hillcrest Homes
November 1, 2025
Verified
Date/
Initials

Sanctions
for NonCompliance

implemented to the satisfaction of the Director of the
City of La Verne Public Works Department and the
Community Development Director or designee, as
appropriate.

NOISE
REGULATORY COMPLIANCE MEASURE NOI-1:
Prior to and during construction, the following
measures shall be implemented to reduce
construction noise to within the standards
established in Section 8.20.050 of the City’s
Municipal Code.

Construction Noise Management Plan. The
project Applicant in consultation with the
construction contractor shall prepare and
submit to the City of La Verne Community
Development Department a construction noise
management plan that details the proper
posting of construction schedules,
appointment of a noise disturbance
coordinator, and methods for assisting in
noise reduction measures pursuant to Section
8.20.050 of the City's Municipal Code because
noise-sensitive receptors are located 200 feet
or less from the project sites.


Community
Development
Director, or
designee

Prior to and during
construction

Evidence to the City:
1) preparation of a
construction noise
management plan

Withhold
grading permit
and/or
issuance of a
stop work
order

2) construction is
prohibited outside of
permissible hours,
Sundays, and holidays
3) noise control
techniques shall be used
wherever feasible

Construction Hours. The construction
contractor shall limit construction activities to
between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.
Monday through Friday and between the
hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays
pursuant to Section 8.20.050 of the City's
Municipal Code. Construction activities are
prohibited outside of these hours and any time

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

18

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
BRETHREN HILLCREST GATEWAY PROJECT
Project Name: Brethren Hillcrest Gateway Project

Regulatory Compliance Measure No. /
Implementing Action

Responsible
for
Monitoring

Applicant:
Date:
Timing of
Verification

Method of Verification

Brethren Hillcrest Homes
November 1, 2025
Verified
Date/
Initials

Sanctions
for NonCompliance

on Sundays and legal holidays.


Best Available Noise Control Techniques.
The construction contractor shall utilize the
best available noise control techniques (e.g.,
improved mufflers, equipment redesign, use of
intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures,
and acoustically attenuating shields or
shrouds) for all construction equipment and
trucks wherever feasible.



Temporary power poles. The construction
contractor shall use temporary power poles
instead of generators where feasible.



Electrically Powered Tools. To the extent
practicable, electrical power shall be used to
run air compressors and similar power tools,
which shall be equipped with external jackets
on the tools themselves whenever feasible.

This measure shall be implemented to the
satisfaction of the City of La Verne Building Official
and City Community Development Director, or
designee.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

19

RESOLUTION NO. 1349
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA VERNE,
CALIFORNIA,
ADOPTING
AN
INITIAL
STUDY/MITIGATED
NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FOR PORTIONS OF THE BRETHREN HILLCREST GATEWAY PROJECT AND
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE SAME FOR THE
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (113-25GPA) AND ZONE CHANGE (114-25ZC)
PORTIONS OF THE BRETHREN HILLCREST GATEWAY PROJECT
WHEREAS, Brethren Hillcrest Homes has submitted an application to make
changes to the Brethren Hillcrest community by incorporating new properties into the
Master Plan community, merging parcels, and also demolishing and rebuilding
residential units (the “Brethren Hillcrest Gateway Project” or “Project”); and
WHEREAS, the overall Project involves four separate sites which need different
approvals; and
WHEREAS, these sites are referred to as the North Gateway Site, the South
Gateway Site, the Zone Change Site, and the Master Plan Site; and
WHEREAS, the North and South Gateway Sites which has seven residential
units on site will be incorporated into the Master Plan, four of these units will be
demolished and seven new units will be constructed;
WHEREAS, the approvals required for the North and South Gateway Sites are: a
General Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Community Facility; a zone
change from Planned Residential to Institutional; a conditional use permit for the Master
Plan Amendment to incorporate this into Neighborhood 5 of the Master Plan; a parcel
merger for two parcels on the North Gateway Site into one parcel; and a precise plan
review to facilitate the proposed development on the North and South Gateway Sites;
and
WHEREAS, the Zone Change Site involves three existing dwelling units which
will be added to Neighborhood 5 of the Hillcrest Master Plan; and
WHEREAS, the approvals required for the Zone Change Site are: a zone change
from Planned Residential to Institutional; a conditional use permit for the Master Plan
Amendment to incorporate this into Neighborhood 5 of the Master Plan; a parcel merger
for two parcels into one parcel; and
WHEREAS, the Master Plan Change Site will redesignate approximately 0.95
acres of Neighborhood 10 of the Master Plan to Neighborhood 5; and
WHEREAS, on December 9, 2025, the Development Review Committee held a
noticed, public hearing after which it approved the precise plan of design for the seven

Resolution 1350

new homes and the parcels mergers subject to all of the other approvals becoming
effective, including adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program; and
WHEREAS, Sections 2.48.020 through 2.48.165 of the La Verne Municipal Code
empower the Planning Commission to recommend appropriate legislation to the City
Council regarding the orderly growth, development, and environmental character of the
community; and
WHEREAS, on January 14, 2026, the Planning Commission held a noticed,
public hearing on the General Plan Amendment; Zone Change, Conditional Use Permit
for the Master Plan Amendment as well as the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Project and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of La Verne,
California does hereby resolve as follows:
Section 1. WHEREAS Clauses. The Planning Commission hereby finds each
of the WHEREAS clauses stated above to be true and correct and incorporates them as
findings of fact.
Section 2. CEQA Procedure. The Planning Commission of the City of La
Verne does hereby find as follows:
A.
In September 2024, the City Council approved a consultant agreement
with LSA to prepare the environmental review document required for the Project.
B.
LSA prepared a draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
(hereafter “MND”) which was subject to a public review period of November 3, 2025
through November 24, 2025.
C.
Prior to the release of the MND, and in accordance with SB 18 and AB 52,
the City sent notices to the list of Native American Tribes provided by the Native
American Heritage Council. Mitigation measures were recommended and added as a
result of consultation.
D.
Prior to the close of the public review period, the City received one
comment letter from the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts which required minor,
technical changes to be made to the MND. Additionally, minor clerical errors relating to
the existing general plan designation for the Zone Change Site, the number of parcels
to be merged and the case numbers were corrected. The changes did not require any
new mitigation measures or recirculation of the MND. These changes are reflected in
the Final MND dated December, 2026.
E.

The applicant has agreed to all mitigation measures.

2

Resolution 1350

Section 3. Adoption of Final MND and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program. The Planning Commission hereby adopts the Final MND, attached hereto as
Exhibit A, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, attached hereto as
Exhibit B for the purposes of the Master Plan Amendment as well as for the Precise
Plan of Review and Parcel Mergers. The Final MND reflects technical changes made
as a result of comments and the correction of technical errors discovered by staff. The
Planning Commission also recommends that the City Council adopt the Final MND and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program as it applies to the General Plan
Amendment and Zone Change portions of the Project. In adopting these documents
and making this recommendation, the Planning Commission makes the following
findings and determinations:
A.
The City has complied with all procedural requirements relating to CEQA
and other requirements of law. The Final MND is adequate and complete and complies
with all CEQA requirements.
B.
In adopting the Final MND and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program, the Planning Commission has exercised its independent judgement and
analysis. The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the Final MND,
agenda reports, written reports, public testimony, and other information in the record.
C.
The Project has the potential to create impacts in the following areas:
geology as to areas other than paleontological; hazards; and hydrology. Impacts in the
noted areas will be reduced below a level of significance due to regulatory compliance
measures.
D.
The Project has the potential to create significant impacts in the following
areas: biology with regard to raptors and other migratory birds; cultural resources with
regard to one of the homes being demolished having been the place where the
Chrondek timer use in racing was developed; cultural resources with regard to
archaeological resources and possible discovery of human remains; geology and soils
with respect to paleontological resources; vibration impacts; tribal cultural resources.
The mitigation measures set forth in the Final MND and the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program will reduce these impacts to below a level of significance.
E.
The Project has the potential to create significant impacts with relation to
noise. These impacts will be reduced below a level of significance based on both
mitigation measures and regulatory measures.
F.
There is no substantial evidence in the record that the project will have a
significant effect on the environment.
Section 4. Recommendation. Based on the above, the Planning Commission
further recommends that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the purposes of the General Plan
Amendment and Zone Change components of the project.
3

Resolution 1350

Section 5. Custodian of Record. Each and every one of the findings and
determinations in this Resolution are based on the competent and substantial evidence,
both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the Project. All
summaries of information in the findings which precede this section are based on the
entire record. The absence of any particular fact from any such summary is not an
indication that a particular finding is not based in part on that fact. The documents and
materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings and approval
are based are located in the Community Development Department at City Hall, 3660 D
Street, La Verne, CA 91750. The custodian of record is Eric Scherer, Community
Development Director whose email is [email protected] and phone is 909/5969706.
Section 6. Effective Date. This resolution shall become effective immediately.
Section 7. Attestation. The Chairman shall sign and the Secretary shall attest to
the adoption of Resolution No. 1349.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of January, 2026, by the Planning
Commission at La Verne, California.
:

Chairman, Planning Commission
ATTEST:

Secretary, Planning Commission

4

BRETHREN HILLCREST GATEWAY PROJECT
Case Nos. 113-25GPA, 114-25ZC, 115-25MPA, 116-25PM, 103-25PM,
and 117-25PPR
CITY OF LA VERNE
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

December 2025
Lead Agency:
City of La Verne
3660 “D” Street,
La Verne, California 91750
Prepared by:
LSA Associates, Inc.
1500 Iowa Avenue, Suite 200
Riverside, California 92507
(LSA Project No. 20241974)

Brethren Hillcrest Gateway Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

City of La Verne

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INITIAL STUDY .......................................................................................................................................... 1
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected................................................................................... 19
Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency) ............................................................... 19
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ............................................................................................. 20
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST........................................................................................................... 22
I.
Aesthetics .............................................................................................................................. 22
II.
Agriculture and Forest Resources ..................................................................................... 28
III.
Air Quality .............................................................................................................................. 30
IV.
Biological Resources............................................................................................................ 41
V.
Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................... 49
VI.
Energy .................................................................................................................................... 58
VII.
Geology and Soils................................................................................................................. 62
VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................... 71
IX.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials..................................................................................... 78
X.
Hydrology and Water Quality .............................................................................................. 89
XI.
Land Use and Planning ..................................................................................................... 103
XII.
Mineral Resources.............................................................................................................. 115
XIII.
Noise.................................................................................................................................... 116
XIV. Population and Housing..................................................................................................... 140
XV.
Public Services.................................................................................................................... 142
XVI. Recreation............................................................................................................................ 147
XVII. Transportation ..................................................................................................................... 148
XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources.................................................................................................. 152
XIX. Utilities and Service Systems ........................................................................................... 156
XX.
Wildfire.................................................................................................................................. 163
XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance................................................................................. 164
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................... 168

List of Figures
Figure 1: Project Location and Vicinity.................................................................................................... 7
Figure 2: Existing Setting .......................................................................................................................... 8
Figure 3a: Site Photographs..................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 3b: Site Photographs................................................................................................................... 10
Figure 3c: Site Photographs ................................................................................................................... 11
Figure 3d: Site Photographs................................................................................................................... 12
Figure 3e: Site Photographs................................................................................................................... 13
Figure 4a: Proposed Conceptual Site Plan (South Gateway) ........................................................... 14
Figure 4b: Proposed Conceptual Site Plan (North Gateway)............................................................ 15
Figure 5: Existing and Proposed Zoning .............................................................................................. 16
Figure 6: Existing and Proposed General Plan Land Use ................................................................. 17
Figure 7: Existing and Proposed Brethren Hillcrest Master Plan (Neighborhoods 5 & 10) .......... 18
Figure 8: Noise Monitoring Locations.................................................................................................. 124

i
X:\CASE FILES - DIGITAL\Mountain View Drive (Hillcrest)\2705 Mountain View Dr\DRC 12-9-25\PC 1-14-26\3a. Hillcrest Gateway IS-MND.docx

Brethren Hillcrest Gateway Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

City of La Verne

TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables
Table A: Short-Term Regional Construction Emissions..................................................................... 34
Table B: SCAQMD Localized Significance Thresholds (lbs/day) ..................................................... 36
Table C: Construction Localized Impact Analysis ............................................................................... 36
Table D: Opening Year Regional Operational Emissions.................................................................. 37
Table E: Long-Term Operational Localized Impacts Analysis .......................................................... 38
Table F: Estimated Annual Energy Use of Proposed Project ........................................................... 59
Table G: Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................... 73
Table H: Annual Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................... 73
Table I: Hazardous Materials Database Search.................................................................................. 83
Table J: Project Consistency with SGAG’s 2024 RTP/SCS Policies ............................................. 111
Table K: Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environment............................................ 119
Table L: Performance Standards for Stationary Noise Sources, Including Affected Projects.... 120
Table M: Performance Standards for Exterior Noise Sources ........................................................ 122
Table N: Long-Term Ambient Noise Monitoring Results.................................................................. 123
Table O: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels.................................................................. 126
Table P: Summary of Construction Phase, Equipment, and Noise Levels ................................... 128
Table Q: Construction Noise Levels.................................................................................................... 130
Table R: Interpretation of Vibration Criteria for Detailed Analysis .................................................. 135
Table S: Vibration Source Amplitudes for Construction Equipment............................................... 135
Table T: Potential Construction Vibration Annoyance...................................................................... 136
Table U: Potential Construction Vibration Damage .......................................................................... 138
Table V: City of La Verne Water Supply and Demand ..................................................................... 158
Table W: Metropolitan Water District Water Supply and Demand ................................................. 159

Appendices
Appendix A: CalEEMod Report
Appendix B1: Bat Preconstruction Survey Report
Appendix B2: Arborist Report
Appendix C: Historic Significance Evaluations
Appendix D: Geotechnical Investigation
Appendix E1: 2730 Park Avenue Lead Survey
Appendix E2: 2730 Park Avenue Asbestos Survey
Appendix E3: 2712 Park Avenue Lead Survey
Appendix E4: 2712 Park Avenue Asbestos Survey
Appendix F: Low Impact Development (LID) Study
Appendix G1: Noise Model Outputs
Appendix G2: Construction Vehicle Noise Calculations
Appendix G3: Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) Specifications
Appendix H: Trip Generation and VMT Memorandum
Appendix I: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

ii
X:\CASE FILES - DIGITAL\Mountain View Drive (Hillcrest)\2705 Mountain View Dr\DRC 12-9-25\PC 1-14-26\3a. Hillcrest Gateway IS-MND.docx

Brethren Hillcrest Gateway Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

City of La Verne

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Appendix J: Public Comment Letter and Responses to Public Comments
Appendix K: Errata Changes to the Draft Initial Study Dated November 2025

i
X:\CASE FILES - DIGITAL\Mountain View Drive (Hillcrest)\2705 Mountain View Dr\DRC 12-9-25\PC 1-14-26\3a. Hillcrest Gateway IS-MND.docx

INITIAL STUDY
1. PROJECT TITLE:

Brethren Hillcrest Gateway Project

2. LEAD AGENCY
NAME AND
ADDRESS:

City of La Verne
3660 “D” Street
La Verne, California 91750

3. CONTACT
PERSON AND
TELEPHONE
NUMBER:

Candice Bowcock, Principal Planner
City of La Verne
(909) 596-8706
[email protected]

4. PROJECT
LOCATION:

The project consists of four separate sites located adjacent to or
within the west campus of the Brethren Hillcrest community which
is a continuing care retirement community in the southern portion
of La Verne.


The North Gateway Site and South Gateway Site include
Assessor’s Identification Numbers (AINs) 8381-010-006, -028,
and -033 These sites are approximately 150 feet apart. The
South Gateway includes AIN 8381-010-006 containing 2675,
2677, 2681, 2683 A Street and 2692 Park Avenue, and the
North Gateway includes AIN 8381-010-028 containing 2730
Park Avenue and AIN 8381-010-033 containing 2712 Park
Avenue. In addition to the demolition, construction and/or
renovation of residential units on the South Gateway and North
Gateway Sites, there are two other areas which are part of the
project, neither of which involve any physical changes.



The Zone Change Site (AIN 8381-012-013 which includes 2715,
2717, and 2719 Park Avenue) located just west of the North
Gateway site is included in the project for incorporation into the
Brethren Hillcrest Master Plan.



The Master Plan Change Site (AINs 8381-010-043 which
includes 2723 and 2725 A Street and 2745 and 2747 A Street
and 8381-010-005 which includes 2691 and 2693 A Street and
2703 A Street) is included in the project for a change of
neighborhood designation.

The project sites are located approximately 1 mile south of State
Route 210 (SR-210) and approximately 2.2 miles north of
Interstate 10 (I-10). The Bracket Field Airport is located
approximately 0.9 mile south of the project site, and Puddingstone
Reservoir is located approximately 1.5 miles southwest of the

1

project site. Figures 1 and 2 detail the project location and vicinity
and existing setting.
5. PROJECT
SPONSOR’S
NAME AND
ADDRESS:

Brethren Hillcrest Homes
2705 Mountain View Drive
La Verne, California 91750

6. EXISTING
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:

North and South Gateway Sites: LDR - Low Density Residential
(0-5 du/ac)
Zone Change Site: Community Facility (CF)
Master Plan Change Site: Community Facility (CF)

7. PROPOSED
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:

North and South Gateway Sites: Community Facility (CF)
Zone Change Site: No change
Master Plan Change Site: No change

8. EXISTING
ZONING:

North and South Gateway Sites: Planned Residential 4.5 dwelling
units per acre (PR4.5D)
Zone Change Site: Planned Residential 4.5 dwelling units per acre
(PR4.5D)
Master Plan Change Site: Institutional (I)

9. PROPOSED
ZONING:

North and South Gateway Sites: Institutional (I)
Zone Change Site: Institutional (I)
Master Plan Change Site: No change

10. DESCRIPTION OF
PROJECT:

The proposed project is an update to the Brethren Hillcrest Homes
(Hillcrest) Master Plan (Master Plan). Hillcrest consists of 239
residential homes and apartments, 48 assisted living units, 24
dementia beds, and 59 skilled nursing facility beds. Hillcrest is
divided into twenty-three neighborhoods on approximately 53 acres.
As further described below, the project involves Neighborhoods 5
and 10.
The project consists of the following components:
North Gateway and South Gateway Sites
The proposed project includes demolition of four residential homes
which are not currently part of the Hillcrest Master Plan community
and construction of seven single-family homes in their place to be
added to Neighborhood 5 of the Hillcrest Master Plan community
with common area landscaping on 1.19 acres encompassing the
North and South Gateway Sites. All of the existing units are vacant.
The four residential units to be demolished include two single family
homes (2692 Park Avenue and 2677 A Street) within the South
Gateway, and two single family homes (2730 Park Avenue and
2

2712 Park Avenue) within the North Gateway. A total of 5,831
square feet will be demolished. Three existing residences on the
South Gateway Site (2675 A Street, 2681 A Street, and 2683 A
Street), each between 765 and 779 square feet in size (2,309
square feet total) would be renovated to blend with the
architectural design and style of the seven residential units to be
constructed. Figures 3a through 3e provide photographs of the
existing environmental conditions of the project sites.
The seven residential units to be constructed include three singlefamily homes within the South Gateway and four single-family
homes within the North Gateway. Each of the seven proposed
single-family residential units would be one-story with two
bedrooms, two baths, and a two-car garage. A total of 10,989
square feet will be constructed for a net increase of 5,158 square
feet. The project also includes reconstruction of portions of the curb,
gutter, sidewalk, and driveway aprons along the project frontages of
Park Avenue and A Street, as well as reconstruction of public
paseos traversing these properties to improve the connection
between the east and west campuses of the Hillcrest Community.
The project also includes removal of 24 trees and retention of 7
mature trees to be incorporated into the landscape plan of the
proposed development. Figures 4a and 4b detail the conceptual
site plan of the proposed project.
The required project approvals for the North Gateway and South
Gateway Sites are:


General Plan Amendment from LDR - Low Density
Residential (0-5 du/ac) to CF – Community Facility;



Zone Change from Planned Residential 4.5 dwelling units
per acre (PR4.5D) to Institutional (I);



Conditional Use Permit for Master Plan Amendment to
incorporate the North Gateway and South Gateway Sites
into Neighborhood 5 of the Master Plan;



Parcel merger to merge three parcels (AIN 8381-010-028
and AIN 8381-010-033 comprising the North Gateway Site,
and AIN 8381-010-043) into one parcel; and



Precise Plan Review to facilitate the proposed development
on the North Gateway and South Gateway Sites as shown
in the conceptual site plan shown in Figures 4a and 4b.

As originally submitted, the application included the demolition of
three additional units at 2675, 2681 and 2683 A Street and the
construction of a total of nine new units. The air quality and noise
3

analyses evaluate 8,106 square feet of demolition and 13,778
square feet of construction and assume a net increase of 5,672
square feet of residential uses. Accordingly, the discussions below
in those respective sections disclose potentially greater
environmental effects than would occur under the proposed
project.
Zone Change Site
A 0.27-acre parcel, which includes three existing dwelling units
(2715, 2717, and 2719 Park Avenue) would be added to
Neighborhood 5 of the Hillcrest Master Plan (the “Zone Change
Site”). This change does not involve any demolition or
construction. The required project approvals for this change are:


Zone Change from Planned Residential 4.5 dwelling units
per acre (PR4.5D) to Institutional (I);



Conditional Use Permit for Master Plan Amendment to
incorporate this site into Neighborhood 5 of the Master Plan;
and



Parcel Merger to merge the Zone Change Site (AIN 8381012-013) with the property adjacent to the south (AIN 8381012-029) into one parcel.

Master Plan Change Site
Two parcels composing approximately 0.95 acre of Neighborhood
10 of the Hillcrest Master Plan will be redesignated from
Neighborhood 10 to Neighborhood 5, as the existing development
within these parcels match the development pattern of
Neighborhood 5 which includes independent living units. The
properties to be redesignated include three duplex residential
structures and one single-family residence from Neighborhood 10
to Neighborhood 5 of the Hillcrest Master Plan (refer to Figures 5
and 7).
Except for the properties being redesignated,
neighborhood 10 focuses on gathering and activity areas and
congregate living and consists of the Hillcrest Administrative Offices
(2705 Mountain View Drive) and a 24-unit multi-family residential
building (2765 Mountain View Drive). Neighborhood 10 is intended
to locate resident activities and administrative services in the center
of the Hillcrest campus.1
The transfer of approximately 0.95 acre of Neighborhood 10 to
Neighborhood 5 will require a conditional use permit for a Master

1

Ibid. Page 58.

4

Plan amendment. This change does not involve any demolition or
construction.
Figure 5 details the existing and proposed zoning, Figure 6 details
the existing and proposed General Plan land use designations,
and Figure 7 details the existing and proposed Neighborhood 5
and Neighborhood 10 of the Brethren Hillcrest Homes Master
Plan.
11. SURROUNDING
LAND USES AND
SETTING:

The project is located in the southern portion of the city and is
surrounded by residential uses on all sides. The residences to be
demolished at 2692 Park Avenue and 2712 Park Avenue were
developed prior to 1948, and the remaining residences were
developed by 1964.2
The South Gateway Site is bounded to the north and south by
single-family and multi-family residences, to the west by Park
Avenue, and to the east by A Street. The North Gateway Site is
bounded to north and south by single-family residences, to the
west by Park Avenue, and to the east by single-family and multifamily residences. The Zone Change Site is bounded to the north
and south and west by multi-family residences and to the east by
Park Avenue. The Master Plan Change Site is bounded by A
Street to the east, the South Gateway site to the south, the North
Gateway site to the west, and single-family residences to the north.
The Brethren Hillcrest continuing care retirement community abuts
the project sites to the east and west, and the proposed project
would incorporate the subject sites into the Hillcrest Master Plan.

12. PUBLIC
AGENCIES
WHOSE
APPROVAL IS
REQUIRED:

The project requires approval by the City of La Verne. The
entitlements required from the city include:

13. HAVE
CALIFORNIA
NATIVE
AMERICAN

As detailed in Checklist Section 3.21 (Tribal Cultural Resources),
the City of La Verne has consulted with interested Native American
Tribes pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 (Section 21080.3.1 of the
Public Resources Code) and Senate Bill 18 (Sections 65352.3 and
65352.4 of the Government Code). Note: Conducting consultation
early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead

TRIBES
TRADITIONALLY
2






General Plan Amendment (113-25GPA)
Zone Change (114-25ZC)
Conditional Use Permit/Master Plan Update (115-25 MPA)
Parcel Mergers
o 116-25PM for AIN 8381-010-028, AIN 8381-010-033,
and AIN 8381-010-043
o 103-25PM for AIN 8381-012-013 and AIN 8381-012-029
 Precise Plan Review (117-25PPR)

Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC. Historic Aerials by NETR Online. Orthophotography
dated 1948 and 1964. Website: https://historicaerials.com/viewer. Accessed September 23, 2024.

5

AND
CULTURALLY
AFFILIATED WITH
THE PROJECT
AREA
REQUESTED
CONSULTATION
PURSUANT TO
PUBLIC
RESOURCES
CODE SECTION
21080.3.1? IF
SO, HAS
CONSULTATION
BEGUN?

agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of
environmental review, identify and address potential adverse
impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for
delay and conflict in the environmental review process. (See Public
Resources Code Section 21083.3.2.) Information may also be
available from the California Native American Heritage
Commission’s Sacred Lands File per Public Resources Code
Section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources
Information System administered by the California Office of
Historic Preservation. Please also note that Public Resources
Code Section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to
confidentiality.

6

Figure 1: Project Location and Vicinity

7

Figure 2: Existing Setting

8

Figure 3a: Site Photographs

9

Figure 3b: Site Photographs

10

Figure 3c: Site Photographs

11

Figure 3d: Site Photographs

12

Figure 3e: Site Photographs

13

Figure 4a: Proposed Conceptual Site Plan (South Gateway)

14

Figure 4b: Proposed Conceptual Site Plan (North Gateway)

15

Figure 5: Existing and Proposed Zoning

16

Figure 6: Existing and Proposed General Plan Land Use

17

Figure 7: Existing and Proposed Brethren Hillcrest Master Plan (Neighborhoods 5 & 10)

18

Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving
at least one impact that is “Potentially Significant” for which mitigation has been prescribed as
indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
 Aesthetics

 Agricultural Resources

 Air Quality

 Biological Resources

 Cultural Resources

 Energy

 Geology/Soils

 Greenhouse Gas
Emissions

 Hazards & Hazardous Materials

 Hydrology/Water Quality  Land Use/Planning

 Mineral Resources

 Noise

 Population/Housing

 Public Services

 Recreation

 Transportation

 Tribal Cultural Resources

 Utilities/Service Systems  Wildfire

 Mandatory Findings of
Significance

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

Signature

Date

______________________________
Printed Name
19

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
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 may be significant. If there
are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made,
an Environmental Impact Report (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 “Earlier Analyses,” as described
in (5) below, 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 15063(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,
include 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.

20

8. 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.
Explanatory Note
Because the Zone Change Site and Master Plan Change Site do not involve any physical
changes, unless otherwise specified, the analysis is focused on the North Gateway and
South Gateway component.

21

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Unless
Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
I.

No
Impact

Aesthetics

Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not limited
to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic
highway?
c) 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. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Less than Significant Impact
Discussion of Effects: Scenic views within La Verne consist of the San Gabriel Mountains,
foothills, and canyons located in the northern portion of City (i.e., north of the project
sites). Views of these features from the project sites are already obstructed by trees,
structures, and utility poles (refer to Figure 3b).
The North Gateway Site, South Gateway Site, and Zone Change Site are zoned Planned
Residential 4.5 dwelling units per acre (PR4.5D) and will be subject to a zone change
from PR4.5D to Institutional (I). The North Gateway Site and South Gateway Site also
would be subject to a General Plan Amendment from LDR - Low Density Residential (05 du/ac) to CF – Community Facility. The Master Plan Change site would transfer select
properties from Neighborhood 10 to Neighborhood 5 of the Hillcrest Master Plan and
therefore would not require a zone change or General Plan Amendment. There is no
physical development for either the Zone Change Site or Master Plan Site.
22

Implementation of the proposed project would be subject to compliance with Chapter
18.60 (Institutional Zone) of the City Municipal Code, which includes requirements for
setbacks, building height, lot coverage, and landscaping. Furthermore, a precise plan
preview would be required and subject to approval by the Development Review
Committee pursuant to Chapter 18.16 (Development Review). The process would ensure
compliance with all applicable regulations pertaining to building orientation, form,
massing, setbacks, height, color palette, building materials, and drought-tolerant
landscaping.
The only physical changes will be to the North Gateway and South Gateway Sites. The
project includes an amendment to the Master Plan to incorporate three of the project sites,
comprised of the South Gateway (AIN 8381-010-006), North Gateway (AIN 8381-010028 and AIN 8381-010-033), and Zone Change Site (AIN 8381-012-013) into
Neighborhood 5 of the Hillcrest Master Plan and a redesignation of a portion of
Neighborhood 10 as Neighborhood 5. The existing Master Plan requires all units along
the Master Plan perimeter streets (e.g., Park Avenue) to maintain a minimum setback
distance of 25 feet from the public right-of-way (curb).3 The proposed project includes
reconstruction of portions of the curb, gutter, sidewalk, and driveway aprons within the
North Gateway Site and South Gateway Site along the project frontages of Park Avenue;
however, Park Avenue would maintain its existing roadway width. As required by the
Master Plan, redevelopment of the North Gateway and South Gateway Sites would
maintain a minimum setback distance of 25 feet from the curb. One existing property to
be transferred from Neighborhood 10 to Neighborhood 5 (2747 A Street/) would maintain
the existing 15-foot setback from the public right-of-way and remain as a legal, nonconforming residential use within the Hillcrest Master Plan with regard to setback distance
from the public right-of-way. The proposed residential structures within the North Gateway
site and South Gateway site would be single-story homes constructed to heights
commensurate with the surrounding buildings and well below the maximum building
height of 25 feet permitted along Park Avenue and 35 feet in other portions of
Neighborhood 5 of the Master Plan.4,5
The proposed project includes construction of 7 single-story residential structures to
heights commensurate with the surrounding buildings pursuant to Section 18.10.080 and
below the maximum building height permitted in the Master Plan. Additionally,
development will maintain the sites’ existing flat topography. Views of the City’s scenic
3

4
5

City of La Verne. Brethren Hillcrest Homes Master Plan, Design Development Guidelines. Page 102.
Approved November 2, 1992.
Ibid. Page 46.
In accordance with Section 18.60.110, greater structural heights, more lot coverage, smaller setbacks,
and similar adjustments to the standards of Chapter 18.60 (Institutional Zone) may be permitted in the
Master Plan Update upon review and approval by the City Planning Commission pursuant to Chapter
18.108 (Conditional Use Permits, Variances, and Minor Exceptions), as well as the City Council. Such
adjustments are permitted provided they are necessary in response to the unique qualities of the
institution and its site to support efficient and attractive development; impacts are minimized to the
surrounding properties and to cultural, historic, and environmental resources; the proposed
improvements otherwise meet the requirements and intent of the City Municipal Code, the City General
Plan, and CEQA; and the benefits of the proposed development standard change(s) outweigh any
potential adverse effects. Section 18.60.110 (Institutional Zone Development Standard Changes). City
of La Verne Municipal Code. Title 18 (Zoning). https://ecode360.com/44524769#44524783. (Accessed
February 27, 2025).

23

resources from the project sites and vicinity are mostly obscured by residential
development in all directions, as well as by mature trees on the sites and along adjacent
roadways and by overhead infrastructure (i.e., distribution utility poles). Furthermore, the
project sites are immediately north of the Lordsburg Specific Plan, which does not identify
any of the roadways adjacent to the project sites as major corridors for viewing the
Lordsburg community.6 The nearest scenic view corridor is an easterly viewpoint of Bonita
Avenue approximately 0.25 mile southwest of the project sites at the intersection of Bonita
Avenue and Wheeler Avenue. The proposed residential structures would not obstruct this
viewpoint or any other scenic view corridor identified in the Lordsburg Specific Plan, City
General Plan, or any other land use plan in the City.
Since the project sites and vicinity are not considered to be part of or within the viewshed
of a scenic vista identified by the City, compliance with Chapter 18.60 (Institutional Zone)
of the City Municipal Code will ensure impacts to scenic vistas would remain less than
significant. Mitigation is not required.
b. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to trees, rock outcroppings and historic buildings within a State scenic
highway?
No Impact
Discussion of Effects: The nearest State-designated scenic highway is State Route 2,
located approximately 35 miles north of the project sites. The project sites would not be
visible from State Route 2. Locally, Bonita Avenue east of Wheeler Avenue is designated
a scenic corridor by the City. Although the project sites are approximately 0.25 mile
northeast of the Bonita Avenue scenic view corridor, none of the project facilities (e.g.,
residential structures and landscaping) would obstruct views of the historic structures or
trees along this viewpoint or any other scenic view corridor.
There are 31 trees on the North and South Gateway Sites. The project includes removal
of 24 trees and retention of 7 mature trees to be incorporated into the landscape plan of
the proposed development. None of the 31 trees inventoried and evaluated on the project
sites qualify as “Significant” or “heritage” trees as defined in Chapter 18.78 of the City’s
Municipal Code.7 The project would not substantially damage scenic resources including,
trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway or locally
designated scenic roadway. No Impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.
c. Would the project, 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

6

7

City of La Verne, Archiplan Urban Design Collaborative, Martin Eli Weil Restoration Architect, and
Stevens/Garland Associates. A Specific Plan for Lordsburg, The City of La Verne. Figure 3 (Visual
Analysis) and Page 20. September 1992, Chapter 5 updated March 2004.
LSA. Arborist Report for the Hillcrest Gateway Project in La Verne, Los Angeles County, California
(LSA Project No. 20241974). December 11, 2024.

24

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
Discussion of Effects: The City’s 2023 population is estimated to be 29,898 persons and
the City’s land area is approximately 8.42 square miles;8 therefore, the City meets the
definition of Urbanized Area under Section 15387 of the CEQA Guidelines. The proposed
project would include construction and demolition of single-family residential units,
reconstruction of portions of the curb, gutter, sidewalk, and driveway aprons along the
project frontages of Park Avenue and A Street, as well as reconstruction of public paseos
traversing these properties to improve the connection between the east and west
campuses of the Hillcrest Community.
It should be noted that the Gateway Sites are currently developed with residential uses
that are unoccupied and in various states of disrepair. Through compliance with the City’s
Municipal Code, the proposed project would redevelop underutilized properties in the City
while maintaining consistency with the existing visual character of the surrounding
community.
The project proposes demolition of two single family homes (2692 Park Avenue and 2677
A Street) within the South Gateway, and two single family homes (2730 Park Avenue and
2712 Park Avenue) within the North Gateway. The proposed project would construct
seven residential units, three single-family homes within the South Gateway and four
single-family homes within the North Gateway. The proposed project would be
constructed to provide primary Master Plan components, including informal courtyard
configurations and a sense of landscape sanctuary.9 The seven proposed residential
units would be oriented around public paseos that traverse through the properties and
serve as courtyards for residents of the Master Plan as well as the surrounding
community. The public paseos would feature landscaping consistent with Appendix J of
the Master Plan10 and ultimately improve the connection between the east and west
campuses of the Hillcrest Community. Furthermore, the project sites would be
thematically landscaped to differentiate them from other neighborhoods of the Master
Plan while establishing a unique articulation of space and skyline in the community. As
indicated in the Master Plan,11 thematically oriented landscaping facilitates ease of
navigation for pedestrians and other residents of the Master Plan.
Other design elements of the proposed project would support cohesive integration with
the existing community. For example, Appendix J of the Master Plan12 identifies
recommended specimens including the Brisbane Box, Strawberry Tree, and Crape
Myrtle, all of which are incorporated into the landscape plan for the proposed project. The
8

9

10

11

12

United States Census Bureau. QuickFacts, La Verne City, California. https://www.census.gov/
quickfacts/fact/table/lavernecitycalifornia/PST045218. (Accessed October 21, 2024).
City of La Verne. Brethren Hillcrest Homes Master Plan, Design Development Guidelines. Page 11.
Approved November 2, 1992.
City of La Verne. Brethren Hillcrest Homes Master Plan, Appendix J. Page 113. Approved November
2, 1992.
City of La Verne. Brethren Hillcrest Homes Master Plan, Design Development Guidelines. Page 3.
Approved November 2, 1992
City of La Verne. Brethren Hillcrest Homes Master Plan, Appendix J. Page 113. Approved November
2, 1992.

25

project-specific tree inventory and evaluation identified 31 trees located on the project
sites. Seven trees on the project sites would be retained and incorporated into the
landscape plan of the proposed development while 24 trees would be removed and new
trees planted. None of the 31 trees inventoried qualify as a “Significant” or “heritage” tree
as defined in Section 18.78 of the City’s Municipal Code. Preservation of seven trees and
the incorporation of landscaping per Appendix J of the Master Plan would ensure the
consistent pattern of landscaping between existing and proposed uses within the
community. Furthermore, all landscaping elements would be implemented in accordance
with Section 18.60.080 and Chapter 18.118 (Water Efficient Landscapes) of the City
Municipal Code.
Three existing residences on the South Gateway Site (2675 A Street, 2681 A Street, and
2683 A Street), each between 765 and 779 square feet in size (2,309 square feet total)
would be renovated to blend with the architectural design and style of the seven residential
units to be constructed. All residential structures within the North and South Gateway Sites
would incorporate 360-degree architecture where all elevations receive equal articulation
and design consideration. Perimeter walls and light fixtures would be architecturally
compatible with the overall building designs, which incorporate features of both craftsman
(e.g., projecting eves, exposed trusses, and heavily articulated stonework along
foundations) and ranch (e.g., single story, low-pitched roof, attached garage) architectural
styles. These architectural features are consistent with the architecture of the residential
uses within the Lordsburg Specific Plan to the south and Neighborhood 6 of the Hillcrest
Master Plan to the north. Structural elements incorporated through architecture, material,
and color would achieve an integrated appearance to the building designs while
deemphasizing the “box” appearance through the use of multi-form roof combinations,
step-backs, varied massing, projecting elements, trim, eaves, material and color massing,
and other features. Therefore, it is anticipated that the proposed scale, architectural
design, and articulation of the development on the site would complement the surrounding
residential uses.
The proposed project includes construction of seven single-story residential structures to
heights commensurate with the surrounding buildings pursuant to Section 18.10.080 of
the City Municipal Code and below the maximum building height permitted in the Master
Plan for Neighborhood 5. Section 18.60.090 of the City Municipal Code requires
implementation of master plans in institutional zones to avoid adverse impacts to adjacent
properties, including impacts on aesthetics, noise, light, health, privacy, and safety.
Compliance with Chapter 18.16 (Development Review), which would require the
proposed development plans to be reviewed and approved by the City Development
Review Committee pertaining to building orientation, form, massing, setbacks, height,
color palette, building materials, and drought-tolerant landscaping, would ensure
appropriate placement and design of all facilities proposed through implementation of the
proposed project. Through preservation of existing mature landscaping, incorporation of
compatible architectural styles, and compliance with Chapter 18.60 (Institutional Zone)
and Chapter 18.16 (Development Review) of the City Municipal Code, the proposed
project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic
quality. Impacts would be less than significant, and mitigation is not required.

26

d. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would
adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area?
Less than Significant Impact
Discussion of Effects: Existing sources of light and glare in the project vicinity include
existing residential buildings and vehicle headlights from motorists driving by the project
sites on adjacent roadways. These sources emit light and glare during daytime and
nighttime hours. Development of the project sites would introduce new sources of light
from typical residential uses as well as from security and safety lighting on the properties.
Sources of glare from the project would include reflective building materials, such as
windows, and vehicles parked on the premises. The amount of glare would depend on
the location of the reflective surfaces and the direction of the sun. Any glare produced by
reflective surfaces would be temporary, as the location of the sun would change
throughout the day. Exterior surfaces of the proposed residences would be finished with
a combination of architectural coatings and other materials (e.g., brick, wood, or stone).
Materials utilized for the proposed residences would not contain large expanses of
reflective metal or other material that would generate substantial light or glare. All project
site improvements would include additional landscaping elements both internally as well
as along the perimeter of the sites in accordance with Section 18.60.080 (Institutional
Zone – Landscaping) and Chapter 18.118 (Water Efficient Landscapes) of the City
Municipal Code that would minimize glare impacts resulting from any reflective surfaces
from buildings and vehicles. Furthermore, the project sites currently include residential
structures proposed for demolition. Therefore, the proposed project would not significantly
increase the amount of daytime light or glare in the project vicinity.
At night, the project’s interior and exterior building lights and landscape lighting would be
visible from the nearby residential dwellings and surrounding public streets. However,
these light sources would not have a significant impact on the night sky, as they would
not exceed existing background light levels already occurring from surrounding residential
development.
All development in the City, which includes light generated from institutional uses and
parking lots, is required to adhere to lighting requirements contained in the City’s
Municipal Code. Specifically, Section 18.76.090 requires illumination to be designed so
that light is shielded and directed away from adjoining properties and the public right-ofway. Furthermore, Section 18.60.090 would ensure implementation of the proposed
project would not result in adverse impact to the surrounding community from the
introduction of any new sources of light. A precise plan review approval is required to
address building design aspects as generally identified under the proposed project. The
precise plan will be reviewed and approved by the City’s Development Review Committee
pertaining to lighting and glare to ensure appropriate placement and design of all
proposed facilities pursuant to Chapter 18.16 (Development Review). As such, adherence
to these measures would be mandatory and enforceable through review and action on
the project plans.
Since all development in the city is required to comply with the lighting requirements
contained in the City’s Municipal Code, impacts associated with light or glare would be
less than significant. Mitigation is not required.
27

Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Unless
Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact
Incorporated
Impact

No
Impact

II. Agriculture and Forest 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. In determining whether impacts to forest
resources, including Timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer
to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding
the State’s inventory of forest land, including Forest and Range Assessment Project and the
Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in
Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on
the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources
Agency, to 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 12220(g)), timberland (as
defined by Public Resources Code
Section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code Section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their
location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest
land to non-forest use?

a. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to
28

the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use?
No Impact
Discussion of Effects: The project sites and surrounding areas are currently developed
with residential uses. Review of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP)
maps prepared by the California Department of Conservation confirmed neither the
project sites nor adjacent lands have been mapped as Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance pursuant to the FMMP.13 No impact
related to the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and/or Farmland of
Statewide Importance would occur with development of the proposed project, Mitigation
is not required.
b. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
No Impact
Discussion of Effects: The project sites are zoned Planned Residential 4.5 dwelling units
per acre (PR4.5D) and would be subject to a zone change from PR4.5D to Institutional
(I). Therefore, the project sites are not enrolled in a Williamson Act contract or zoned for
agricultural and/or timber production. The proposed project would not conflict with any
zoning designations designed to promote agriculture. No impact related to agricultural
zoning or Williamson Act contracts would occur. Mitigation is not required.
c. Conflict with existing zoning for or cause rezoning of forest land (as defined in
Public Resources Code section 12220(g), timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code Section 4526) or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as
defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
No Impact
Discussion of Effects: As stated above, the project sites are zoned Planned Residential
4.5 dwelling units per acre (PR4.5D) and would be subject to a zone change from PR4.5D
to Institutional (I). The proposed project would not conflict with any zoning designations
designed to preserve forest land or promote timber production. No impact related to
forest land or timber production would occur. Mitigation is not required.
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact
Discussion of Effects: Neither the project sites nor surrounding areas comprise forest
land. The project is proposed on properties developed with residential uses and therefore
would not result in the loss of forest land or convert forest land to non-forest use. No
impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.

13

California Department of Conservation. Los Angeles County Important Farmland 2018. California
Important Farmland Finder. 2018. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/LosAngeles.aspx.
(Accessed October 25, 2024).

29

e. Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due
to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact
Discussion of Effects: As stated previously, the project sites are currently developed with
residential uses. The residences at 2692 Park Avenue and 2712 Park Avenue were
developed prior to 1948, and the remaining residences were developed by 1964.14
Therefore, development of the project would have no impact related to the conversion of
farmland to non-agricultural use. Mitigation is not required.

Potentially
Significant
Impact

Potentially
Significant
Unless
Less than
Mitigation Significant
Incorporated
Impact

No
Impact

III. 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:
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 nonattainment 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. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
Discussion of Effects: The project site is located in the South Coast Air Basin (Basin),
which is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD). The Basin includes all of Orange County and the non-desert portions of Los
Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. The SCAQMD and the Southern
California Association of Governments (SCAG) are responsible for formulating and
implementing the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), which has a 20-year horizon for
the Basin. The SCAQMD and SCAG must update the AQMP every three years.

14

Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC. Historic Aerials by NETR Online. Orthophotography dated 1948
and 1964. Website: https://historicaerials.com/viewer (Accessed September 23, 2024).

30

The current regional air quality plan is the Final 2022 AQMP adopted by the SCAQMD on
December 2, 2022.15 On October 1, 2015, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) strengthened the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for groundlevel ozone, lowering the primary and secondary ozone standard levels to 70 parts per
billion (ppb). The Basin is classified as an “extreme” nonattainment area. The 2022 AQMP
was developed to address the requirements for meeting this standard. The Basin is
currently a federal and State nonattainment area for particulate matter less than 10
microns in size (PM10), particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size (PM2.5), and ozone
(O3).
Consistency with the AQMP for the Basin means that a project would be consistent with
the goals, objectives, and assumptions in the respective plan to achieve the federal and
State air quality standards. Pursuant to the methodology provided in Chapter 12 of the
1993 SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, consistency for project development
proposals with the Basin’s 2022 AQMP is affirmed when a project (1) does not increase
the frequency or severity of an air quality standards violation or cause a new violation;
and (2) is consistent with the growth assumptions in the AQMP. Consistency review is
presented below:
1. The project would result in short-term construction and long-term pollutant emissions
that are lower than the CEQA significance emissions thresholds established by the
SCAQMD, as demonstrated in response to Checklist Question III(b); therefore, the
project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of any air quality
standards violation and would not cause a new air quality standard violation.
2. The CEQA Air Quality Handbook indicates that consistency with AQMP growth
assumptions must be analyzed for new or amended General Plan elements, Specific
Plans, and significant projects.16 The AQMP uses the assumptions and projections of
local planning agencies to determine control strategies for regional compliance status.
Therefore, projects that are deemed consistent with a respective General Plan are
generally found to be consistent with the AQMP. The North Gateway, South Gateway,
and Zone Change Sites will be added to the west campus of the Brethren Hillcrest
Community. The project includes a General Plan Amendment from LDR - Low Density
Residential (0-5 du/ac) to CF – Community Facility, a Zone Change from Planned
Residential 4.5 dwelling units per acre (PR4.5D) to Institutional (I), an amendment to
the Master Plan to incorporate all three of these project sites into the Master Plan, a
Parcel Merger, and Precise Plan Review to facilitate the proposed development on
the North and South Gateway Sites.
The proposed project includes development of seven single-family homes and
renovation of three existing homes. Upon development of the project, the North and
South Gateway Sites would contain three more residential units than anticipated for that
location in the current General Plan as well as the General Plan upon which the AQMP
was based. The projections in the AQMP for achieving air quality goals are based, in
15

16

South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2022 Air Quality Management Plan. December 2, 2022.
Website:
www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/air-quality-management-plans/air-quality-mgt-plan
(accessed November 2024).
Significant projects include airports, electrical generating facilities, petroleum and gas refineries,
designation of oil drilling districts, water ports, solid waste disposal sites, and offshore drilling facilities.

31

part, on assumptions in Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG)
demographics and growth forecasts and the City’s General Plan that was in effect at
the time that the AQMP was adopted regarding population, housing, and growth trends.
According to the United States Census Bureau, the average household size in the City
is 2.62 persons per dwelling unit,17 Based on these rates, the proposed project could
generate 26 residents in the City,18 of which 18 were already anticipated under the
existing General Plan and 8 of which would be additional residents. It should be noted,
however, that because the proposed residential uses would be age-restricted to seniors
, the population estimates for the proposed project are conservative and are expected
to overestimate the actual population that would occupy the proposed project.
Between 2010 and 2020, the total population of the City increased by 2,250 persons to
33,313 (7.2 percent).19 Between 2000 and 2020, total number of households in the City
increased by 667 units to 11,737 (6.0 percent). 20 The proposed project’s contribution
to the City’s population and households is consistent with the City’s growth trends and
represents an minimal increase (between 0.024 percent and 0.078 percent of the 2020
City population and between 0.026 percent and 0.085 percent of the 2020 City
households).21 Furthermore, the seven proposed age-restricted residential units and
three existing units to be renovated would support the following Goals and Policies of
the City’s General Plan Housing Element:


General Plan Housing Element Policy 2.4: Facilitate development of senior and lowincome housing through the use of financial and/or regulatory incentives.



General Plan Housing Element Policy 5.4: Encourage housing construction or
alteration to meet the needs of residents with special needs such as the elderly and
persons with disabilities.

In addition, approximately 15.2 percent of the City’s overall population is aged 65 years
or older (seniors), and the senior population in La Verne has increased from 4,729 in
2010 to 6,443 in 2019, an increase of 36.2 percent.22 Because of limited mobility, the
elderly typically depend on convenient access to alternative modes of transportation
and transit facilities, which the Master Plan facilitates through an on-call pick-up service
that transports residents to the Brethren Hillcrest dining hall and other amenities via
electric motorized cart. Additionally, the Master Plan community provides a private bus
17

18
19

20

21

22

United
States
Census
Bureau.
QuickFacts,
La
Verne
City,
California.
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/lavernecitycalifornia/HSD310223. Accessed March 28,
2025.
2.62 persons per household × 10 dwelling units = 26.2 persons.
City of La Verne, 2021-2029 Housing Element. La Verne Housing Element Background Report. Page
BR-22. Adopted November 21, 2022.
Southern California Association of Governments. 2021 Local Profiles Dataset. Website:
scag.ca.gov/data-tools-local-profiles (Accessed November 2024).
These calculations identify the project’s contribution to the City compared to the anticipated population
and households under the General Plan Housing Element (e.g., 8 additional residents not anticipated
÷ 33,313 persons = 0.024 percent) (3 additional households not anticipated ÷ 11,737 households =
0.026 percent), as well as the overall project contribution to the City (e.g., 26 project residents ÷ 33,313
persons = 0.078 percent) (10 project households ÷ 11,737 households = 0.085 percent).
City of La Verne, 2021-2029 Housing Element. La Verne Housing Element Background Report. Page
BR-40. Adopted November 21, 2022.

32

service that transports residents to essential amenities such as banks, doctors’ offices,
pharmacies, grocery/retail, churches, the Metro Gold Line and Metrolink station
respectively 1 mile and 1.75 miles to the southeast, regional bus stations, etc. Finally,
the proposed project is located approximately 850 feet from Foothill Transit Bus Route
492 serving the Cities of Montclair, Irwindale, El Monte, and points in between.
Accordingly, the proposed project addresses several key issues and implements
policies of the AQMP that reduce vehicle miles traveled and associated air pollution
emissions without generating a substantial unanticipated increase in population.
As detailed in response to Checklist Question III(b), the proposed project would not
exceed any SCAQMD daily emissions threshold or cause a significant impact on air
quality. Additionally, implementation of the proposed project would support the City’s
General Plan Goals to provide additional housing for elderly populations without
generating a substantial unanticipated increase in population and would also provide
access to alternative modes of transportation and transit facilities in accordance with the
AQMP. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the 2022 AQMP. Impacts
would be less than significant, and mitigation is not required.
b. Would the project 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
Discussion of Effects: The SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook establishes
suggested significance thresholds based on the volume of pollution emitted. According to
the Handbook, any project in the Basin with daily emissions that exceed any of the
following thresholds generally is considered as having individually and cumulatively
significant air quality impacts:


55 lbs. per day of VOC (volatile organic compounds) (75 lbs./day during construction);



55 lbs. per day of NOx (oxides of nitrogen) (100 lbs./day during construction);



550 lbs. per day of CO (carbon monoxide) (550 lbs./day during construction);



150 lbs. per day of PM10 (particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or smaller)
(150 lbs./day during construction)



55 lbs. per day of PM2.5 (particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or smaller)
(55 lbs./day during construction); and



150 lbs. per day of SOx (oxides of sulfur) (150 lbs./day during construction).

The following analysis is based on the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod)
modeling prepared for the project (Appendix A).23

23

As originally submitted, the application included the demolition of three additional units at 2675, 2681
and 2683 A Street and the construction of a total of nine new units. The air quality, noise, and
transportation analyses evaluate 8,106 square feet of demolition and 13,778 square feet of construction
and assume a net increase of 5,672 square feet of residential uses. Accordingly, the CalEEMod
modeling discloses potentially greater environmental effects than would occur under the proposed
project.

33

Construction Emissions. Impacts to air quality could occur during demolition, site
preparation, and construction. Major sources of emissions include exhaust emissions
from construction vehicles and equipment and fugitive dust generated by demolition
activities, construction vehicles and equipment traveling over earthen surfaces, and soil
disturbances from grading and filling. Demolition, grading, and construction activities
would cause combustion emissions from utility engines, heavy-duty construction vehicles,
haul trucks, and vehicles transporting the construction crew.
Emissions during demolition, grading, and construction activities would vary as
construction activity levels change. Air pollutant emission sources during project
construction would include:


Exhaust gas and particulate emissions generated by construction equipment engines;



Fugitive dust from soil disturbance during site preparation, grading, and excavation
activities; and



Volatile organic compounds that evaporate during site paving and architectural
coating (e.g., painting of new structures.

The construction analysis includes estimating the construction equipment that would be
used during each construction phase, the hours of use for that construction equipment,
the quantities of earth and debris to be moved, and on-road vehicle trips (worker, soil
hauling, and vendor trips). The proposed earthwork for the project assumes that 220 cubic
yards of compacted fill would be imported for filling an existing pool.
The duration of construction activity and associated construction equipment was based
on the CalEEMod (version 2022.1.1.29) defaults for phasing. Construction is expected to
start in 2026 and conclude in 2028. Table A identifies the maximum daily emissions
associated with construction activities and indicates no criteria pollutant emission
thresholds would be exceeded from construction of the proposed project.
Table A: Short-Term Regional Construction Emissions
Total Regional Pollutant Emissions, lbs/day
VOC

NOx

CO

SOx

Fugitive
PM10

Exhaust
PM10

Fugitive
PM2.5

Exhaust
PM2.5

Demolition

2

23

21

<1

1

<1

<1

<1

Site Preparation

3

32

31

<1

5

1

3

1

Grading

2

17

19

<1

2

<1

1.0

<1

Building Construction

1

10

13

<1

<1

<1

<1

<1

Architectural Coating

1

1

1

<1

0

<1

<1

<1

Paving

1

6

10

<1

<1

<1

<1

<1

Peak Daily

3

32

31

<1

6

4

SCAQMD
Thresholds

75

100

550

150

150

55

No

No

No

No

No

No

Construction Phase

Emissions Exceed
Threshold?

34

Source: California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). Compiled by LSA. November 2024 (Appendix A).
Note: These estimates reflect control of fugitive dust required by SCAQMD Rule 403. The values shown are the
maximum summer or winter daily emissions results from the California Emissions Estimator Model.
CO = carbon monoxide
PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size
lbs/day = pounds per day
SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District
NOx = nitrogen oxides
SOx = sulfur oxides
PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in
VOC = volatile organic compounds
size

The construction calculations prepared for the project assume that dust control measures
(e.g., watering a minimum of three times daily) would be employed to reduce emissions
of fugitive dust during soil disturbances, which is required during construction in
accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403 regarding the emission of fugitive dust. Adherence
to Rule 403, including the implementation of Best Available Control Measures (BACMs),
is a standard requirement for any construction activity occurring within the Basin. Among
the requirements under this rule, fugitive dust must be controlled so that the presence of
such dust does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the
emission source. These measures include, but are not limited to:


Water active sites at least three times daily (locations where grading is to occur will
be thoroughly watered prior to earthmoving).



Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, or maintain at least 2
feet (0.6 meter) of freeboard (vertical space between the top of the load and the top
of the trailer) in accordance with the requirements of California Vehicle Code Section
23114.



Reduce traffic speeds on all unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour or less.

SCAQMD published its Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology in June 2003
and updated it in July 2008,24 recommending that all air quality analyses include an
assessment of both construction and operational impacts on the air quality of nearby
sensitive receptors. Localized significance thresholds (LSTs) represent the maximum
emissions from a project site of up to 5 acres that are not expected to result in an
exceedance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) or California
Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for CO, NO2, PM10 and PM2.5. LSTs are based
on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant within the project Source Receptor Area
(SRA) and the distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. Sensitive receptors include
residences, schools, hospitals, and similar uses that are sensitive to adverse air quality.
The LST screening table lookup methodology was created for projects up to 5 acres in
size. The proposed project would not include any large-scale grading or other mass
ground-disturbing activities. The South Gateway 0.67-acre site is bounded to the north
and south by single-family and multi-family residences, to the west by Park Avenue, and
to the east by A Street. The North Gateway 0.52-acre site is bounded to north and south
by single-family residences, to the west by Park Avenue, and to the east by single-family
and multi-family residences. Since construction of the two sites would occur
simultaneously and they are very close to each other, for this LST analysis the two sites
have been treated as one site. Therefore, as the combination of the North Gateway and
24

South Coast Air Quality Management District. Final Localized Significance Thresholds Methodology.
South Coast Air Quality Management District. June 2003, Revised July 2008.

35

South Gateway Sites is 1.19 acre, the LSTs for a 2-acre site were used. As the nearest
sensitive receptors are adjacent to the project sites, the SCAQMD LST methodology
specifies that, when the receptor distance is less than 25 meters (82 feet) that thresholds
for 25 meters should be used.25 For this project, the appropriate SRA is the Pomona
Walnut Valley area (SRA 10).
Table B lists the LST emissions thresholds that apply during project construction and
operation.
Table B: SCAQMD Localized Significance Thresholds (lbs/day)
Emissions Source Category
Construction (2-acre, 25-meter distance)
Operations (2-acre, 25-meter distance)

NOx
149
149

CO
885
885

PM10
6
2

PM2.5
4
1

Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District. Final Localized Significance Thresholds Methodology. South
Coast Air Quality Management District. June 2003, Revised July 2008.
Note: Based on Source Receptor Area (SRA) 10 - Pomona Walnut Valley.
CO = carbon monoxide
PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size
lbs/day = pounds per day
PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size
NOx = nitrogen oxides

Table C shows that the on-site construction emissions would not exceed the LSTs for the
adjacent residences. Therefore, construction of the project would not result in a locally
significant air quality impact.
Table C: Construction Localized Impact Analysis
Emissions Sources
On-Site Emissions
LST

NOx
32
149

Emissions Exceed Threshold?

No

Pollutant Emissions (lbs/day)
CO
PM10
PM2.5
30
6
4
885
6
4
No

No

No

Source: California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). Compiled by LSA. November 2024 (Appendix A).
Note: Source Receptor Area: Pomona Walnut Valley, 2 acres, 25 meters (82 feet) distance
CO = carbon monoxide
NOx = nitrogen oxides
lbs/day = pounds per day
PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size
LST = local significance threshold
PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size

As detailed in Tables A and C, emissions generated during project construction would not
exceed SCAQMD thresholds for regional construction emissions or LSTs for the existing
sensitive receptors adjacent to the project site.
Operational Emissions. Long-term (operational) air pollutant emissions are those
associated with area sources, stationary sources, and mobile sources involving any
project-related changes. Area sources include architectural coatings, consumer products,
hearths, and landscaping. Energy sources include natural gas consumption for heating
and cooking. Mobile-source emissions usually result from vehicle trips associated with a
project.
The Trip Generation Analysis that was originally prepared for the project treated the new
homes as single-family and based on the ITE trip generation rate for that land use (Code
25

Ibid. Page 3-3.

36

210). It was determined that there would be 85 trips without any credit for the demolition
of the existing units. Upon further review, it was determined that the appropriate land use
ITE trip generation rate should be that for a continuing care retirement community (Code
255), which resulted in only 25 total trips, without credit for the existing units.26 The
CalEEMod modeling was completed prior to the ITE Code correction and emissions were
evaluated based on trip generation of nine standard single-family homes, (85 vehicle trips
per day). CalEEMod defaults were used for all the other operational parameters, including
energy consumption, water use, waste generation, and area sources. Table D shows the
results of the CalEEMod analysis.
As shown in Table D, emissions from operation of the originally proposed nine residences
would not exceed the corresponding SCAQMD daily emission thresholds for any criteria
pollutant, even using the ITE Code for single-family use. Therefore, there was no need to
rerun the CalEEMod with the lower, continuing care retirement community rate, which
would have reflected even fewer emissions of criteria pollutants.
Table D: Opening Year Regional Operational Emissions
VOC

Pollutant Emissions, lbs/day
NOx
CO
SOx
PM10

PM2.5

Area

<1

<1

<1

<1

<1

<1

Energy

<1

<1

<1

<1

<1

<1

Mobile

<1

<1

3

<1

<1

<1

Total Project Emissions

<1

<1

3

<1

<1

<1

SCAQMD Threshold

55

55

550

150

150

55

Emissions Exceed Threshold?

No

No

No

No

No

No

Source

Source: California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). Compiled by LSA. November 2024 (Appendix A).
CO = carbon monoxide
PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size
lbs/day = pounds per day
SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management
NOx = nitrogen oxides
District
PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size
SOx = sulfur oxides
VOC = volatile organic compounds

By design, the localized impacts analysis includes only on-site sources; however, the
CalEEMod output does not separate on-site and off-site emissions for mobile sources.
For a worst-case scenario assessment, the emissions detailed in Table E assume all area
source emissions would occur on site, all of the energy source emissions would occur off
site at the utility power stations, and a portion of the mobile sources would occur on site.
Table E shows that the localized operational emissions would not exceed the LSTs for
the nearby residences. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would not result in a
locally significant air quality impact.

26

LSA. Hillcrest Gateway Residential Project Trip Generation and Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
Memorandum. October 29, 2025.

37

Table E: Long-Term Operational Localized Impacts Analysis
Emissions Sources
On-Site Emissions
LST
Emissions Exceed Threshold?

Pollutant Emissions (lbs/day)
NOx
CO
PM10
PM2.5
<1
3
<1
<1
149
885
2
1
No
No
No
No

Source: California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). Compiled by LSA. November
2024 (Appendix A).
Note: Source Receptor Area: Pomona Walnut Valley, 2 acres, 25 meter (82-foot) distance, onsite traffic 5 percent of total.
CO = carbon monoxide
NOx = nitrogen oxides
lbs/day = pounds per day
PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in
LST = localized significance threshold
size
PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in
size

Vehicle trips associated with the proposed project may contribute to congestion at
intersections and along roadway segments in the project vicinity. Localized air quality
impacts could occur when emissions from vehicular traffic increase as a result of the
proposed project. The primary mobile-source pollutant of local concern is carbon
monoxide (CO), a direct function of vehicle idling time and, thus, of traffic flow conditions.
CO transport is extremely limited; under normal meteorological conditions, it disperses
rapidly with distance from the source. However, under certain extreme meteorological
conditions, CO concentrations near a congested roadway or intersection may reach
unhealthful levels, affecting local sensitive receptors (e.g., residents, schoolchildren, the
elderly, and hospital patients). Typically, high CO concentrations are associated with
roadways or intersections operating at unacceptable levels of service or with extremely
high traffic volumes.
An assessment of project-related impacts on localized ambient air quality requires that
future ambient air quality levels be projected. Existing CO concentrations in the immediate
project vicinity are not available. Ambient CO levels monitored at the Pomona Monitoring
Station showed a highest recorded 1-hour concentration of 1.6 ppm (the State standard
is 20 ppm) and a highest 8-hour concentration of 1.3 ppm (the State standard is 9 ppm)
between 2021 and 2023. The highest CO concentrations would normally occur during
peak traffic hours since reduced speeds and vehicular congestion at intersections result
in increased CO emissions. Therefore, CO impacts calculated under peak traffic
conditions represent a worst-case analysis.
As detailed in Appendix H, the proposed project is anticipated to add only 25 vehicle trips
per day spread out over a 24-hour period (including 2 trips during the A.M. peak hour and
2 trips during the P.M. peak hour),27 the proposed project’s contribution to roadway traffic,
and therefore to air emissions, is considered minimal. Accordingly, the project would be
implemented as an infill development within a built-out setting with no significant peakhour intersection impacts. Given the extremely low level of CO concentrations in the
project area and the lack of traffic impacts at any surrounding intersections, and the
minimal number of trips to be added by the seven new homes, project-related vehicles
27

LSA. Hillcrest Gateway Residential Project Trip Generation and Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
Memorandum. October 29, 2025. (Appendix H).

38

are not expected to contribute significantly to CO concentrations exceeding the State or
federal CO standards. Because no CO hot-spot would occur, there would be no projectrelated impacts on CO concentrations.
The cumulative impacts analysis is based on projections in the regional AQMP. As
detailed in response to Checklist Question III(a), the proposed project is generally
consistent with growth projections of the General Plan and would not conflict with or
obstruct implementation of the regional AQMP.
No single project is sufficient in size, by itself, to result in nonattainment of ambient air
quality standards. Instead, a project’s individual emissions would contribute to existing
cumulatively significant impacts to air quality. The SCAQMD developed the operational
thresholds of significance based on the level above which a project’s individual emissions
would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the Basin’s existing air quality
conditions. Therefore, a project that exceeds the SCAQMD operational thresholds would
also have a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact.
Due to the nonattainment status of the Basin, the primary air pollutants of concern would
be NOx and VOCs, which are ozone precursors, and PM10 and PM2.5. As detailed in Table
D, long-term emissions were calculated for NOx, VOC, CO, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5 expected
to be generated through operation of the proposed project and indicate project-related
emissions would not exceed the established SCAQMD daily emission thresholds for any
criteria pollutants.
Without any exceedance in air quality emissions thresholds, the proposed project would
not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant air quality impacts.
Long-term cumulative air quality impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation is not
required.
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Less than Significant Impact
Discussion of Effects: The SCAQMD recommends the evaluation of localized CO, NOx,
PM10, and PM2.5 construction- and operation-related impacts to sensitive receptors28 in the
immediate vicinity of the project sites. The appropriate SRA is the Pomona Walnut Valley
area (SRA 10). The nearest sensitive receptors are the residences adjacent to the project
site boundaries. As stated above, SCAQMD LST methodology dictates that, when the
receptor distance is less than 25 meters (82 feet), thresholds for 25 meters should be used.
Tables C and E identify the on-site construction and operational emissions of CO, NOx,
PM10, and PM2.5, respectively, and demonstrate that all emissions of pollutants would not
exceed the SCAQMD thresholds of significance for construction and operation of the

28

According to the SCAQMD’s Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans
and Local Planning (May 6, 2005), sensitive receptors (individuals) are those segments of a population
such as children, athletes, elderly, and sick that are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than
the population at large. Land uses where sensitive receptors are most likely to spend time include
schools and schoolyards, parks and playgrounds, day care centers, nursing homes, hospitals, and
residential communities (Pp. G-6).

39

project. Therefore, both short-term (i.e., construction) and long-term (i.e., operational)
LST air quality impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation is not required.
d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting
a substantial number of people?
Less than Significant Impact
Discussion of Effects: Project construction would generate limited odors over the short
term, mainly from fumes emanating from gasoline- and diesel-powered construction
equipment and temporary asphalt laying and paving activities. These odors would be
temporary and are expected to be isolated to the immediate vicinity of the construction
site.
SCAQMD Rule 402 regarding nuisances states: “A person shall not discharge from any
source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause
injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to
the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons
or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to
business or property.” Pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 403, fugitive dust must be controlled
so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the
property line of the emission source. Additionally, Title 13, Section 2449(d)(D) of the
California Code of Regulations requires operators of off-road vehicles (i.e., self-propelled
diesel-fueled vehicles 25 horsepower and up that were not designed to be driven on road)
to limit vehicle idling to five minutes or less.
SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403, and Title 13, Section 2449(d)(D) of the California Code of
Regulations require the project proponent to implement standard control measures to limit
fugitive dust and construction equipment emissions. These temporary emissions are
expected to be isolated to the immediate vicinity of the construction site.
The painting of buildings or the installation of asphalt surfaces may also create odors.
SCAQMD Rule 1113 outlines standards for paint applications, while Rule 1108 identifies
standards regarding the application of asphalt. Adherence to the standards identified in
these SCAQMD rules is required for all construction projects in the City to minimize
emissions and objectionable odors.
Land uses generally associated with long-term objectionable odors include agricultural
uses, wastewater treatment plants, food-processing plants, chemical plants, composting
operations, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding facilities. The project is a
proposed residential development that does not include uses that would generate longterm objectionable odors. Because the project would not involve substantial short-term or
long-term emissions or sources of odors, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation is not required.

40

Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Unless
Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact
Incorporated
Impact

No
Impact

IV. Biological Resources
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on
any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
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?

a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
41

status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Discussion of Effects: The residences at 2692 Park Avenue and 2712 Park Avenue were
developed prior to 1948, and the remaining residences were developed by 1964.29
Collector streets and residential structures border the South and North Gateway Sites on
all sides. The sites are dominated by non-native and ornamental vegetation and do not
harbor or provide potential to contain sensitive plant species. According to the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation
(IPaC) system, no critical habitats occur on the project site.30 Due to the previous and
existing residential development, there is no natural open space on site or in the
surrounding area.
Raptors and species of small songbirds have potential to occur on the project sites or be
present in the surrounding area due to their migratory nature. Even with the urbanization
of the region and the project sites, bird species listed in the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB)31 and the IPaC
system for this area that are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) could
be present, and mitigation is required to ensure there would be no significant impacts to
these species. Mitigation for raptors and other migratory nesting birds is provided through
implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1:
Mitigation Measure
MM BIO-1

Vegetation removal shall be conducted outside of the nesting season
(February 1, or January 1 for raptors, through September 15). If avoidance
of the nesting season is not feasible, then a qualified biologist hired by the
project Applicant and approved by the City of La Verne’s Community
Development Director or designee shall conduct a nesting bird survey within
three days prior to any disturbance of the site, including demolition activities,
tree removal, and/or grading.
If a special-status species is located during the survey, consultation with the
local California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) representative
shall occur to determine what avoidance actions are required. The qualified
biologist shall instruct construction personnel on the sensitivity of the area.
If an active avian nest is identified, the biologist shall be present to delineate
the boundaries of a 100-foot exclusionary buffer area and monitor the active
nest to ensure that nesting behavior is not adversely affected by
construction activities. Construction activities must occur outside of the
exclusionary buffer around the active nest. For listed and raptor species,

29

30

31

Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC. Historic Aerials by NETR Online. Orthophotography
dated 1948 and 1964. Website: https://historicaerials.com/viewer. Accessed September 23, 2024.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC).
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/65JKSNVQKFDZJNQVJPIBVKYABM/resources.
(Accessed
December 26, 2024).
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). San Dimas,
Glendora, Ontario, Yorba Linda, Baldwin Park United States Geological Survey 7.5’ Quadrangles.
Report Printed on December 26, 2024.

42

this buffer may be expanded to up to 500 feet from the active nest at the
discretion of the qualified biologist in consultation with the City Community
Development Director or designee and CDFW.
The biologist shall have the authority to temporarily halt construction if it
occurs within an established avian buffer or if new nesting activity occurs
and a new buffer is required. Encroachment into buffers around active nests
shall be conducted only at the discretion of the biologist. Once the young
have fledged and left the nest, or the nest otherwise becomes inactive under
natural conditions, construction activities within the buffer area may occur
or resume. Upon completion of construction monitoring, the biologist shall
prepare a report of findings documenting the results of the recommended
protective measures described above to document compliance with
applicable State and federal laws pertaining to the protection of nesting
birds. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City
Community Development Director or designee.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would reduce impacts to candidate,
sensitive, or special-status species with the potential to occur on-site to less than
significant with mitigation incorporated.
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations
or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
No Impact
Discussion of Effects: The project sites are developed with residential uses and are
dominated by non-native and ornamental landscape material. The project sites do not
contain any riparian habitat, sensitive natural community, critical habitat, or land under
the jurisdiction of State or federal resource agencies (i.e., USFWS, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers [USACE], or the CDFW). Therefore, there would be no impact to riparian or
other sensitive habitat. Mitigation is not required.
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
Discussion of Effects: All wetland areas, wetland buffer areas, and non-wetland waters of
the U.S. are considered sensitive. Jurisdictional waters of the U.S. and State of California,
including wetlands, are regulated by the USACE and Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB) pursuant to Sections 404 and 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act,
respectively. Jurisdictional waters that also qualify as streams, lakes, or riparian habitat
are regulated by the CDFW pursuant to Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game
Code. Isolated waters, including wetlands that do not have a “significant nexus” to a
traditional navigable water are typically not subject to USACE jurisdiction; however, they
are still regulated by the RWQCB (under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act)
43

and also regulated by the CDFW for those features that qualify as streams, lakes or
riparian habitat.
The project sites and adjacent areas are developed with residential uses, roadways, and
utility infrastructure. The project sites do not contain any natural drainages, riparian
resources, or wetlands that would be subject to the jurisdiction of these Federal or State
agencies. Therefore, there would be no impact to any wetland or related areas. Mitigation
is not 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?
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Discussion of Effects: As stated previously, the project sites are developed with
residential uses and are dominated by habitats that have been altered by the
development of structures, hardscape, and ornamental vegetation. Additionally, the
project sites are surrounded by other residential uses and roadways. Development of the
proposed project would result in the demolition of four existing residential dwelling units
and associated improvements, as well as removal of existing vegetation, including 24 of
the 31 trees located on the project sites. These trees could support nesting activities and
provide periodic roosting or perching opportunities for migratory birds, including raptors.
Protection for raptors and other migratory nesting birds is provided through
implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1.
In addition to supporting nesting activities and periodic roosting or perching opportunities
for migratory birds, the uninhabited structures on the project sites may contain potentially
suitable bat roosting habitat. Day roosts serve to protect bats from predators and the
elements during the day while resting and/or rearing their young. In human-made
structures, these roosts are usually in small cavities or crevices.
Bat species that commonly use anthropogenic structures for roosting include the Mexican
free-tailed bat (Tadarida brasiliensis mexicana), big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus), pallid
bat (Antrozous pallidus), and Yuma myotis (Myotis yumanensis). Bat species that are
known to commonly utilize crevices and cavities in trees include pallid bat, big brown bat,
California myotis, Yuma myotis, long-legged myotis (Myotis volans), western long-eared
myotis (Myotis evotis), and fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes). With the exception of
Mexican free-tailed bat, big brown bat, and California myotis, all of these bat species are
designated as a “Species of Special Concern” or “Special Animal” by the CDFW.
Various regulations afford protections to bats, which are classified as indigenous
nongame mammal species, regardless of their status under the California or Federal
Endangered Species Acts. These regulations include Title 14, Section 251.1 of the
California Code of Regulations, which prohibits harassment (defined in that section as an
intentional act that disrupts an animal’s normal behavior patterns, including breeding,
feeding, or sheltering) of nongame mammals (e.g., bats), and California Fish and Game
Code Section 4150, which prohibits “take” or possession of all nongame mammals or

44

parts thereof.32 Any activities resulting in bat mortality (e.g., the destruction of an occupied
bat roost that results in the death of bats), disturbance that causes the loss of a maternity
colony of bats (resulting in the death of young), or various modes of nonlethal pursuit or
capture may be considered “take” as defined in Section 86 of the California Fish and
Game Code. In addition, impacts to bat maternity colonies, which are considered native
wildlife nursery sites, would be potentially significant under the CEQA.
A habitat assessment was performed on June 17, 2025, during the daytime portion of the
survey.33 All trees and structures in the study area were inspected for roosting potential.
The roosting suitability of each tree and structure was classified based on the following
characteristics:


Structure/Tree Type 1 – Most Suitable. Trees: the presence of loose bark and
abundant cavities within the trunk and limbs. Tree is most likely a hollow snag but
can also be alive but with significant amount of decay. Tree is typically large in
diameter with good sun exposure (i.e., exposed on the southeastern aspect, or
taller than the surrounding canopy). Colonial roosting would be possible in a tree
with such features. Structures: Several potential crevices that provide entrances
to the attic, chimney or home. Lack of potential entrances to potential predators
such as rats. Colonial roosting would be possible.



Structure/Tree Type 2 – Moderately Suitable. Trees: tree with loose bark and large
cavities within the trunk and limbs. Tree is typically still alive. Trunk is typically not
hollow. Tree is typically large in diameter. Available features may be present but
are less likely to support colonial roosting. Solitary roosting in a tree with such
features could be possible. Tree has potential for use by foliage-roosting bats.
Structure: There are potential crevices and entrances to the attic. Lack of
entrances for potential predators such as rats. Less likely to support colonial
roosting due to lower number or crevices.



Structure/Tree Type 3 – Least Suitable. Trees: Minor amounts of loose bark and
small trunk and limb cavities are present. Tree is typically smaller in diameter.
Available features are unlikely to support cavity or colonial roosting. Solitary
roosting (particularly by foliage-roosting species) in a tree with such features would
still be possible. Structure: No crevices or entrances to the structure’s attic,
chimney or home or predators such as rats are present within the home.

CDFW approved bat biologists visually examined the external physical features of trees
and structures located within the study area for evidence of bat use. This included any
potential crevices or entrances to the structure’s roof, attics, chimneys and garage;
presence of guano, culled insect parts, urine staining, odors associated with bats.
Biologists used binoculars to assist with the visual assessment. Biologists also listened
for chatter indicative of roosting bats at each tree and structure. During the habitat
assessment, trees and structures within the study area were examined for the presence

32

33

Take is defined in Section 86 of the Fish and Game Code as “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or
attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill.”
Novaterra Biological Consultants. Preconstruction Bat Survey Report. Pages 7 and 8. July 6, 2025.

45

of roosts and classified for their potential as roosting habitat. The survey was conducted
within the maternity roosting period (June-August) to identify maternity roosts, if present.
All structures and trees throughout the entire study area were evaluated for bat roosting
potential.34 All seven of the structures within the North and South Gateway Sites ranked
as Type 3 – Least Suitable. All of the buildings in this area had been previously treated
by a pest management company due to a rat infestation. All gaps around doors, windows,
and seams were sealed with foam. Vents and chimneys all had exclusionary metal
netting. One maple tree in the study area received a ranking of Type 2 – Moderately
suitable within the study area, the rest identified were not suitable. The maple measured
42 inches diameter at breast height and had a large cavity on top of a dead branch on
the southeast-facing side of the tree.
Evidence of bat presence such as guano, culled insect parts, urine staining or odors were
not detected on or in the vicinity of any of the structures or trees inspected for roost
suitability.
Approximately 30 minutes before sunset, two handheld acoustic bat monitoring systems
(Anabat™ Express passive bat detectors) were set up with a tripod within the study area.
One was set up at the North Gateway Site and the second one was set up at South
Gateway Site (refer to Appendix B1). Three biologists conducted emergence surveys.
Two were located at the South Gateway Site, one monitored the main house and maple
tree while the other biologist monitored the four remaining residences. The third biologist
monitored the two homes at the North Gateway Site. The visual surveys were conducted
from 30 minutes before sunset to approximately 120 minutes after sunset. Visual surveys
were assisted by the use of night-vision goggles and thermal imaging. During the surveys,
each observer was positioned so that they could observe and count bats as the bats
exited the potential structures and roost tree assigned. Any bats observed emerging from
the vicinity of the survey area would be tallied immediately.35
No bats were observed emerging from any of the seven structures or the maple tree
identified as a potential roost sites during emergence surveys. Analysis of the
echolocation recordings found no species were confirmed to be present during the
nighttime surveys.36
The study area was not occupied by bats during the survey period, and bats were not
observed making out-flights from the vicinity of the structures and trees within the study
area. This was likely due to the urban setting. The project sites are in a residential
neighborhood with bright lights, moderate insect presence in between two major
highways and far from less developed areas such as city parks or golf courses. The
structures, while older, did not have any potential crevices or access to the inside of the
house due to the exclusionary foam and netting previously placed. Additionally, a great
horned owl (Bubo virginianus) was heard and striped skunks (Mephitis mephitis) were
seen during the survey which may pose a perceived predation risk to foraging bats.

34
35
36

Ibid. Page 11.
Ibid. Page 8.
Ibid. Page 11.

46

No bat species were identified during the surveys and are considered absent from the
project sites.37
Due to their previously developed nature and the absence of natural or open spaces
adjacent to the project sites, there is no potential for connectivity between blocks of
natural habitat; therefore, little or no local wildlife movement is expected to occur to or
through the project sites. However, nesting or foraging birds may utilize the project sites.
Through implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, impacts to movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors or nursery sites would be reduced to less than significant
with mitigation incorporated.
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No Impact.
Discussion of Effects: As described above, the project site does not contain wildlife
corridors, riparian habitat, or sensitive natural communities. Therefore, the proposed
project would not conflict with policies and/or implementation measures identified in the
City’s General Plan Resource Management Element for the purposes of protecting
biological resources including wildlife corridors and native plant communities and
habitats.
The City has adopted Ordinance No. 999 Preservation, Protection, and Removal of Trees
(Municipal Code Chapter 18.78), which establishes regulations regarding tree
preservation, protection and the removal of trees. The purpose of this ordinance is to
“protect certain trees in order to preserve cultural heritage, maintain and enhance the
scenic beauty of the city, improve air quality, abate soil and slope erosion, preserve and
enhance property values, and thereby promote public health, safety and welfare.” The
tree ordinance applies to “Significant”38 trees and “Heritage”39 trees.
A tree inventory40 (see Appendix B2) of the project sites was conducted in December
2024. Inventory included an evaluation of all ornamental, fruit, nut, and native trees with

37
38

39

40

Ibid. Page 15.
“Significant tree” means any tree that is identified or protected in a specific plan or is protected as a
condition of approval of a precise plan, subdivision map, conditional use permit or variance and; any
tree located on a parcel of private or public property that has a caliper of eight inches or more and is of
the following species: Cedrus deodara—Deodar Cedar; Cinnamomum camphor—Camphor Tree; All
Quercus species of Oak—Oak Trees; Platanus racemosa—California Sycamore; and Juglans
californica—Southern California Black Walnut.
“Heritage tree” means any tree or group of trees identified as such by city council resolution upon the
city council finding that the tree or group of trees (1) is of historical value because of its association with
a place, building, natural feature, or event of local, regional, or national historic significance, (2) is
identified on any historic or cultural resources survey as a significant feature of a landmark, historic site
or historic district, (3) is representative of a significant period of the city's growth or development, (4) is
designated for protection or conservation in a specific plan, conditional use permit, precise plan of
design or similar development approval, or (5) is of significant size, age or rareness to warrant
protection.
LSA. Arborist Report for the Hillcrest Gateway Project in La Verne, Los Angeles County, California
(LSA Project No. 20241974), December 11, 2024.

47

a single-stem trunk caliper of at least 4 inches at 4 feet above ground level. The tree
inventory and evaluation mapped 31 trees, representing 19 species, as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Silver maple (Acer saccharinum)
Bougainvillea (Bougainvillea sp.)
Orange (Citrus sinensis)
Carrotwood (Cupaniopsis anacardioides)
Weeping fig (Ficus benjamina) (2)
Ash (Fraxinus sp.) (4)
Maidenhair tree (Ginkgo biloba)
Cypress (Hesperocyparis sp.)
English holly (Ilex aquifolium)
Crape myrtle (Lagerstroemia indica) (2)
Glossy privet (Ligustrum lucidum) (7)
Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) (2)
Saucer magnolia (Magnolia soulangiana)
White mulberry (Morus alba)
Olive (Olea europaea)
Canary Island pine (Pinus canariensis)
Aleppo pine (Pinus halepensis)
London planetree (Platanus × hispanica)
Queen palm (Syagrus romanzoffiana)

None of the inventoried trees are native to the area, and none qualify as Significant Trees
or Heritage Trees under the City’s tree ordinance. Seven of the 31 trees on the project
sites would be retained and incorporated into the landscape plan of the proposed
development. Although development of the project sites would require the removal of 24
existing trees on-site, because these trees have not been identified as significant or
heritage trees, no conflict with Municipal Code Chapter 18.78 would occur and no tree
removal permit is required. In the absence of any conflict, no impact would occur;
therefore, no mitigation is 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
Discussion of Effects: The project site is not within any adopted habitat conservation
plans, natural community conservation plans, or any other regional planning areas
identified by the USFWS, CDFW, or the City.41,42 Therefore, implementation of the
proposed Master Plan Update would not conflict with the provisions of any adopted local

41

42

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC).
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/65JKSNVQKFDZJNQVJPIBVKYABM/resources. (Accessed
December 26, 2024).
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Biographic Information and Observation System (BIOS).
https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/bios/. (Accessed December 26, 2024).

48

or regional conservation plans. No impact to adopted habitat conservation plans would
occur. No mitigation is required.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Unless
Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact
Incorporated
Impact

No
Impact

V. Cultural Resources
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of a historical
resource pursuant to §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to
§15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of dedicated
cemeteries?

Cultural resources are broadly defined as any physical manifestations of human activity
that are at least 50 years of age and may include archaeological resources as well as
historic-era buildings and structures. Archaeological resources include both precontact
remains and remains dating to the historical period. Precontact (or Native American)
archaeological resources are physical manifestations of human activities that predate
written records and may include village sites, temporary camps, lithic (stone tool) scatters,
rock art, roasting pits/hearths, milling features, rock features, and burials. Historic
archaeological resources can include refuse heaps, bottle dumps, ceramic scatters,
privies, foundations, and burials and are generally associated in California with the
Spanish Mission Period (1769 through 1833) through the mid-late 20th century (1970).
Archaeological resources that are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic
Places (National Register), California Register of Historical Resources (California
Register), or a local register are considered historical resources pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 defines the term
“historical resource” as:
1. A resource listed in or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources
Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res.
Code Section 5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4850 et seq.).
2. A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Section
5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or identified as significant in an historical
resource survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the Public
Resources Code, shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public
agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of
evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant.
49

3. Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead
agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural,
engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or
cultural annals of California may be considered to be a historical resource, provided
the lead agency’s 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 Resources (Pub. Res. Code, Section 5024.1, Title 14 CCR,
Section 4852) including the following:
a. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage (Criterion 1).
b. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past (Criterion 2).
c. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of
construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or
possesses high artistic values (Criterion 3).
d. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history
(Criterion 4).
A “substantial adverse change” to a historical resource, according to Public Resources
Code (PRC) Section 5020.1(q), “means demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration
such that the significance of a historical resource would be impaired.”
The information and analysis in this section is based in part on Historical Significance
Evaluations for the Hillcrest Gateway Project, La Verne, Los Angeles County, California
(LSA Project No. 20241974), LSA Associates, Inc., December 10, 2024, which is provided
in Appendix C.
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Discussion of Effects: The South and North Gateway Sites contain seven existing singlefamily residential structures, of which four would be demolished and three would be
renovated. The seven structures that currently exist on the South and North Gateway
Sites are 50 years of age or older. Due to the age of the buildings, each was evaluated
for significance and eligibility for the California Register pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.5. A historical significance evaluation of the residences, comprising
archival research and a field survey, was conducted in November 2024 (Appendix C).
The archival research was conducted to determine the dates of original construction and
later alterations and to identify historically important events and people that may be
associated with each property, as well as any distinctive characteristics of a type, period,
region, or method of construction. Research methods focused on the review of a variety
of primary and secondary source materials relating to the history and development of the
project area. Sources included, but were not limited to, online sources, published
literature in local and regional history, news articles, historic aerial photographs, and
50

historic maps. As a result of this research, histories of La Verne and the seven structures
were developed.
An intensive-level field survey of each property was conducted in November 2024 by
architectural historian, Casey Tibbet, M.A., and field photographer Dennis Lechner.
During the survey, Mr. Lechner took numerous photographs of the exteriors of the
buildings proposed for demolition. Ms. Tibbet made detailed notations regarding the
structural and architectural characteristics and current conditions of the buildings and
associated features. She then conducted a brief reconnaissance survey of the vicinity. In
compliance with CEQA, each property was evaluated for historical significance using the
California Register criteria. The evaluations were documented on Department of Parks
and Recreation (DPR) 523A (Primary Record), 523B (Building, Structure, and Object
Record), 523L (Continuation Sheet), and 523J (Location Map) forms (refer to the DPR
forms included in Appendix C for details).
The results of the historic significance evaluation are provided below:
North Gateway Site
The North Gateway Site contains two single-family residential properties (2712 Park
Avenue and 2730 Park Avenue) and is situated on the east side of Park Avenue. The
properties are separated by a landscaped paseo. The structures located on the North
Gateway Site include:
2712 Park Avenue. Built in 1950, this one-story, Minimal Ranch residence is situated on
the east side of Park Avenue in a residential neighborhood with a mix of modern and
historic-period (50 years of age or older) homes. The residence is L-shaped in plan and
rests on a raised foundation. It has a moderately pitched, hipped roof sheathed with
composition shingles that has narrow eaves. The exterior walls are covered with stucco
and all fenestration is modern. The west-facing, asymmetrical façade has a raised, partialwidth porch sheltered beneath the eave that is supported by wood posts spanned by a
wood balustrade. Along the porch are a pair of vinyl-framed windows flanked by shutters
and a north-facing modern door. The remainder of the façade has a pair of vinyl-framed
windows flanked by shutters, a bay window, and a single vinyl-framed window. The
balustrades flanking the concrete steps to the front porch appear to be a later addition.
The south (side) elevation has three vinyl-framed windows. There is a detached garage
with a modern door located southeast of the house. The property appears to be in good
condition, but the architectural integrity has been compromised by the modern windows,
front door, and balustrade.
This property is eligible for listing in the California Register under Criteria 1 and 2 as
follows:
Criterion 1: It is associated with the events that have made a significant contribution to
the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the
United States.
This residence is associated with the post-World War 2 residential boom that made a
significant contribution to the broad patterns of local, regional, and even national history.
51

These homes were typically modest in size and style and constructed in a short time as
part of large tracts marketed to the working class. Tract housing developments
characterize postwar housing trends; therefore, a single home typically would not be
individually significant in this context. As with most homes associated with this historic
context, individually this residence is unimportant and insignificant.
The residence and garage are also associated with the theme of postwar recreation and
the sub-theme of drag racing. This residence is the location where the Chrondek
electronic timer was invented and first manufactured by engineer, Ollie V. Riley. The first
timer was developed at his kitchen table after work hours and on weekends, and the first
timers for sale were manufactured in his garage. The Chrondek timer provided a reliable,
accurate, consistent, and exact way to time drag racers; it legitimized the sport of drag
racing and was a major factor in its early success. Therefore, the residence and garage
are significant under this criterion.
Criterion 2: It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or
national history.
This residence is associated with Ollie V. Riley, an engineer who invented the timing
mechanisms for drag racing in 1953. Known as the Chrondek, the electronic timer
provided a reliable and accurate way to time races and gave legitimacy to the fledgling
sport. The first orders for the Chrondek were manufactured in Ollie V. Riley’s garage at
2712 Park Avenue. The manufacturing process was later moved out of his garage to a
location at 2nd Street and D Street in La Verne where the Chrondek Company was
established. However, the building that housed the Chrondek Company does not appear
to be extant. Without these timers, the sport may never have achieved the stature it has
now. The residence is significant under this criterion.
The residence is not significant under either Criterion 3 or 4.
The residence at 2712 Park Avenue is eligible for listing in the California Register under
Criteria 1 and 2 as the location where Oliver (Ollie) V. Riley invented the original Chrondek
electronic timers used in the sport of drag racing. The period of significance is 1953 to
1954. This encompasses the timeframe when Ollie invented and manufactured the
Chrondek timers in his home. Based on this evaluation, this property is a “historical
resource” for purposes of CEQA.
As previously stated, according to Section 5020.1(q) of the Public Resources Code, a
substantial adverse change” to a historical resource, “…means demolition, destruction,
relocation, or alteration such that the significance of a historical resource would be
impaired.” The CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(2)(A-C) state significance of an
historical resource is materially impaired when a project:
(A) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics
of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its
inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register of Historical
Resources; or

52

(B) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics
that account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to
section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or its identification in an historical
resources survey meeting the requirements of section 5024.1(g) of the Public
Resources Code, unless the public agency reviewing the effects of the project
establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the resource is not historically or
culturally significant; or
(C) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics
of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its
eligibility for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources as
determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA.
As such, the demolition of this structure would result in a significant impact under CEQA,
and mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 have been identified
to address this impact.
Mitigation Measures
MM CUL-1

Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for the structures located at 2712
Park Avenue, the project Applicant shall submit to the City for review and
approval, information related to the provision of a commemorative plaque
to be constructed at this address for this property. This information shall
describe the type, style, location, and content of the plaque. The plaque
shall be mounted permanently near the sidewalk or other location on the
property where it is easy for the public to see and read and shall include a
depiction of the residence and a summary about Ollie Riley inventing and
manufacturing the Chrondek timer in the kitchen and garage of the property
in 1953-1954. The plaque shall also indicate that additional information can
be found at the City Clerk’s office.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project Applicant shall submit
evidence to the City that the commemorative plaque, as reviewed and
approved by the City, has been incorporated into the project design.
This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City of La
Verne Community Development Director, or designee.

MM CUL-2

Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for the structures located at 2712
Park Avenue, the project Applicant shall submit evidence to the City that the
California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms 523A (Primary
Record), 523B (Building, Structure, and Object Record), 523L (Continuation
Sheet), and 523J (Location Map) for 2712 Park Avenue have been offered
and/or provided to the La Verne Public Library (local history collection). In
addition, this documentation shall be offered to the La Verne Historical
Society, Pomona Public Library, Pomona Historical Society, the National
Hot Rod Association (NHRA) Motorsports Museum, and/or similar groups
and institutions identified by the City.

53

This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City of La
Verne Community Development Director, or designee.
None of the physical characteristics of the residence, in combination, would cause a
historical contemporary to associate it with significant events or persons due to its
vernacular ranch style architecture in a tract of similar homes. Therefore, Mitigation
Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 are prescribed to display the physical characteristics that
convey the residence’s historical significance, account for its inclusion in a local register,
and account for its identification in an historical resources survey pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(2)(A-C).
Upon implementation of the actions detailed in Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2,
potential impacts related to the demolition of the structures located at 2712 Park Avenue
are reduced to less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
2730 Park Avenue. Built in 1952, this one-story Minimal Ranch residence is situated on
the east side of Park Avenue in a residential neighborhood that includes modern and
historic-period (50 years of age or older) single- and multi-family homes. The woodframed residence is irregular in plan and rests on a raised foundation. It has a moderately
pitched, cross-hipped roof sheathed with composition shingles that has a brick chimney
and narrow eaves. An attached garage is located on the west face of the residence. The
backyard has large, freestanding bird cages and a brick fireplace, grill, countertops, and
a shed all sheltered beneath a freestanding canopy. The property includes mature trees
and appears to be in at least fair condition. Integrity has been compromised by nonoriginal fenestration.
Using the California Register criteria, this residence appears ineligible for listing
individually in the California Register at any level of significance under Criteria 1 through
4, and it appears ineligible for designation as a contributor to a local historic district.
Therefore, it is not a “historical resource” for purposes of CEQA. No impact associated
with the demolition of this structure would occur, and no mitigation is warranted.
South Gateway Site
The South Gateway Site is situated on the east side of Park Avenue and extends to the
west side of A Street. It includes five residences, one oriented toward Park Avenue and
four oriented toward A Street, and a garage oriented toward A Street. The A Street
residences and freestanding garage are generally arranged in a semi-circle around a
central driveway. The garage is at the west end. The structures located on this parcel
include:
2692 Park Avenue. This residence was built in 1946 and is a one-story, Ranch style
residence, irregular in plan, resting on a raised foundation. It is surmounted by a
moderately-pitched, side-gable, hip, and gable-on-hip roof sheathed with composition
shingles and has narrow eaves and a brick chimney. The back yard includes an empty
swimming pool and a freestanding, covered patio. The residence is in poor condition, and
the integrity has been compromised by alterations.
2675 A Street. This one-story, Minimal Traditional style residence is irregular in plan and
rests on a concrete slab foundation. It has a low-pitched, side-gable roof sheathed with
54

composition sheets and has moderate eaves. The residence was built in the mid-1960s,
is in fair condition, and has minor alterations (modern doors and windows).
2677 A Street. This one-story, Minimal Traditional style residence is roughly rectangular
in plan and rests on a concrete slab foundation. The side-gable roof is low-pitched,
sheathed with composition sheets, and has moderate eaves. The residence was built in
the mid-1960s, is in fair condition, and has sustained alterations (windows and doors).
2681 A Street. This one-story, Minimal Traditional style residence is roughly L-shaped in
plan and rests on a concrete slab foundation. It has a low-pitched, side-gable and flat roof
with moderate eaves and is sheathed with composition sheets. The exterior walls are
covered with stucco. The south-facing façade has a recessed, attached carport, attached
to the carport for the 2683 A Street residence. The residence was built in the mid-1960s,
is in fair condition, and has sustained alterations (door and window).
2683 A Street. This one-story, Minimal Traditional style residence is irregular in plan and
rests on a concrete slab foundation. It has a low-pitched, side-gable roof with moderate
eaves and is sheathed with composition sheets. The exterior walls are covered with
stucco and one small section of brick skirting (east elevation). The asymmetrical, southfacing façade had two metal-framed, sliding windows, a wood and glass door, and a
carport. The residence was built in the mid-1960s, is in fair condition, and has sustained
alterations (window and narrow shade structure). The detached, two-car garage is located
southwest of the 2683 A Street residence. It has a low-pitched, front-gable roof, stucco
walls, and what appears to be the original, wooden door. It is in poor condition but retains
integrity.
Using the California Register criteria, these five residences appear ineligible for listing in
the California Register under Criteria 1 through 4, and they appear ineligible for
designation as a contributor to a local historic district. Therefore, these structures are not
historical resources for purposes of CEQA. No impact associated with the demolition of
these five properties would occur. Mitigation is not required.
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Discussion of Effects: Analysis of potential impacts to archaeological resources included
a records search conducted at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC).
The records search, conducted on October 3, 2024, included a review of all recorded
cultural resources (historic and prehistoric resources 50 years of age or older) and known
cultural resources survey and excavation reports within one mile of the project sites. In
addition, the California State Historic Property Data File was reviewed, which includes a
search of the National Register of Historic Places (National Register), California Register,
California Historical Landmarks, California Points of Historical Interest, various local
historic registers, and historic maps.
The records search indicates 26 historic and/or prehistoric era resources located within a
one-mile radius of the project sites. None of these resources are located on or adjacent
to the project sites. Previous development on and adjacent to the project sites, including
55

residential structures, roadways, and utility infrastructure, as well as past and current
occupation of the project sites have extensively disturbed on-site soils, rendering the sites
unlikely to yield subsurface cultural resources during construction of the proposed project.
Nevertheless, the city engaged the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for a
Sacred Lands File Search and contact list of Tribes pursuant to California Government
Code 65352.3 (SB 18) on September 20, 2024. The NAHC responded on October 9,
2024, and indicated the results of the Sacred Lands File Search are positive and
recommended the City contact the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation in
addition to the Tribes listed in the NAHC Tribal Consultation List for the region. The City
sent letters to listed Native American Tribes for consultation under AB52 and SB 18 on
October 24, 2024.
Three Native American Tribes, the Ft. Yuma Quechan Indian Tribe, Gabrielino Tongva
Indians of California, and Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation (formerly the San Manuel
Band of Mission Indians) provided input on the project,43 of which the Yuhaaviatam of
San Manuel Nation (formerly the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians) requested the
following mitigation measures be made a part of the project/permit/plan conditions to
reduce impacts to Cultural Resources:
Mitigation Measures
MM CUL-3

In the event that cultural resources are discovered during project activities,
all work in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 60-foot buffer) shall
cease and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards
shall be hired to assess the find. Work on the other portions of the project
outside of the buffered area may continue during this assessment
period. Additionally, the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation Cultural
Resources Department (YSMN) shall be contacted, as detailed within MM
TCR-1, regarding any pre-contact finds and be provided information after
the archaeologist makes his/her initial assessment of the nature of the find,
so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment. This
measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City of La Verne’s
Community Development Director or designee.

MM CUL-4

If significant pre-contact cultural resources, as defined by CEQA (as
amended, 2015), are discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, the
archaeologist shall develop a Monitoring and Treatment Plan, the drafts of
which shall be provided to YSMN for review and comment, as detailed
within MM TCR-1. The archaeologist shall monitor the remainder of the
project and implement the Plan accordingly. This measure shall be
implemented to the satisfaction of the City of La Verne’s Community
Development Director or designee.

With implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-3 and CUL-4 any unanticipated
encounters with cultural resources would be managed in accordance with regulatory
requirements. Therefore, cultural resources pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
43

For a detailed discussion of Native American Consultation for the project, refer to response to Checklist
Questions XVIII (a) and (b).

56

15064.5 would be protected during project construction, and impacts associated with a
substantial change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section
15064.5 would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated
cemeteries?
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Discussion of Effects: Considering the extensive ground disturbances that have occurred
on the project sites, the likelihood of encountering human remains is minimal. In the event
that human remains (or remains that may be human) are discovered at the project sites
during grading or earthmoving activities, no further disturbance shall occur within 100 feet
of the find until the project Applicant has notified the Los Angeles County Coroner and
the City of La Verne Community Development Director or designee immediately, and the
County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition.44 Section 7050.5 of
the California Health and Safety Code requires that excavation be stopped in the vicinity
of the discovered human remains until the coroner can determine whether the remains
are those of a Native American. If human remains are determined as those of Native
American origin, the developer is required to comply with the State relating to the
disposition of Native American burials that fall within the jurisdiction of the Native
American Heritage Commission (NAHC) (PRC Section 5097). The coroner shall contact
the NAHC to determine the most likely descendant(s) (MLDs). The MLD shall complete
his or her inspection and make recommendations or preferences for treatment within 48
hours of being granted access to the site. The disposition of the remains shall be overseen
by the MLD to determine the most appropriate means of treating the human remains and
any associated grave artifacts.
Specific locations of Native American burials and reburials shall be proprietary and not
disclosed to the general public. The County Coroner will notify the NAHC in accordance
with California Public Resources Code 5097.98. Additionally, Section 7052 of the
California Health and Safety Code states that disturbance of Native American cemeteries
is a felony. Although adherence to State regulations is required for all development, the
Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation (formerly the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians)
requested the following mitigation measure be made a part of the project/permit/plan
conditions to ensure impacts to human remains remain less than significant:
Mitigation Measure:
MM CUL-5

44

If human remains or funerary objects are encountered during any activities
associated with the project, work in the immediate vicinity (within a 100-foot
buffer of the find) shall cease and the County Coroner shall be contacted
pursuant to State Health and Safety Code §7050.5 and that code enforced
for the duration of the project. This measure shall be implemented to the
satisfaction of the City of La Verne’s Community Development Director or
designee.

Division 7, Dead Bodies; Chapter 2, General Provisions, § 7050.5, California Health and Safety Code.

57

With implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-5, human remains would be protected
during project construction and impacts would remain less than significant with
mitigation incorporated.

Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Unless
Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact
Incorporated
Impact

No
Impact

VI. Energy
Would the project:
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?

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
Discussion of Effects: The project’s consumption of energy during construction and
operation was calculated via CalEEMod, as detailed in Appendix A.45
Construction. Construction would require energy for the manufacture and transportation
of building materials, preparation of the site for demolition and grading activities, utility
installation, paving, and building construction and architectural coating. Petroleum fuels
(e.g., diesel and gasoline) would be the primary sources of energy for these activities.
However, energy usage on the project site during construction would be temporary.
The CalEEMod output for energy consumption incorporates project compliance with
SCAQMD Rule 431.2, Title 13-Section 2449 of the CCR, and California Department of
Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) Sustainable (Green) Building Program
regulations, which include implementation of standard control measures for equipment
emissions and materials recycling. Adherence to these regulations, including the

45

As originally submitted, the application included the demolition of three additional units at 2675, 2681
and 2683 A Street and the construction of a total of nine new units. The air quality, noise, and
transportation analyses evaluate 8,106 square feet of demolition and 13,778 square feet of construction
and assume a net increase of 5,672 square feet of residential uses. Accordingly, the CalEEMod
modeling discloses potentially greater environmental effects than would occur under the proposed
project.

58

implementation of Best Available Control Measures, is a standard requirement for any
construction or ground disturbance activity occurring within the Basin.
Best Available Control Measures include, but are not limited to, requirements that Hillcrest
utilize only low-sulfur fuel having a sulfur content of 15 parts per million by weight or less;
ensure off-road vehicles (i.e., self-propelled diesel-fueled vehicles 25 horsepower and up
that were not designed to be driven on road) limit vehicle idling to five minutes or less;
register and label vehicles in accordance with the California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Diesel Off-Road Online Reporting System; restrict the inclusion of older vehicles into
fleets; and retire, replace, or repower older engines or install Verified Diesel Emission
Control Strategies (i.e., exhaust retrofits). Additionally, the construction contractor will
recycle/reuse at least 50 percent of the construction material (including, but not limited to,
proposed aggregate base, soil, mulch, vegetation, concrete, lumber, metal, and
cardboard) and use “Green Building Materials,” such as those materials that are rapidly
renewable or resource efficient, and recycled and manufactured in an environmentally
friendly way, for at least 10 percent of the project, in accordance with CalRecycle
regulations. Through compliance with SCAQMD Rule 431.2, Title 13-Section 2449 of the
CCR, and the CalRecycle Green Building Program as a matter of regulatory policy,
construction of the project would demand only the energy required, and impacts from
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy consumption would be less than significant.
Operation. During project operation, electricity would be the main form of energy
consumed on the site. Electricity would be used for building heating and cooling, lighting,
and water heating. Table F presents the energy use of the proposed project.
Table F: Estimated Annual Energy Use of Proposed Project
Electricity Use
(kWh/year)
33,015

Natural Gas
(kBTU/year)
309,430

Vehicles Gasoline
(gallons/year)
10,413

Vehicles Diesel
(gallons/year)
8,384

Source: Table 5.11.2, California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). Compiled by LSA. November 2024
(Appendix A).
kWh = Thousand watt-hours
kBTU = Thousand British thermal units

As identified in Table F, proposed uses on the site would demand a total of 33,015 kWh
of electricity and 309,430 kBTU of natural gas on an annual basis. In addition, the project
would result in energy usage associated with consumption of motor vehicle gasoline to
fuel project-related trips. As with the discussion above under air quality, the analysis here
overestimates the impacts as it is based on a trip generation for single-family homes
rather than a continuing care retirement community. Based on a projection of 85 daily
trips, instead of 22, the project is estimated to result in 311,200 annual vehicle miles
traveled (VMT). Using the 2022 fuel economy estimate of 24.4 miles per gallon (mpg) for
cars and 6.8 mpg for trucks,46 the proposed project would result in the consumption of
approximately 10,413 gallons of gasoline and 8,384 gallons of diesel fuel per year.

46

United States Department of Energy. Average Fuel Economy by Major Vehicle Category. Website:
afdc.energy.gov/data/10310#:~:text=This%20chart%20shows%20the%20average%20fuel%20econo
my,metric%20used%20is%20gasoline%20gallon%20equivalents%20(GGEs) (accessed November
2024).

59

The State of California provides a minimum standard for building design and construction
standards through Title 24 of the CCR, known as the California Building Code (CBC). The
CBC is updated every three years, and the current 2022 CBC went into effect in January
2023. Compliance with Title 24 is mandatory at the time new building permits are issued
by local governments. Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (CALGreen) are
implemented to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and energy consumption from
residential and nonresidential buildings. CALGreen code covers the following five
categories: (1) planning and design, (2) energy efficiency, (3) water efficiency and
conservation, (4) material conservation and resource efficiency, and (5) indoor
environmental quality. The City has adopted both the CBC and CALGreen Code
pertaining to energy conservation standards.
Electricity is provided in the State through a complex grid of power plants and
transmission lines. In 2023, California’s in-state electric generation totaled 215,623
gigawatt-hours (GWh); the State’s total system electric generation, which includes
imported electricity, totaled 281,140 GWh.47 Population growth is the primary source of
increased energy consumption in the State; due to population projections, annual
electricity use is anticipated to increase by approximately 1 percent per year through
2027.48 The project’s electricity usage would total less than 0.00005 percent49 of
electricity generated in the State in 2023, which would not represent a substantial demand
on available electricity resources.
The average fuel economy for light-duty vehicles (autos, pickups, vans, and SUVs) in the
United States has steadily increased from about 14.9 mpg in 1980 to 22.8 mpg in 2022.50
Federal fuel economy standards have changed substantially since the Energy
Independence and Security Act was passed in 2007, which originally mandated a national
fuel economy standard of 35 mpg by the year 2020, and would be applicable to cars and
light trucks of Model Years 2011 through 2020.51
As stated previously, implementation of the proposed project would increase the projectrelated annual vehicle fuel demand by approximately 10,413 gallons of gasoline and
8,384 gallons of diesel fuel. However, new automobiles purchased by residents driving to
and from the project site would be subject to fuel economy and efficiency standards
applied throughout the State. As such, the fuel efficiency of vehicles associated with the
project site would increase throughout the life of the project. In addition, the Hillcrest dining
hall is located approximately 700 feet east of the North Gateway and South Gateway Sites,
which facilitates senior living dining services to residents without having to leave the
Hillcrest campus. The Brethren Hillcrest community also provides an on-call pick-up
service that transports residents to the Brethren Hillcrest dining hall and other amenities
47

48

49
50

51

California Energy Commission. Total System Electric Generation. www.energy.ca.gov/datareports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/2023-total-system-electric-generation.
(Accessed
November 2024).
California Energy Commission. California Energy Demand 2018–2030 Revised Forecast. Table ES-1.
efiling.energy.ca.gov/getdocument.aspx?tn=223244. (Accessed November 2024).
0.033 GWh (proposed project) ÷ 215,623 GWh (generated in State in 2023) = 0.00002 percent.
United States Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Table 4-23. Average
Fuel Efficiency of U.S. Light Duty Vehicles. www.bts.gov/content/average-fuel-efficiency-us-light-dutyvehicles. (Accessed November 2024).
United States Department of Energy. Energy Independence & Security Act of 2007.
www.afdc.energy.gov/laws/eisa. (Accessed November 2024).

60

via electric motorized cart. Additionally, a private bus service is available that transports
residents to essential services such as banks, doctors’ offices, pharmacies, grocery/retail,
churches, the Metro Gold Line and Metrolink station respectively 1 mile and 1.75 miles to
the southeast, regional bus stations, etc. Finally, the proposed project is located
approximately 850 feet from Foothill Transit Bus Route 492 serving the cities of Montclair,
Irwindale, El Monte, and points in-between. Therefore, implementation of the proposed
project would not result in a substantial increase in transportation-related energy uses.
Construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in a potentially
significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption
of energy resources. Consumption of energy resources as a result of implementation of
the proposed project would be comparable to other senior living developments in the city.
Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
b. Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency?
Less than Significant Impact
Discussion of Effects: As indicated above, energy usage associated with construction and
operation of the proposed project would be relatively small in comparison to the State’s
available energy sources, and energy impacts would be less than significant at the
regional level. Because California’s energy conservation planning actions are conducted
at a regional level, and because the project’s total impacts to regional energy supplies
would be less than significant, the proposed project would not conflict with the CBC or
CALGreen Code pertaining to energy conservation standards.
The project would be required to comply with the CBC and CALGreen Code pursuant to
Title 11 (Zoning and Development) of the City Municipal Code pertaining to energy
conservation standards in effect at the time of construction. These regulations establish
minimum efficiency standards related to various building features, including appliances,
water and space heating and cooling equipment, building insulation and roofing, and
lighting to reduce energy usage. In addition, the proposed project would be constructed
using energy efficient modern building materials and construction practices, and the
proposed project also would use new modern appliances and equipment, in accordance
with the Appliance Efficiency Regulations (Title 20, CCR Sections 1601 through 1608).
Thus, as shown above, the proposed project would avoid or reduce the inefficient,
wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy and would not result in any irreversible
or irretrievable commitments of energy. Therefore, the proposed project would not result
in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during
project construction or operation. Impacts would be less than significant, and mitigation
is not required.

61

Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Unless
Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
VII. Geology and Soils
Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i)

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

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or
the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil
that is unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on- or
off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 1-B of the Uniform
Building Code, creating substantial
risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of
wastewater?
f)

Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature?

62

No
Impact

a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i

Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist
for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer
to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv Landslides?
No Impact or Less than Significant Impact
The following discussion is based on the Geotechnical Investigation52 (Appendix D)
prepared for the proposed project.
a(i) Discussion of Effects: The project sites are not located within the boundaries of an
Earthquake Fault Zone as defined by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
of 1972. There are no known active or potentially active faults traversing the project
sites, and the risk of ground rupture due to fault displacement beneath the sites is
low.53 In the absence of any on-site active faults, no impact related to fault rupture
would occur on the project sites, and mitigation is not required.
a(ii) Discussion of Effects: The project sites are situated in a seismically active area that
has historically been affected by generally moderate to occasionally severe levels of
ground motion.54 A fault is considered active if there is evidence of movement (either
directly, observable, or inferred) along one or more of its segments within the last
11,000 years. The closest active faults to the project sites are the Cucamonga Fault
and the Durante Fault within the Sierra Madre Fault Zone, located approximately 6
miles to the northeast and 6.4 miles to the northwest, respectively.55
Due to the presence of active faults in proximity to the project sites, the Hillcrest
community is expected to experience occasionally moderate to severe groundshaking, as well as some background shaking from other seismically active areas of
the Southern California region. The extent of ground-shaking associated with an
earthquake is dependent upon the size of the earthquake and the geologic material
of the underlying area. Development of the project sites is required to occur in
compliance with applicable provisions of the CBC. State law requires the design and
construction of new structures comply with current CBC requirements, which address
general geologic, seismic (including ground shaking), and soil constraints for new
buildings. Accordingly, design and construction of the proposed project would be
52

53

54

55

RMA Geoscience. Geotechnical Investigation, Gateway Project Park Avenue and A Street La Verne,
CA. Page 6. June 12, 2024.
California Geological Survey. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation, Azusa Quadrangle.
November 6, 2014.
Southern California Earthquake Data Center, California Institute of Technology. Historical Earthquakes
and
Significant
Faults
in
Southern
California.
October
16,
2012.
http://scedc.caltech.edu/significant/index.html. (Accessed October 25, 2024).
California Geological Survey. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation, Azusa Quadrangle.
November 6, 2014.

63

required to adhere to the most current CBC requirements to reduce any potential
impacts from seismic related activity.
Chapter 15.04 of the City Municipal Code incorporates, by reference, the design and
construction standards of the most current edition of the CBC. Prior to the issuance
of a grading permit, the project Applicant would be required to prepare and submit
detailed grading plans of the proposed project. The plans must be prepared in
conformance the current CBC and applicable City standards and the
recommendations in the project-specific Geotechnical Investigation.
Regulatory Compliance Measure GEO-1 is prescribed to ensure that the proposed
project is constructed in conformance with the current CBC, applicable City
standards, and recommendations identified in the project-specific Geotechnical
Investigation to ensure that project development would be safeguarded against the
effects of seismic related activity that may occur on-site. Therefore, impacts from
seismic ground-shaking would remain less than significant. Mitigation is not
required.
Regulatory Compliance Measures. Regulatory Compliance Measures are
regulatory requirements that the project must adhere to which, like mitigation
measures, can reduce the level of impacts. Regulatory Compliance Measures outline
compliance with various federal, State, and/or local acts, laws, rules, regulations,
municipal codes, and policies.
Regulatory Compliance Measure GEO-1: Prior to issuance of grading and/or
building permits, the project Applicant shall provide
evidence to the City for review and approval that
proposed structures, features, and facilities have
been designed and will be constructed in
conformance with applicable provisions of the 2022
edition of the California Building Code (CBC) or the
most current edition of the CBC in effect at the time
the project Applicant’s development application is
deemed complete by the City.
Additionally, the project Applicant shall provide
evidence to the City that the recommendations
cited in the project-specific Geotechnical
Investigation are incorporated into project plans
and/or implemented as deemed appropriate by the
City. Geotechnical recommendations include, but
are not limited to, removal of existing vegetation,
structural foundations, floor slabs, utilities, septic
systems, and any other surface and subsurface
improvements that would not remain in place for
use with the new development. Remedial
earthwork,
overexcavation,
and
ground
improvement shall occur to depths specified in the
Geotechnical Investigation to provide a sufficient
64

layer of engineered fill or densified soil beneath the
structural footings/foundations, as well as proper
surface drainage devices and erosion control.
Expansion index and plasticity index testing will be
required at the completion of rough grading to verify
the properties of the near-surface soils. Fill soils
shall consist of very low expansive soils.
Construction of concrete structures in contact with
subgrade soils determined to be corrosive shall
include measures to protect concrete, steel, and
other metals.
A California-licensed structural engineer must
conduct verification testing upon completion of
ground improvements to confirm that the
compressible soils have been sufficiently densified.
Additionally, the structural engineer must determine
the ultimate thickness and reinforcement of the
building floor slabs based on the imposed slab
loading and verify seismic design parameters in
accordance with American Society of Civil
Engineers (ASCE) 7-16 Section 11.4.8. This
measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of
the City Director of Building and Safety or designee.
a(iii) Discussion of Effects: Liquefaction describes the phenomenon where groundshaking works cohesionless soil particles into a tighter packing, which induces excess
pore pressure. Engineering research of soil liquefaction potential indicates that
generally three basic factors must exist concurrently in order for liquefaction to occur:


A source of ground shaking, such as an earthquake, capable of generating soil
mass distortions;



A relatively loose silty and/or sandy soil; and



A relative shallow groundwater table (within approximately 50 feet below ground
surface) or completely saturated soil conditions that will allow positive pore
pressure generation.

The project sites are not located in a mapped California Geologic Survey liquefaction
hazard zone.56 Additionally, the historic high groundwater level of the project site and
vicinity is greater than approximately 100 feet below grade.57 Accordingly, the
potential for liquefaction at the project site is minimal. Pursuant to Section 18.60.030
of the City of La Verne’s Municipal Code, the proposed project would be required to
56

57

California Geological Survey. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation, San Dimas Quadrangle.
March 25, 1999.
California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology. Seismic Hazard Zone Report
for the San Dimas 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California. Plate 1.2 – Historically
Highest Ground Water Contours and Borehole Los Data Locations, San Dimas Quadrangle. 1998;
Revised in 2001, June 2005, and January 2006.

65

prepare and submit a detailed grading plan prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Additionally, implementation of Regulatory Compliance Measure GEO-1
(compliance with the current edition of the CBC and recommendations in the projectspecific Geotechnical Investigation) would ensure the proposed project would be
protected from seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. Impacts would
be less than significant. Mitigation is not required.
a(iv) Discussion of Effects: The geologic and topographic characteristics of an area
often determine its potential for landslides. Steep slopes, the extent of erosion, and
the rock composition of a hillside all contribute to the potential for slope failure and
landslide events. In order to fail, unstable slopes typically need to be disturbed; the
common triggering mechanisms of slope failure include undercutting of slopes by
erosion or grading, saturation of marginally stable slopes by rainfall or irrigation, and
shaking of marginally stable slopes during earthquakes.
The project sites are relatively flat and would not naturally be subject to landslides.
In addition, the project sites are not located within an identified seismic-induced
landslide zone.58 Nevertheless, implementation of Regulatory Compliance
Measure GEO-1 (compliance with the current edition of the CBC and
recommendations in the project-specific Geotechnical Investigation) would ensure
the proposed project would be protected from landslides. Impacts would be less than
significant. Mitigation is not required.
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Less than Significant Impact
Discussion of Effects: Earthwork activities as part of the construction process would
expose soils to the potential for soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Compliance with storm
water regulations include minimizing storm water contact with potential pollutants by
providing covers and secondary containment for construction materials, designating
areas away from storm drain systems for storing equipment and materials, and
implementing good housekeeping practices at the construction sites. Prior to the issuance
of a grading permit, the project Applicant would be required to prepare and submit sitespecific, detailed grading plans to the City in accordance with Section 18.60.030 and
Chapter 18.16 of the City Municipal Code.
Construction activities are subject to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Stormwater
Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities, Order No.
2022-0057-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002 (Construction General Permit).59 Any
construction activity, including grading, that would result in the disturbance of 1 acre or
more would require compliance with SWRCB’s Construction General Permit, which
requires preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and
58

59

California Geological Survey. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation, San Dimas Quadrangle.
March 25, 1999.
California State Water Resources Control Board. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land
Disturbance Activities, Order No. 2022-0057-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002. September 8, 2022.
Effective September 1, 2023.

66

implementation of Construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) during construction
activities.60 As specified in Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-1 in Section X,
Hydrology and Water Quality, the Applicant would be required to obtain coverage under
the Construction General Permit, which requires preparation of a SWPPP. The SWPPP
would detail erosion control and sediment control BMPs to be implemented during
construction to minimize erosion and retain sediment on site. Construction BMPs would
include, but not be limited to, erosion control and sediment control BMPs designed to
minimize erosion and retain sediment on site, and good housekeeping BMPs to prevent
spills, leaks, and discharge of construction debris and waste into receiving waters.
Adherence to the BMPs contained in the SWPPP through implementation of Regulatory
Compliance Measure HYD-1 would ensure that impacts related to soil erosion would
remain less than significant. Mitigation is not 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 on-site or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
Less than Significant Impact
Discussion of Effects: The project sites are flat and surrounded by urban development.
There is no evidence of landslides and/or slope instabilities on the project sites. According
to the San Dimas Quadrangle Seismic Hazard Zones Map,61 the project sites are not
located in an area considered susceptible to landslides or liquefaction. Due to the
properties’ flat topography, the absence of significant nearby slopes or hills, and the
planned site development in accordance with Regulatory Compliance Measure GEO1, potential impacts from landslides, slope instabilities, and/or liquefaction at the project
sites would remain less than significant. Mitigation is not required.
The soils underlying the project sites may be susceptible to seismically induced dry sand
settlement when additional loads are imposed on those soils by future on-site structures.62
Shrinkage, bulking, and subsidence are primarily dependent upon the degree of soil
compaction achieved during construction. The degree to which fill soils are compacted and
variations in the in-situ density of existing soils will influence earth volume changes. A
shrinkage factor of between 5 and 15 percent should be expected as soil is removed and
replaced as compacted fill, and the subsidence factor is approximately 0.1 foot.63 The
anticipated maximum total settlement is expected to be 1 inch with a differential settlement
of approximately ½ inch in a 30 feet span.64 Accordingly, the proposed project would
incorporate Regulatory Compliance Measure GEO-1, which requires proper engineering
design and construction in conformance with current CBC standards and the
recommendations outlined in the project-specific Geotechnical Investigation to ensure a
60

61

62

63
64

Pursuant to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program and Chapter 13.50
of the City Municipal Code.
California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology. Seismic Hazard Zone Report
for the San Dimas 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California. Plate 1.2 – Historically
Highest Ground Water Contours and Borehole Los Data Locations, San Dimas Quadrangle. 1998;
Revised in 2001, June 2005, and January 2006.
RMA Geoscience, Geotechnical Investigation, Gateway Project Park Avenue and A Street La Verne,
CA, June 12, 2024.
Ibid. Page 8.
Ibid.

67

sufficient layer of engineered fill or densified soil is prepared beneath any proposed
structural footings/foundations. Through incorporation of Regulatory Compliance
Measure GEO-1, impacts from subsidence and/or collapse would remain less than
significant. Mitigation is not required.
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
Less than Significant Impact
Discussion of Effects: On-site soils at the project sites consist of Urban land-AzuvinaMontebello complex, zero to five percent slopes.65 The soils underlying the project site
may be susceptible to expansion, and additional expansion index and plasticity index
testing will be required at the completion of rough grading to verify the properties of the
near-surface soils. Construction plans for the proposed project would be subject to City
review and approval prior to issuance of grading and building permits in accordance with
Section 18.60.030 and Chapter 18.16 of the City’s Municipal Code. Furthermore, Section
15.04.110 (Expansive Soils) of the City’s Municipal Code amends Section 1809.4 of the
CBC to conclude foundation systems within the City are considered to be on expansive
soils and shall be constructed in a manner that will minimize damage to the structure from
soil movement.
The potential hazards of expansive soils are addressed through the integration of the sitespecific recommendations outlined in the Geotechnical Investigation as required under
Regulatory Compliance Measure GEO-1. Through incorporation of Regulatory
Compliance Measure GEO-1, impacts from expansive soils would remain less than
significant. Mitigation is not required.
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
No Impact
Discussion of Effects: The project sites and vicinity are served by existing municipal
wastewater infrastructure. All on-site development would connect to the existing
wastewater collection and conveyance facilities owned and operated by the City.
Therefore, septic tanks will not be necessary. Because the proposed project would not
include the installation of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems, no
impact would occur. Mitigation is not required.
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Discussion of Effects: The project site is underlain by the interface between Quaternary
Pleistocene non-marine alluvial sediments (Qoa) and younger Holocene alluvial
sediments (Qa) emanating from San Dimas Canyon and covering extensive areas of the

65

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Web Soil Survey.
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. (Accessed October 25, 2024).

68

City.66 These deposits are generally sandy or gravelly alluvial fan deposits known to yield
paleontological resources. The nearest Pleistocene vertebrate locality (LACM 1728) in
older quaternary deposits (Qoa) is recorded between 10 and 15 feet below grade in
English Canyon southwest of the City of Chino approximately 10 miles south of the project
sites.67
The project sites are currently developed with residential uses. Considering the extensive
ground disturbances that have occurred on the project sites, and in light of results and
findings from paleontological records searches previously conducted in similar settings,
the likelihood of encountering intact and significant subsurface paleontological resources
or unique geologic features on the project sites is low. However, ground-disturbing
activities at the project sites still have the potential to disturb previously unknown
resources if excavation depths reach native, undisturbed sediments.
Due to the age of the sediments underlying the project sites, paleontological resources
may be present in these potentially fossil-bearing soils and rock formations below the
ground surface. If ground-disturbing activities reach depths of native, undisturbed fossilbearing sediments, implementation of the proposed project has the potential to damage
or destroy paleontological resources. Therefore, Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO2 are required to ensure paleontological resources would be subject to scientific recovery
and evaluation in the event that unanticipated paleontological resources are unearthed
during construction.
Mitigation Measures
MM GEO-1 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the City shall verify that the following
note is included on all grading plans:
“If any suspected paleontological resources (fossils) are discovered
during ground-disturbing activities, the construction supervisor shall halt
work within a 60-foot radius around the find and establish an
exclusionary buffer. Construction personnel shall not collect or move
any suspected paleontological materials or further disturb any soils
within the exclusionary buffer, but construction activity may continue
unimpeded on other portions of the project sites. Construction activity
shall not resume within the exclusionary buffer until a qualified
paleontologist (defined as an individual with an M.S. or Ph.D. in
paleontology or geology who is experienced with paleontological
procedures and techniques, who is knowledgeable in the geology of
California, and who has worked as a paleontological mitigation project
supervisor for a least one year) can assess the significance of the find.
If the paleontologist determines the find is not a paleontological
resource, no further evaluation shall be required within the exclusionary
buffer, and construction activity shall be allowed to resume therein.
66

67

Dibblee, Jr., Thomas W. and John A. Minch. Geologic Map of the San Dimas and Ontario Quadrangles,
Los Angels and San Bernardino Counties, California. Dibblee Geological Foundation Map #DF-91.
2002. https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/ngm-bin/pdp/zui_viewer.pl?id=34314. (Accessed October 25, 2024).
Rincon Consultants. Paleontological Resources for the proposed University of La Verne Facilities and
Technology Master Plan Update EIR Project, Rincon Project # 16-02821, in the City of La Verne, Los
Angeles County, Project Area. Letter Report by Samuel A. McLeod. August 10, 2016.

69

However, if the paleontologist determines the find is a paleontological
resource, construction activity shall not resume within the exclusionary
buffer, and Mitigation Measure GEO-2 shall apply.”
This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City of La
Verne’s Community Development Director or designee.
MM GEO-2 If the qualified paleontologist determines paleontological resources are
encountered on the project sites, the paleontologist shall prepare a
Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Plan to be implemented during
the balance of ground-disturbing activities. Implementation of the
Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Plan shall include (but not be
limited to) the following:


Review of project-specific geotechnical report data, with particular
regard to location and depth of earthmoving and the rock unit(s)
encountered;



Development of a formal agreement between the project proponent and
the San Bernardino County Museum, Natural History Museum of Los
Angeles County, Western Science Center, San Diego Natural History
Museum, or Riverside Municipal Museum for the final disposition and
permanent storage and maintenance of any fossil collections and
associated data. Should any of these facilities choose not to accept the
fossil collections and associated data, the project Applicant shall consult
with the Bonita Unified School District or other educational institution to
offer the fossil collections and associated data for donation;



The construction schedule, term/schedule of on-site paleontological
monitor(s) and the extent of areas and activities to be monitored;



Authority of paleontological monitor(s) to temporarily redirect
construction activity in the vicinity of any paleontological discovery;



Procedures for the evaluation and option to recover large fossil
specimens and for the evaluation, recovery, and processing of small
fossil specimens;



Fossil specimen preparation, identification to the lowest taxonomic level
possible, curation, and cataloging; and



A report of findings.

The paleontologist shall monitor remaining ground-disturbing activities in
native soils at the project sites and shall be equipped to record and salvage
fossil resources that may be unearthed during construction. The
paleontologist shall temporarily halt or divert construction equipment to
allow recording and removal of the unearthed resources. Any fossils found
shall be offered for curation at a curation facility approved by the City. A
report of findings, including, when appropriate, an itemized inventory of
recovered specimens and a discussion of their significance, shall be
prepared upon completion of the steps outlined above. The report and
inventory, when submitted to and approved by the appropriate lead agency,
will signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts on paleontological
70

resources. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City
of La Verne’s Community Development Director or designee.
With implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2, impacts to
paleontological resources are considered less than significant with mitigation
incorporated.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Unless
Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
VIII.

No
Impact

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the
environment?
b) Conflict with any applicable plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?

a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have
a significant impact on the environment?
Less than Significant Impact
The following discussion is based on the project-specific construction and operation
CalEEMod analysis, as detailed in Appendix A.68
Discussion of Effects: State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(b)(1) provides that the
“determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment calls
for careful judgment on the part of the public agency involved, based to the extent possible
on scientific and factual data,” and further states that an “ironclad definition of significant
effect is not always possible because the significance of an activity may vary with the
setting.”
Currently, there is no statewide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions threshold used to
determine potential GHG emissions impacts of a project. Air districts in the state are still
developing and revising threshold methodology and thresholds. To provide guidance to
local lead agencies on determining significance for GHG emissions in their CEQA
documents, the SCAQMD convened a GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working
Group (Working Group). Based on the last Working Group meeting (Meeting No. 15) held
68

As originally submitted, the application included the demolition of three additional units at 2675, 2681
and 2683 A Street and the construction of a total of nine new units. The air quality, noise, and
transportation analyses evaluate 8,106 square feet of demolition and 13,778 square feet of
construction, and assume a net increase of 5,672 square feet of residential uses. Accordingly, the
CalEEMod modeling discloses potentially greater environmental effects than would occur under the
proposed project.

71

in September 2010, the SCAQMD is proposing to adopt a tiered approach for evaluating
GHG emissions for development projects where the SCAQMD is not the lead agency.
This concept is equivalent to the existing consistency determination requirements in
CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(h)(3), 15125(d), and 15152(a). The applicable tier is
the SCAQMD-recommended Tier-3/Option 2 threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/yr for nonindustrial projects.
Calculations of GHG emissions are based on compliance with various regulations
designed to reduce GHG emissions. For example, at least 65 percent of all nonhazardous construction materials (including, but not limited to, soil, mulch, vegetation,
concrete, lumber, metal, and cardboard) shall be recycled/reused, and “green building
materials” (e.g., those materials that are rapidly renewable or resource-efficient, and
recycled and manufactured in an environmentally friendly way) shall be used for at least
10 percent of the project in accordance with California Department of Resources
Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) Sustainable (Green) Building Program.
Construction and operation of the proposed project would generate GHG emissions, with
the majority of energy consumption (and associated generation of GHG emissions)
occurring during the project’s operation (as opposed to during its construction). Overall,
the following activities associated with the proposed project could directly or indirectly
contribute to the generation of GHG emissions:


Construction Activities: During project construction, GHGs would be emitted
through the operation of construction equipment and from worker and vendor vehicles,
each of which typically uses fossil-based fuels to operate. The combustion of fossilbased fuels creates GHGs (e.g., CO2, CH4, and N2O). Furthermore, CH4 is emitted
during the fueling of heavy equipment.



Natural Gas, Electricity, and Water Use: Natural gas use results in the emission of
two GHGs: CH4 (the major component of natural gas) and CO2 (from the combustion
of natural gas). Electricity use can result in GHG production if the electricity is
generated by combusting fossil fuel. California’s water conveyance system is energyintensive.



Solid Waste Disposal: Solid waste generated by the project could contribute to GHG
emissions in a variety of ways. Landfilling and other methods of disposal use energy
for transporting and managing the waste, and they produce additional GHGs to
varying degrees. Landfilling, the most common waste management practice, results
in the release of CH4 from the anaerobic decomposition of organic materials.
However, landfill-generated CH4 can also be a source of energy.



Motor Vehicle Use: Transportation associated with the proposed project operations
would result in GHG emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels in daily vehicle trips.

Table G lists the annual carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions for the planned
construction year (based on the CalEEMod analysis). Per SCAQMD guidance, due to the
long-term nature of the GHGs in the atmosphere, instead of determining significance of
construction emissions alone, the total construction emissions are amortized over 30
years (an estimate of the life of the proposed project) and are added to the operational
emissions for comparison to the applicable GHG significance threshold.
72

Table G: Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Construction
Year
2025
2026
2027

Total Regional Greenhouse Gas Emissions (MT/yr)
CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
73
<1
<1
74
297
<1
<1
299
14
<1
<1
14
Total Construction Emissions
387
Amortized over 30 years
13

Source: Table 2.2. California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). Compiled by LSA.
November 2024 (Appendix A).
CH4 = methane
MT/yr = metric tons per year
CO2 = carbon dioxide
N2O = nitrous oxide
CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent

Long-term operation of the proposed project would generate GHG emissions from various
source categories. Area-source emissions would be associated with activities including
landscaping and maintenance of the proposed project. Energy-source emissions would
occur at off-site utility providers as a result of demand for electricity and natural gas by
the proposed project. Mobile-source emissions of GHGs would include project-generated
vehicle trips associated with on-site energy use and resident and delivery vehicle trips.
Waste generated by the project and water used would also result in GHG emissions.
The Trip Generation Analysis that was originally prepared for the project treated the new
homes as single-family and based on the ITE trip generation rate for that land use (Code
210). It was determined that there would be 85 trips without any credit for the demolition
of the existing units. Upon further review, it was determined that the appropriate land use
ITE trip generation rate should be that for a continuing care retirement community (Code
255), which resulted in only 25 total trips, without credit for the existing units. CalEEMod
modeling was completed prior to the ITE Code correction, and GHG emissions were
evaluated based on trip generation of nine new standard single-family homes, (85 vehicle
trips per day). CalEEMod defaults were used for all the other operational parameters,
including energy consumption, water use, waste generation, and area sources. Table H
shows the results of the CalEEMod analysis.
The GHG emission estimates presented in Table H show the emissions associated with
the operation of the proposed project. The project would result in GHG emissions of 153
MT CO2e per year, which is less than the SCAQMD-recommended Tier-3/Option 2
threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/yr for non-industrial projects even using the ITE Code for
single-family use. Therefore, there was no need to rerun the CalEEMod with the lower,
continuing care retirement community rate, which would have reflected even fewer GHG
emissions.
Table H: Annual Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Source
Mobile Sources
Area Sources

Bio-CO2
0
0

Greenhouse Gas Emissions, MT/year
NBio-CO2 Total CO2
CH4
N2O
Refrigerant
107
107
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
0
73

CO2e
109
<1

Table H: Annual Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Source
Energy Sources
Water Sources
Waste Usage
Refrigerant Sources

Bio-CO2
0
<1
<1
0

Greenhouse Gas Emissions, MT/year
NBio-CO2 Total CO2
CH4
N2O
Refrigerant
24
24
<1
<1
0
1
1
<1
<1
0
0
<1
<1
0
0
0
0
0
0
<1
Amortized Construction Emissions
Total Proposed Emissions
SCAQMD Threshold
Emissions Exceed Threshold?

CO2e
24
2
2
<1
13
150
3,000
No

Source: Table 2.6. California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). Compiled by LSA. November 2024 (Appendix A).
Note: Numbers in table may not appear to add up correctly due to rounding.
Bio-CO2 = biologically generated CO2
MT/yr = metric tons per year
CH4 = methane
N2O = nitrous oxide
CO2 = carbon dioxide
NBio-CO2 = Non-biologically generated CO2
CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent
SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality
Management District

The proposed project would be built to meet California Green Building standards, which
would further reduce GHG emissions associated with the project. Therefore, the proposed
project would not result in a significant level of GHG emissions. Impacts would be less
than significant, and mitigation is not required.
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose
of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less than Significant Impact
The City, as a lead agency, may assess the significance of GHG emissions by
determining a project’s consistency with a local GHG reduction plan that qualifies under
Section 15183.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. The City of La Verne has not adopted a GHG
reduction plan. Since no other local or regional climate action plan is in place, the project
is assessed for its consistency with the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) adopted
2022 Scoping Plan and the 2024 Southern California Association of Governments
(SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS),
also known as Connect SoCal 2024. This would be achieved with an assessment of the
project’s compliance with the 2022 Scoping Plan and SCAG Connect SoCal 2024
measures.
The following discussion evaluates the proposed project according to the goals of the
2022 Scoping Plan, Executive Order (EO) B-30-15, Senate Bill (SB) 32, Assembly Bill
(AB) 197, AB 1279, and SCAG’s 2024–2050 RTP/SCS.
2022 Scoping Plan. EO B-30-15 added the immediate target of reducing GHG emissions
to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. SB 32 affirms the importance of addressing
climate change by codifying into statute the GHG emissions reduction target of at least
40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 contained in EO B-30-15. CARB released the 2017

74

Scoping Plan to reflect the 2030 target set by EO B-30-15 and codified by SB 32.69 SB
32 builds on AB 32 and keeps us on the path toward achieving the State’s 2050 objective
of reducing emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. AB 197, the companion bill to SB
32, provides additional direction to CARB that is related to the adoption of strategies to
reduce GHG emissions. Additional direction in AB 197 that is intended to provide easier
public access to air emission data collected by CARB was posted in December 2016. AB
1279 codifies the State goals of achieving net carbon neutrality by 2045 and maintaining
net negative GHG emissions thereafter.
In addition, the 2022 Scoping Plan70 assesses progress toward the statutory 2030 target
while laying out a path to achieving carbon neutrality no later than 2045. The 2022
Scoping Plan focuses on outcomes needed to achieve carbon neutrality by assessing
paths for clean technology, energy deployment, natural and working lands, and others,
and is designed to meet the State’s long-term climate objectives and support a range of
economic, environmental, energy security, environmental justice, and public health
priorities.
The 2022 Scoping Plan focuses on building clean energy production and distribution
infrastructure for a carbon-neutral future, including transitioning existing energy
production and transmission infrastructure to produce zero-carbon electricity and
hydrogen, and utilizing biogas resulting from wildfire management or landfill and dairy
operations, among other substitutes. The 2022 Scoping Plan states that in almost all
sectors, electrification will play an important role. The 2022 Scoping Plan evaluates clean
energy and technology options and the transition away from fossil fuels, including adding
four times the solar and wind capacity by 2045 and about 1,700 times the amount of
current hydrogen supply. As discussed in the 2022 Scoping Plan, EO N-79-20 requires
that all new passenger vehicles sold in California be zero-emission by 2035 and that all
other fleets transition to zero-emission as fully as possible by 2045, which will reduce the
percentage of fossil fuel combustion vehicles.
Energy-efficient measures are intended to maximize energy-efficiency building and
appliance standards, pursue additional efficiency efforts including new technologies and
new policy and implementation mechanisms, and pursue comparable investment in
energy efficiency from all retail providers of electricity in California. In addition, these
measures are designed to expand the use of green building practices to reduce the
carbon footprint of California’s new and existing inventory of buildings. The proposed
project would comply with the latest California Energy Code and CALGreen standards
regarding energy conservation and green building standards.
The 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards requires the installation of solar
photovoltaic (solar PV) system requirements for all newly constructed single-family and
multi-family building. Section 150.0(s) of the California Energy Code further specifies that
plans for new single-family residential development must be Energy Storage System
69

70

California Air Resources Board. Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality. December, 2022.
Website: www.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/ab-32-climate-change-scoping-plan/2022-scoping-plandocuments (Accessed November 2024).
California Air Resources Board. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. November 2017.
Website: www.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf (accessed
November 2024).

75

(ESS) ready. Section 160.9 of the 2022 Energy Code provides mandatory requirements
for “electric ready” construction in individual dwelling units, including provisions to provide
wiring/conduit/electric panel space to accommodate heat pumps (cooling/heating and
water heating), electric cooktops, and electric clothes dryers in individual units. The
installation of “electric ready” construction would facilitate the future electrification of
development, thereby, decreasing the demand for natural gas for heating/cooking.
The project would be required to adhere to all federal, State, and local requirements for
energy efficiency, including current Title 24, California Energy Code and CALGreen
standards, which establish minimum standards related to various building features,
including solar roof, electric vehicle charging capacity, appliances, water and space
heating and cooling equipment, building insulation and roofing, electrification, and
lighting, which would reduce energy usage. In addition, proposed new development would
be constructed using energy efficient modern building materials and construction
practices, and the proposed project also would use new modern appliances and
equipment in accordance with the Appliance Efficiency Regulations (Title 20, CCR
Sections 1601 through 1608). Therefore, the proposed project would comply with
applicable energy measures.
Water conservation and efficiency measures are intended to continue efficiency programs
and use cleaner energy sources to move and treat water. Increasing the efficiency of
water transport and reducing water use would reduce GHG emissions. As noted above,
the project would be required to comply with the latest CALGreen standards, which
include a variety of different measures, including reduction of wastewater and water use.
In addition, the proposed project would be required to comply with the California Model
Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict
with any of the water conservation and efficiency measures.
The goal of transportation and motor vehicle measures is to develop regional GHG
emissions reduction targets for passenger vehicles. The second phase of Pavley
standards is expected to reduce GHG emissions from new cars by 34 percent from 2016
levels by 2025, resulting in a three percent decrease in average vehicle emissions for all
vehicles by 2020. Vehicles traveling to the project site would comply with the Pavley II
(LEV III) Advanced Clean Cars Program. The project would also comply with the following
additional transportation sector policies (through vehicle manufacturer compliance):
Advanced Clean Cars II, Advanced Clean Trucks, Advanced Clean Fleets, Zero Emission
Forklifts, the Off-Road Zero-Emission Targeted Manufacturer rule, Clean Off-Road Fleet
Recognition Program, In-use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation, Off-Road ZeroEmission Targeted Manufacturer rule, Clean Off-Road Fleet Recognition Program,
Amendments to the In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation, carbon pricing
through the Cap-and-Trade Program, and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard. Therefore, the
proposed project would not conflict with the identified transportation and motor vehicle
measures.
The proposed project would comply with existing State regulations adopted to achieve
the overall GHG emission reduction goals identified in the 2022 Scoping Plan, EO B-3015, SB 32, AB 197, and AB 1279.

76

SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. SCAG’s
2024–2050 RTP/SCS identifies land use strategies that focus on new housing and job
growth in areas served by high-quality transit and other opportunity areas would be
consistent with a land use development pattern that supports and complements the
proposed transportation network. The core vision in the 2024–2050 RTP/SCS is to better
manage the existing transportation system through design management strategies,
integrate land use decisions and technological advancements, create complete streets
that are safe for all roadway users, preserve the transportation system, and expand transit
and foster development in transit-oriented communities. The 2024–2050 RTP/SCS
contains transportation projects to help more efficiently distribute population, housing, and
employment growth, as well as a forecasted development pattern that is generally
consistent with regional-level General Plan data. The forecasted development pattern,
when integrated with the financially constrained transportation investments identified in
the 2024–2050 RTP/SCS, would reach the regional target of reducing GHG emissions
from autos and light-duty trucks by 8 percent per capita by 2020 and 19 percent by 2035
(compared to 2005 levels).71 The 2024–2050 RTP/SCS does not require that local
General Plans, Specific Plans, or zoning be consistent with the 2024–2050 RTP/SCS, but
it provides incentives for consistency for governments and developers.
Implementing SCAG’s RTP/SCS would greatly reduce the regional GHG emissions from
transportation, helping to achieve statewide emissions reduction targets. As
demonstrated in Section III, Air Quality, the proposed project does not meet the criteria
identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15205.b.2 (Projects of Statewide, Regional, or
Areawide Significance) for projects of statewide, regional, or areawide significance. The
proposed project’s contribution to the City’s population and households is consistent with
the City’s growth trends and represents a minimal increase (between 0.024 percent and
0.078 percent of the 2020 City population and between 0.026 percent and 0.085 percent
of the 2020 City households).72 As such, the proposed project would not interfere with
SCAG’s ability to achieve the region’s GHG reduction target of 19 percent below 2005
per capita emissions levels by 2035. Furthermore, the proposed project is not regionally
significant per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15206 and as such, it would not conflict
with the SCAG RTP/SCS targets since those targets were established and are applicable
on a regional level. The project’s consistency with SCAG’s 2024-2050 RTP/SCS is
presented in Table J, below.
The proposed project would include nine single-family homes operating within a
continuing care retirement community that are consistent with existing local and regional
planning assumptions for the project site. Therefore, it is anticipated that implementation
of the proposed project would not interfere with SCAG’s ability to implement the regional
strategies outlined in SCAG’s 2024-2050 RTP/SCS. Therefore, the proposed project
would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of

71

72

Southern California Association of Governments. 2024–2050 Regional Transportation
Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. Page 97. Adopted April 4, 2024.
These calculations identify the project’s contribution to the City compared to the anticipated population
or households under the General Plan Housing Element (e.g., 8 additional residents not anticipated ÷
33,313 persons = 0.024 percent) (3 additional households not anticipated ÷ 11,737 households = 0.026
percent), as well as the overall project contribution to the City (e.g., 26 project residents ÷ 33,313
persons = 0.078 percent) (10 project households ÷ 11,737 households = 0.085 percent).

77

reducing the emissions of GHGs. Impacts would be less than significant, and mitigation
is not required.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Unless
Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
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 § 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?

78

No
Impact

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
Discussion of Effects: Construction of the project has the potential to create a hazard to
the public or environment through the routine transportation, use, and disposal of
construction-related hazardous materials such as fuels, oils, solvents, and other
materials. Additionally, demolition of the existing residential structure would involve
disposal of lead-based materials (LBM) and asbestos-containing materials (ACM), as
indicated in the Asbestos Inspection Reports and Lead Inspection Reports prepared for
the proposed project (Appendices E1 through E4) , which must be disposed of in
accordance with the federal, State, and local (Los Angeles County Department of Health
Services and SCAQMD) regulations.
Demolition/Construction. Potential hazardous materials such as fuel, paint products,
lubricants, solvents, and cleaning products may be used and/or stored on site during
construction of the proposed project. These materials are typical of materials delivered to
construction sites. Due to the relatively small scale of proposed development under the
proposed project, only limited quantities of these materials are expected to be used during
construction, so they are not considered hazardous to the public at large.
The transport, use, and storage of hazardous materials during construction would be
regulated by the Los Angeles County Fire Department, the City of La Verne Fire
Department, and the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
Additionally, the United States Department of Transportation Office of Hazardous Materials
Safety prescribes strict regulations for the safe transportation of hazardous materials by
truck and rail on State highways and rail lines, as described in Title 49 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, and implemented by Title 13 of the CCR.
The existing residential structures located within the North Gateway Site were constructed
between 1950 and 1952, and existing residential structures located within the South
Gateway Site were constructed by 1963.73 Structures constructed prior to 1978 may
contain LBM as well as ACM incorporated into various construction components including
paint, roof tiles, and thermal insulation. The Los Angeles County Department of Health
Services requires that all workers be properly protected when working with materials
containing lead levels at or above 0.7 milligram per square centimeter (mg/cm2), which is
more stringent than the 1 mg/cm2 threshold established under the Code of Federal
Regulations Chapter 29, Section 1926.62 and Title 8, CCR Section 1532.1: Cal/OSHA
Construction Safety Orders, Lead. The Federal Environmental Protection Agency defines
ACM as a material containing more than one percent asbestos as determined by
polarized light microscopy, while Title 8, CCR Section 1529: Asbestos, defines asbestoscontaining construction materials as any manufactured construction material that
contains more than one-tenth of one percent asbestos by weight. The SCAQMD requires
Asbestos Notification for proposed abatement activities and disposal tickets from an
SCAQMD-approved disposal facility prior to demolition.

73

Los Angeles County Office of the Assessor. Property Assessment Information System.
https://portal.assessor.lacounty.gov/. 2024. (Accessed November 12, 2024).

79

The five single-family homes on the South Gateway Site (2692 Park Avenue, 2675 A
Street, 2677 A Street, 2681 A Street, and 2683 A Street have not been surveyed for LBP
or ACM. Since these structures were constructed prior to 1978, they require survey for
these materials prior to demolition or renovation in accordance with Regulatory
Compliance Measure HAZ-1. If LBP is identified at levels above the action level for
abatement activities, then Regulatory Compliance Measure HAZ-2 would be
implemented. If ACM is identified at levels above the action level for abatement activities,
then Regulatory Compliance Measure HAZ-3 would be implemented. The two single
family homes (2730 Park Avenue and 2712 Park Avenue) within the North Gateway Site
have been previously surveyed for LBP and ACM and determined to contain LBP and
ACM at levels above the action level for abatement activities.74,75,76,77 Therefore,
Regulatory Compliance Measures HAZ-2 and HAZ-3 are required to be implemented for
those properties prior to demolition.
Regulatory Compliance Measures
Regulatory Compliance Measure HAZ-1: A
comprehensive
asbestos-containing
materials (ACM) survey and lead-based
materials (LBM) survey shall be completed prior
to demolition or renovation of 2692 Park
Avenue, 2675 A Street, 2677 A Street, 2681 A
Street, and 2683 A Street within the South
Gateway Site. If the ACM survey reveals any
manufactured construction material that
contains less than one percent asbestos by
weight pursuant to Title 8, CCR Section 1529:
Asbestos and if the LBM survey reveals lead
levels below 0.7 milligram per square centimeter
pursuant to Los Angeles County Code Title 11,
Chapter 11.28, Section 11.28.010(c), no further
survey or remedial work is required. However, if
ACM greater than one percent asbestos by
weight are identified within structures proposed
for renovation or demolition, Regulatory
Compliance Measure HAZ-2 shall apply.
Furthermore, if lead levels at or above 0.7
milligram per square centimeter are identified,
Regulatory Compliance Measure HAZ-3 shall
apply. This measure shall be implemented to
the satisfaction of the City of La Verne
Community Development Director or designee,

74

75

76

77

Vector Environmental Consulting, Inc. Lead Inspection Report, 2730 Park Avenue, La Verne, CA
91750. Page 5. October 27, 2023. (Appendix E1)
Vector Environmental Consulting, Inc. Asbestos Inspection Report, 2730 Park Avenue, La Verne, CA
91750. Page 3. October 27, 2023. (Appendix E2)
Vector Environmental Consulting, Inc. Lead Inspection Report, 2712 Park Avenue, La Verne, CA
91750. Page 5. October 27, 2023. (Appendix E3)
Vector Environmental Consulting, Inc. Asbestos Inspection Report, 2712 Park Avenue, La Verne, CA
91750. Page 3. October 27, 2023. (Appendix E4)

80

and/or Building
designee.

and

Safety

Division,

or

Regulatory Compliance Measure HAZ-2: Prior to the demolition of 2730 Park Avenue
and 2712 Park Avenue within the North
Gateway Site, as well as demolition or
renovation of any of the properties within the
South Gateway Site determined under
Regulatory Compliance Measure HAZ-1 to
contain ACM, all ACM shall be abated from the
demolition sites. An Asbestos Notification shall
be prepared and submitted to the South Coast
Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) for
approval before any asbestos abatement may
commence. The contractor shall provide a
construction and demolition plan with disposal
tickets from an SCAQMD-approved disposal
facility and air clearances prior to final
inspection, and an asbestos report shall be
provided to the City prior to the issuance of a
demolition or renovation permit. This measure
shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the
City of La Verne Community Development
Director or designee, and/or Building and Safety
Division, or designee.
Regulatory Compliance Measure HAZ-3: Prior to the demolition of 2730 Park Avenue
and 2712 Park Avenue within the North
Gateway Site, as well as demolition or
renovation of any of the properties within the
South Gateway Site
determined under
Regulatory Compliance Measure HAZ-1 to
contain LBP, all LBM shall be abated from the
demolition site with lead levels at or above 0.7
milligram per square centimeter shall be abated
from the demolition site. Furthermore, California
Department of Health lead certified staff would
be required for all abatement work. The
contractor shall provide a construction and
demolition plan with disposal tickets from a
South Coast Air Quality Management Districtapproved disposal facility and air clearances
prior to final inspection, and a lead report shall
be provided to the City prior to the issuance of a
demolition or renovation permit. This measure
shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the
City of La Verne Community Development
Director or designee, and/or Building and Safety
Division, or designee.
81

With implementation of Regulatory Compliance Measures HAZ-1, HAZ-2, and HAZ-3
hazards to the public and the environment from demolition of structures containing lead
and/or asbestos would remain less than significant. Mitigation is not required.
Operation. Residential operations and maintenance within Hillcrest currently utilize
relatively small amounts of hazardous materials, such as chemicals associated with
heating and cooling systems, fuel for maintenance equipment, solvents, cleaning
products, pesticides/fertilizers, and other similar chemicals. These materials are
substantially similar to household chemicals and solvents already in general and wide
use throughout the City and in the vicinity of the project sites.
As is the case during construction, the transport, use, and storage of hazardous materials
during project occupation will be regulated by the Los Angeles County Fire Department,
the City Fire Department, and the California Occupational Safety and Health
Administration. Additionally, transport of hazardous materials by truck and rail on State
highways and rail lines will be regulated by the United States Department of
Transportation Office of Hazardous Materials Safety as described above.
These regulations inherently safeguard life and property from the hazards of
fire/explosion arising from the storage, handling, and use of hazardous substances,
materials, and devices, as well as hazardous conditions due to the use or occupancy of
buildings. Through implementation of Regulatory Compliance Measures HAZ-1 through
HAZ-3 for demolition of the existing residential structures, as well as compliance with all
applicable federal, State, and local laws for construction and operation of the proposed
project, impacts to the public or environment from the routine transportation, use and
disposal of hazardous materials would be reduced to less than significant. Mitigation is
not required.
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
Discussion of Effects: The project sites and a one-half-mile radius encompassing the
project sites were evaluated via the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)
GeoTracker database,78 the Department of Toxic Substances Control’s (DTSC)
EnviroStor database,79 and the Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites (Cortese) List80
for the purposes of identifying recognized environmental conditions or historical
recognized environmental conditions.

78

79

80

State Water Resources Control Board. GeoTracker Database. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/
map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=l+averne%2C+ca. (Accessed October 25, 2024).
California
Department
of
Toxic
Substances
Control.
EnviroStor
Database.
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=la+verne%2C+ca. (Accessed October 25,
2024).
California Department of Toxic Substances Control. Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List
(Cortese).
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/
search?cmd=search&reporttype=CORTESE&site_type=CSITES,OPEN,FUDS,CLOSE&status=
ACT,BKLG,COM,COLUR&reporttitle=HAZARDOUS+WASTE+AND+SUBSTANCES+SITE+LIST+(C
ORTESE). (Accessed October 25, 2024).

82

“Recognized environmental condition” means the presence or likely presence of any
hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property: (1) due to any
release to the environment; (2) under conditions indicative of a release to the
environment; or (3) under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the
environment. The term is not intended to include de minimis conditions that generally do
not present a threat to human health or the environment and that generally would not be
the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate
governmental agencies. Conditions determined to be de minimis are not recognized
environmental conditions. “Historical Recognized environmental condition” means an
environmental condition which in the past would have been considered a recognized
environmental condition, but which may or may not be considered a recognized
environmental condition currently. If a past release of any hazardous substances or
petroleum products has occurred in connection with the property, with such remediation
accepted by the responsible regulatory agency (for example, as evidenced by the
issuance of a case closed letter or equivalent), this condition shall be considered a
historical recognized environmental condition.
The existing residential structures located within the North Gateway Site were
constructed between 1950 and 1952, and existing residential structures located within the
South Gateway Site were constructed by 1963.81 No evidence was identified indicating
improper storage, disposal, or application of hazardous materials, and a review of
available aerial photographs did not show improvements such as hangers, tanks, or large
barns that would indicate significant storage, formulation, and handling of hazardous
materials. Based on this information and the historical occupancy of the project sites for
residential uses, there is no evidence of recognized environmental conditions in
connection with previous uses at the project sites.
Three properties with historical recognized environmental conditions (leaking
underground storage tanks) were identified within one half-mile of the project sites, as
detailed in Table I.
Table I: Hazardous Materials Database Search

Property
MWD F E
Weymouth
Filter Plant (700
Moreno Ave N,
La Verne)

81

Recognized
Environmental
Condition

—

Historical
Recognized
Environmental
Condition
Leaking
underground storage
tank for “waste
oil/motor/
hydraulic/lubricating.”

Location
Relative to
the Project
Sites
Approximately
2,500 feet to
the northwest
of the project
sites.

Status of the
Property
Completed-Case
closed as of
06/27/1991. A
closure letter or
other formal closure
decision document
has been issued for
the property.

Los Angeles County Office of the Assessor. Property Assessment Information System.
https://portal.assessor.lacounty.gov/. 2024. (Accessed October 25, 2024).

83

Table I: Hazardous Materials Database Search

Property
American
Armenian
International
College (1975
6th Street, La
Verne)

La Verne Public
Safety Facility
(2061 3rd
Street, La
Verne)

Recognized
Environmental
Condition

Historical
Recognized
Environmental
Condition
Leaking
underground storage
tank for “aviation.”

Location
Relative to
the Project
Sites
Approximately
1,700 feet to
the east cross
gradient of the
project sites.

Leaking
underground storage
tank for “gasoline.”

Approximately
2,250 feet to
the southeast
down gradient
of the project
sites.

—

—

Status of the
Property
Completed-Case
closed as of
01/26/1990. A
closure letter or
other formal closure
decision document
has been issued for
the property.
Completed-Case
closed as of
06/16/1999. A
closure letter or
other formal closure
decision document
has been issued for
the property.

Sources: State Water Resources Control Board. GeoTracker Database. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?
CMD=runreport&myaddress=l+averne%2C+ca. (Accessed October 25, 2024).
California Department of Toxic Substances Control. EnviroStor Database. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/
public/map/?myaddress=la+verne%2C+ca. (Accessed October 25, 2024).
California Department of Toxic Substances Control. Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese).
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/
search?cmd=search&reporttype=CORTESE&site_type=CSITES,OPEN,FUDS,CLOSE&status=
ACT,BKLG,COM,COLUR&reporttitle=HAZARDOUS+WASTE+AND+SUBSTANCES+SITE+LIST+(CORTESE)
. (Accessed October 25, 2024).

The properties’ conditions have been remediated and formal closure decision documents
have been issued; therefore, these locations are unlikely to have adversely affected the
project sites.
A review of the Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites (Cortese) List revealed no
affected properties on or within five miles of the project sites.
None of the properties identified in the GeoTracker database, EnviroStor database, or the
Cortese List occurs on the project sites or has any activities or materials that would
represent a significant risk to public health or safety (e.g., on-site storage, leaking tanks,
approaching groundwater contamination plume) on the project sites. The project sites do
not currently contain any recognized environmental conditions or historical recognized
environmental conditions, nor are they subject to vapor migration from any on-site or offsite sources. Implementation of Regulatory Compliance Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ3 for demolition of the existing residential structures, as well as compliance with local,
State, and federal laws detailed in response to Checklist Question IX(a), would ensure
impacts from reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release
of hazardous materials into the environment remain less than significant. Mitigation is
not required.

84

c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
Less than Significant Impact
Discussion of Effects: The school closest to the project sites is the Grace Miller
Elementary School located at 1629 Holly Oak Street, La Verne, approximately 0.21 mile
to the north. The next nearest schools are the University of La Verne (1950 3rd Street, La
Verne) approximately 0.3 mile to the southeast, the David & Margaret Youth and Family
Services/Joan Macy School (1350 3rd Street, La Verne) approximately 0.38 mile to the
southwest, and Damien High School (2280 Damien Avenue, La Verne) located
approximately 0.5 mile southwest of the project sites.
As detailed in response to Checklist Question IX(a), the transport, use, and storage of
hazardous materials during construction, operation, and occupation of the proposed
residences will be regulated by the Los Angeles County Fire Department and the City Fire
Department. The United States Department of Transportation Office of Hazardous
Materials Safety prescribes strict regulations for the safe transportation of hazardous
materials by truck and rail on State highways and rail lines.
None of the land uses identified in the GeoTracker database, EnviroStor database, or the
Cortese List occurs on the project sites or has any activities or materials that would
represent a significant risk to public health or safety (e.g., on-site storage, leaking tanks,
approaching groundwater contamination plume) from construction and operation of the
project sites. The project sites do not currently contain any recognized environmental
conditions or historical recognized environmental conditions, nor are they subject to vapor
migration from any on-site or off-site sources.
Typically, special consultation and notification requirements apply for projects that would
emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of a school.82 However, those requirements
do not apply to the proposed project because although the project is within one-quarter
mile of Grace Miller Elementary School, the project is not designed to store, handle, or
manufacture substantial amounts of hazardous materials. Common hazardous materials
that may be present during construction and operation would include fuel, paint products,
lubricants, solvents, and cleaning products, as well as household cleaning/chemical
products and compounds used in landscaping and pool maintenance present throughout
the region. These materials are also commonly found on school campuses and utilized
routinely at schools as part of ongoing facility maintenance operations.
The amount of potentially hazardous chemicals present on the project site would be
limited and would also occur in compliance with existing government regulations, which
inherently safeguard life and property on nearby school sites from the hazards of
exposure arising from the storage, handling, and disposal of hazardous substances,
materials, and devices, as well as hazardous conditions due to the use or occupancy of
buildings. The proposed project would be similar to other residential operations
throughout the region that are located close to existing or proposed school sites.
82

See California Public Resources Code § 21151.4 and 14 California Code of Regulations § 15186.

85

Furthermore, as detailed above, the proposed project is not expected to result in a
significant hazard affecting the public during project construction or operation.
Implementation of Regulatory Compliance Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-3 for
demolition of the existing residential structures, as well as compliance with all applicable
federal, State, and local laws for construction and operation of the proposed project,
would ensure impacts from the emission or handling of hazardous materials within onequarter mile of an existing or proposed school would remain less than significant.
Mitigation is not required.
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
No Impact
Discussion of Effects: Pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, the Hazardous
Waste and Substances Sites List has been compiled by the California Environmental
Protection Agency Hazardous Materials Data Management Program. The DTSC
compiles information from subsets of the following databases to make up the Cortese
List:
1. The DTSC list of contaminated or potentially contaminated hazardous waste sites
listed in the California Sites database, formerly known as ASPIS, is included;
2. The California State Water Resources Control Board listing of leaking underground
storage tanks is included; and
3. The California Integrated Waste Management Board list of sanitary landfills that have
evidence of groundwater contamination or known migration of hazardous materials
(formerly WB-LF, now AB 3750).
None of the land uses identified in Table I occurs on the project sites or includes any
activities or materials that would represent a significant hazard to the public or
environment at the project sites. Therefore, no impact related to the Cortese List or other
governmental databases would occur, and mitigation is not 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?
Less than Significant Impact
Discussion of Effects: Brackett Field Airport, a general aviation airport, is located
approximately 0.9 mile south of the project sites. The project sites are located within Zone
E of the Brackett Field Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (BFALUCP).83 Within Zone E,
residential uses less than eight dwelling units per acre and/or congregate care retirement
homes and assisted living facilities are normally compatible and are presumed to comply
with safety and airspace protection criteria. Within Zone E, object height limits are

83

Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission. Brackett Field Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
Map 2A, Compatibility Policy Zones. Adopted December 9, 2015.

86

established at 150 feet or more above runway elevation,84 which is 966 feet above mean
sea level (amsl) at its lowest point. The highest elevation of the project sites grade is
1,064 feet amsl; therefore, any new construction 52 feet or taller85 would require sitespecific airspace review by the Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission
(ALUC). None of the proposed residential structures exceeds 18 feet 8 inches above
surface grade at its tallest point; therefore, no ALUC review is required.
The BFALUCP identifies the project sites within Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
Part 77 Notification Area.86 The risk level is considered low for normally compatible uses
within Zone E. FAA Part 77, Subpart B requires notification to the FAA of any proposed
construction or alteration having a height greater than an imaginary surface extending
100 feet outward and 1 foot upward (slope of 100:1) for a distance of 20,000 feet from
nearest point of any runway more than 3,200 feet in actual length, and also requires FAA
notification for construction of any object taller than 200 feet.87 The project sites are
located as close as 5,140 feet north of the nearest runway of the Brackett Field Airport.
Therefore, any development on the project sites equal to or greater than 48 feet in height
(equal to a slope of 100:1 in relation to the distance to the nearest runway) would require
notification to the FAA. As the height of the proposed residences do not exceed 18 feet 8
inches above surface grade at their tallest point, notification to the FAA for height
restrictions is not required.
The project sites are outside the 55 a-weighted decibels (dBA) Community Noise
Equivalent Level (CNEL) noise contour of Brackett Field Airport based on the Noise and
Overflight Factors Map in the Brackett Field ALUCP.88 The proposed project’s
development application is subject to Development Review Committee’s review and
approval prior to issuance of grading and building permits to ensure consistency with
Compatibility Zone E of the BFALUCP and FAA Part 77. Due to the general compatibility
of the proposed residential uses within Zone E of the BFALUCP, impacts from excessive
noise or safety hazards to people residing or working in the project area from a project
within an airport land use plan would be less than significant. Mitigation is not required.
f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less than Significant Impact
Discussion of Effects: The proposed project would be required to design, construct, and
maintain structures, roadways, and facilities in accordance with applicable standards
84
85

86
87

88

Ibid. Table 2B, Compatibility Zone Delineation.
Highest elevation of project site grade 1,064 feet subtracted by lowest elevation of airport runway 966
feet = 98 feet difference in elevation between the project site and runway. 150-foot object height limit
in Zone E subtracted by 98-foot difference in elevation between the project site and runway = 52-foot
building height threshold for notification to Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission (52-foot
building height plus 98-foot difference in elevation between the project site and runway = 150-foot object
height limit threshold).
Ibid. Map 2B, Airspace Protection Map.
§ 77.9(a)(1) Construction or Alteration Requiring Notice. 14 Code of Federal Regulations 77.9 Construction or Alteration Requiring Notice. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/77.9. (Accessed
October 25, 2024).
Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission. Brackett Field Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
Exhibit 5: Noise and Overflight Factors Map. Adopted December 9, 2015.

87

governing vehicular access, resulting in the provision of adequate vehicular access that
would provide for adequate emergency access and evacuation. Access to every
residential unit will be provided via Park Avenue (for the North Gateway site) and Park
Avenue and A Street (for the South Gateway site). The proposed project includes
reconstruction of portions of the curb, gutter, sidewalk, and driveway aprons along the
project frontages of Park Avenue and A Street. Demolition and construction activities that
may temporarily restrict vehicular traffic would be required to implement adequate and
appropriate measures to facilitate the passage of persons and vehicles through/around
any required road closures.
The project access and circulation design would be subject to review and approval by the
City Fire and Police Departments, City Traffic Engineer, and Public Works Department
during the City’s precise plan review process. The fire chief will condition the project
design, construction, and operation to ensure protection of life and property, including,
but not limited to additional fire hydrants, increased turnaround ability, increased sprinkler
density and coverage, and additional means of access/egress. Through compliance with
Section 18.68.030 of the City Municipal Code,89 impacts related to emergency access
would remain less than significant. No mitigation is required.
g. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Less than Significant Impact
Discussion of Effects: The project sites are not located within a Fire Hazard Area or within
an area susceptible to wildfires identified by the California Department of Forestry and
Fire Protection.90 The project sites are completely surrounded by residential development
and no wildlands are located adjacent to the project sites. Nevertheless, the design and
construction of all proposed buildings must conform to City Fire Code Section 15.32.10
of the Municipal Code, which requires compliance with the California Fire Code 2022
Edition. Compliance would be verified through the building plan check process pursuant
to Section 18.60.030 and Chapter 18.16 (Development Review) of the City Municipal
Code prior to issuance of building permits. Because of the low probability that the project
sites would be subject or susceptible to wildland fires, impacts related to this issue would
be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

89

90

Pursuant to Section 18.68.030, traffic roadways shall be at least 20 feet wide and passable in all
weather. Additionally, dead-end roads shall not exceed 700 feet in length when serving land zoned for
residential uses having a density of more than four dwelling units per acre, and they shall end in
turnarounds approved by the fire chief to accommodate the needs of fire apparatus.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. March 2025.
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/5065c998b4b0462f9ec3c6c226c610a9/page/Compare-oldand-new-LRA-FHSZ (Accessed March 29, 2025).

88

Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Unless
Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
X. Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the project:
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 in the
basin?
c) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river or through
the addition of impervious surfaces, in
a manner which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or
siltation on or off site?
ii. Substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in
flooding on or off site?
iii. 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?
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
d) Result in flood hazard, tsunami, or
seiche zones, or 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?

89

No
Impact

a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
Less than Significant Impact
Discussion of Effects: The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and nine
Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) regulate the quality of surface water
and groundwater bodies throughout California. In Los Angeles County, including the City
of La Verne, the Los Angeles RWQCB is responsible for implementation of the Water
Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan).91 The Basin Plan establishes beneficial water uses and
water quality objectives for waterways and water bodies within the region. Section 303(d)
of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) requires that states identify water bodies, including
bays, rivers, streams, creeks, and coastal areas, that do not meet water quality standards
and the pollutants that are causing the impairment. A Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL)
establishes limits for pollutant discharges into impaired water bodies. A TMDL describes
the maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body can receive while still meeting
established water quality standards.
The proposed project includes demolition of four residential homes, construction of seven
single-family homes, and renovation of three existing single-family homes with common
area landscaping on 1.19 acres encompassing the South Gateway Site and North
Gateway Site. The South Gateway Site is currently developed with five single-family
homes (2692 Park Avenue,2675 A Street, 2677 A Street, 2681 A Street, and 2683 A
Street), and the North Gateway Site is currently developed with two single family homes
(2730 Park Avenue and 2712 Park Avenue). The existing topography of the North
Gateway Site gently slopes from north to south (one percent slope), and stormwater
currently drains west towards Park Avenue, where it is discharged to existing stormwater
infrastructure. The South Gateway Site has a high point running north to south
approximately 80 feet east of the western property line. Currently, stormwater from the
west of the high point drains west towards Park Avenue and stormwater from east of the
high point drains east towards A Street. Stormwater is then conveyed through an existing
stormwater channel before being discharged into Puddingstone Reservoir, approximately
1.6-miles southwest of the project site.
According to the 2024 Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 303(d) list, the current
impairments for receiving waters (i.e., Puddingstone Reservoir) include pesticides
(chlordane and dichlorodiohenytrichlorethane [DDT]), mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), and organic enrichment/low dissolved oxygen.92 TMDL implementation plans for
these constituents have been adopted, which would be applicable to the proposed
project.

91

92

Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan: Los Angeles Region
Basin Plan for the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties. September 2014.
Amendments through November 2024.
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2024 California Integrated Report (Clean Water Act
Section
303(d)
List
and
305(b)
Report).
Website:
https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2F
www.waterboards.ca.gov%2Fwater_issues%2Fprograms%2Ftmdl%2F2023_2024state_ir_reports%2
Fapx-a-2024-303d-list.xlsx&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK (accessed March 17, 2025).

90

Runoff water quality is regulated by the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Program (established through the federal CWA). The NPDES Program
objective is to control and reduce pollutant discharges to surface water bodies.
Compliance with NPDES permits is mandated by State and federal statutes and
regulations. Locally, the NPDES Program is administered by the Los Angeles RWQCB.
Construction activities are subject to the SWRCB’s NPDES General Permit for
Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities,
Order No. 2022-0057-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002 (Construction General Permit).93
Any construction activity, including grading, that would result in the disturbance of 1 acre
or more would require compliance with SWRCB’s Construction General Permit, which
requires preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and
implementation of Construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) during construction
activities. Construction BMPs would include, but not be limited to, erosion control and
sediment control BMPs designed to minimize erosion and retain sediment on site, and
good housekeeping BMPs to prevent spills, leaks, and discharge of construction debris
and waste into receiving waters.
The City is a Co-Permittee under the Los Angeles RWQCB’s Regional Phase 1 MS4 for
Waste Discharge Requirements and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Permit for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Discharges within
the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties, Order No. R4-2021-0105,
NPDES Permit No. CAS004004 (MS4 Permit).94 The MS4 Permit prohibits discharges,
sets limits on pollutants being discharged into receiving waters, and requires
implementation of technology-based standards. The MS4 Permit also requires copermittees to develop and implement a standard design and post-development BMP
guidance to guide application of low impact development (LID) BMPs to the maximum
extent practicable.

93

94

State Water Resources Control Board. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance
Activities, Order No. 2022-0057-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002. September 8, 2022. Effective
September 1, 2023.
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region. Regional Phase 1 MS4 for
Waste Discharge Requirements and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit
for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Discharges within the Coastal Watersheds of Los
Angeles and Ventura Counties, Order No. R4-2021-0105, NPDES Permit No. CAS004004. July 23,
2021. Effective September 11, 2021.

91

Construction. Pollutants of concern during construction include pathogens, nutrients
(phosphorous and nitrogen), sediment, metals, oil and grease, trash/debris,
pesticides/herbicides, and organic compounds. Each of these pollutants on its own or in
combination with other pollutants can have a detrimental effect on water quality. During
construction activities, excavated soil would be exposed, and there would be an
increased potential for soil erosion and sedimentation compared to existing conditions.
In addition, chemicals, liquid products, petroleum products (e.g., paints, solvents, and
fuels), and concrete-related waste may be spilled or leaked during construction. Any of
these pollutants have the potential to be transported via storm water runoff into receiving
waters (i.e., Puddingstone Reservoir).
Construction of the proposed project within the North and South Gateway Sites is
anticipated to occur simultaneously and would disturb the entire 1.19-acres. Because
project construction would disturb greater than 1 acre of soil, the proposed project would
be subject to the requirements of the Construction General Permit. The proposed project
would also be required to comply with the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 13.50,
Stormwater and Urban Runoff Pollution Control. Chapter 13.50 requires the
implementation of BMPs to ensure that construction practices include measures to
address pollutant discharge into storm drains and requires the Construction Contractor to
operate and maintain these controls throughout the duration of on-site activities. As
specified in Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-1, and as required by the
Construction General Permit and the City’s Municipal Code, the Construction Contractor
would be required to prepare a SWPPP and implement construction BMPs detailed in the
SWPPP during construction activities. Construction BMPs would include, but not be
limited to, erosion and sediment control (designed to minimize erosion and retain
sediment on site), and good housekeeping practices to prevent spills, leaks, and
discharge of construction debris and waste into receiving waters.
Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-1: Construction General Permit and Chapter
13.50 of the City’s Municipal Code. Prior to
issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall
obtain coverage under the State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB) National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Permit and Waste Discharge
Requirements for Discharges of Stormwater
Runoff Associated with Construction and Land
Disturbance Activities, Order No. 2022-0057DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002 (Construction
General Permit). This shall include submission
of Permit Registration Documents (PRDs),
including a Notice of Intent for coverage under
the permit to the SWRCB via the Stormwater
Multiple Application and Report Tracking
System (SMARTS). The Applicant shall provide
the Waste Discharge Identification Number
(WDID) to the Director of the City of La Verne
Public Works Department and the Community
Development Director or designee, to
92

demonstrate proof of coverage under the
Construction
General
Permit.
Project
construction shall not be initiated until a WDID
is received from the SWRCB and is provided to
the City, or designee. A Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared
and implemented for the proposed project in
compliance with the requirements of the
Construction General Permit. The SWPPP shall
identify Construction Best Management
Practices (BMPs) to be implemented to ensure
that the potential for soil erosion and
sedimentation is minimized and to control the
discharge of pollutants in storm water runoff as
a result of construction activities. Upon
completion of construction and stabilization of
the site, a Notice of Termination shall be
submitted via SMARTS.
According to the Geotechnical Investigation95 prepared for the proposed project, no
groundwater was encountered in any of the nine test borings. In addition, the
Geotechnical Investigation indicates that the depth to historical high groundwater is
greater than 100 feet below the existing ground surface (bgs). Due to the depth of
groundwater, it is unlikely that excavation activities would have the potential to encounter
groundwater and groundwater dewatering is not anticipated to be required during
construction activities.
With adherence to Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-1, including preparation of a
SWPPP and implementation of construction BMPs, impacts associated with the violation
of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during project construction
would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Operation. As previously discussed, the city is a co-permittee under the Los Angeles
RWQCB’s MS4 Permit, which requires co-permittees to develop and implement a
standard design and post-development BMP guidance to guide application of LID BMPs
to the maximum extent practicable. The city relies on the Low Impact Development
Standards Manual (LID Manual),96 prepared by Los Angeles County (County), to guide
the implementation of LID BMPs in the City. The LID Manual was prepared by the County
in February 2014 in order to comply with the MS4 Permit and provides stormwater
management requirements for Designated and Non-Designated Projects. Designated
Projects must retain 100 percent of the increase in stormwater runoff from existing
conditions (i.e., the Stormwater Quality Design Volume [SWQDv]) on-site through
infiltration, evapotranspiration, stormwater runoff harvest and use, or a combination
thereof unless it is demonstrated that it is technically infeasible to do. Non-Designated
Projects are further divided into Small Scale and Large Scale Non-Designated Projects.
95
96

RMA Geoscience. Geotechnical Investigation Report. June 12, 2024.
County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works. Low Impact Development Standards Manual.
February, 2014.

93

Small Scale Non-Designated Projects include residential development and
redevelopment of four units or less and are required to implement at least two of the
simple BMPs provided in the LID Manual into the site design. Large Scale NonDesignated Projects include all Non-Designated residential developments of five units or
more and, similar to Designated Projects, are required retain on-site the change in
SWQDv through infiltration, evapotranspiration, stormwater runoff harvest and use, or a
combination thereof unless it is demonstrated that it is technically infeasible to do so.
Consistent with the requirements of the MS4 Permit and the guidance provided in the
County’s LID Manual, the specific LID BMPs for the proposed project are detailed in the
project-specific LID Studies for the South Gateway Site97 and North Gateway Site98 which
are provided respectively as Appendices F-1 and F2. The LID Studies also provide the
applicable source control measures for the proposed project, including storm drain
signage, landscape irrigation practices, and type of building materials. According to the
LID Studies, development of the three parcels within the North and South Gateway Sites
qualifies as Small Scale Non-Designated Projects As Small Scale Non-Designated
Projects, development of the parcels within the North Gateway Site and South Gateway
Site would not be required to retain stormwater onsite but would instead implement at
least two of the simple BMPs provided in the LID Manual into the site design.
The proposed project would generally maintain existing drainage pattens at the South
and North Gateway Sites. As detailed in Appendix F1, with implementation of the
proposed project, stormwater runoff from the South Gateway Site would be retained and
infiltrated onsite. Sub Area A would use an onsite Infiltration Trench (RET-3) to collect
and infiltrate the SWQDv stormwater flow at volumes that exceed the existing condition.99
Sub Area 1B would be graded to utilize the new, expansive landscape areas to retain and
percolate stormwater on site to a much greater degree than the existing condition.
Because the post construction impervious area for Sub-Area 1-B is less than the preconstruction impervious area, the LID Study determined no further study is necessary.
Storm runoff water would be directed to landscaped areas to be infiltrated rather than
surface flowing to A Street as before.
As detailed in Appendix F2, with implementation of the proposed project, stormwater
runoff from the North Gateway Site would be retained and infiltrated onsite. The onsite
drainage system for the North Gateway Site would include an Infiltration Trench (RET-3)
designed to collect and infiltrate the SWQDv stormwater flow at volumes that exceed the
existing condition.100
Two of the simple BMPs provided in the LID Manual to be incorporated for the North
Gateway Site and South Gateway Site include landscape irrigation practices (S-8) and

97

98

99

100

Cantwell, Richard, P.E. Low Impact Development (LID) Study, Hillcrest Gateway Project, 2692 Park
Avenue, 2675 and 2681 A Street, La Verne, CA. No Date.
Cantwell, Richard, P.E. Low Impact Development (LID) Study, Hillcrest Gateway Project, 2712 Park
Avenue, La Verne, CA. No Date.
Cantwell, Richard, P.E. Low Impact Development (LID) Study, Hillcrest Gateway Project, 2692 Park
Avenue, 2675 and 2681 A Street, La Verne, CA. Pages 8, 10, and 11. No Date
Cantwell, Richard, P.E. Low Impact Development (LID) Study, Hillcrest Gateway Project, 2712 Park
Avenue, La Verne, CA. Page 8. No Date.

94

building materials (S-9). The project landscape designer would be directed to employ
measures that would reduce excessive irrigation runoff, including but not limited to using:





Rain triggered shut off devices;
Adjust irrigation system design to specific plantings;
Include flow reducers or shut off valves to prevent loss due to breakage; and
Follow local water conservation methods and techniques.

In addition, alternative building materials would be considered by the project architect.
These may include the use of properly coated metal flashing, vents, etc.
Compliance with the requirements of the MS4 Permit is also achieved through adherence
to Chapter 13.50 of the City’s Municipal Code, which requires compliance with applicable
NPDES permits. Section 13.50.093 of the City’s Municipal Code also requires the
preparation of a Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) for certain new
development or redevelopment projects, including redevelopment projects that results in
the creation, addition, or replacement of five thousand square feet or more of impervious
surface area on an already developed site.101 Because the proposed project is a
redevelopment project that would result in the creation, addition, or replacement of five
thousand square feet or more of impervious surface area on an already developed site,
preparation of a SUSMP is required. SUSMPs include BMPs for source control, pollution
prevention, site design, LID implementation, and structural treatment control. Educational
materials for Hillcrest staff and residents, employee training, activity restrictions, and other
non-structural source controls also may be implemented in order to educate people about
stormwater pollution and potentially reduce activities that lead to polluted runoff. As
detailed in Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-2, the proposed project would be
required to prepare a SUSMP that details the source control and LID BMPs provided in
the LID Studies, consistent with the requirements of the MS4 Permit and the City’s
Municipal Code, which would ensure that the proposed project would adequately target
pollutants of concern in stormwater runoff during project operation.
Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-2: MS4 Permit/Chapter 13.50 of the City’s
Municipal Code. Prior to issuance of a grading
permit, the Applicant shall submit Standard
Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) to
the City of La Verne for review and approval.
The SUSMP shall demonstrate that the
proposed development plan includes BMPs for
source control, pollution prevention, site design,
low impact development (LID) implementation,
and structural treatment control. Best
Management Practices (BMPs) shall be
designed and implemented consistent with the
requirements outlined in the project-specific LID
Studies and Los Angeles County’s LID
101

Section 13.50.093 of the City Municipal Code requires that a standard urban stormwater mitigation plan
(SUSMP) shall be required for “Redevelopment projects that results in the creation, addition, or
replacement of five thousand square feet or more of impervious surface area on an already developed
site.”

95

Standards Manual. Periodic maintenance of any
required bioretention basin and landscaped
areas during project occupancy and operation
shall be in accordance with the schedule
outlined in the SUSMP. This condition shall be
implemented to the satisfaction of the Director
of the City of La Verne Public Works
Department and the Community Development
Director or designee, as appropriate.
With adherence to Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-2, including preparation of a
SUSMP and implementation of operational BMPs, impacts associated with the violation
of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during project operation
would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Overall, with adherence to Regulatory Compliance Measures HYD-1 and HYD-2, the
proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements, or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality, during
construction or operation. Impacts would be less than significant, and mitigation is not
required.
b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater
recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater
management in the basin?
Less than Significant Impact
Discussion of Effects: The project site is located within the boundaries of the San Gabriel
Valley Groundwater Basin.102 The estimated groundwater storage capacity of the San
Gabriel Valley Groundwater Basin is 10,438,000 acre-feet and natural recharge to the
basin is primarily from the direct percolation of precipitation and stream flow.103 Stream
flow is a combination of runoff from the surrounding mountains, imported water conveyed
in the San Gabriel River channel to spreading grounds in the Central subbasin of the
Coastal Plain of Los Angeles Groundwater Basin, and treated sewage effluent.104
Construction. As discussed above, according to the Geotechnical Investigation105
prepared for the proposed project, no groundwater was encountered in any of the nine
test borings. In addition, the Geotechnical Investigation indicates that the depth to
historical high groundwater is greater than 100 feet bgs. Due to the depth of groundwater,
it is unlikely that excavation activities would have the potential to encounter groundwater,
and groundwater dewatering is not anticipated to be required during construction
activities. In addition, due to the depth of groundwater, it is unlikely that the project site is
a significant groundwater recharge area. Nevertheless, soil compaction would be
102

103

104

105

California Department of Water Resources. Groundwater Basin Boundary Assessment Tool. Website:
https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bbat/. Accessed March 2025.
California Department of Water Resources. California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118, San Gabriel Valley
Groundwater Basin. February 27, 2004.
City of La Verne. Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report for the La Verne General Plan and
Zoning Ordinance Update (SCH: 2023040002). August 2024.
RMA Geoscience. Geotechnical Investigation Report. June 12, 2024.

96

minimized during construction, which would promote natural infiltration during
construction activities. Therefore, construction impacts related to a decrease in
groundwater supplies or interference with groundwater recharge in a manner that may
impede sustainable groundwater management would be less than significant, and no
mitigation is required.
Operation. As described above, it is unlikely that the project site is a significant
groundwater recharge area due to the depth to groundwater. The proposed project would
also include porous paving on the North Gateway Site and eastern portion of the South
Gateway Site that would infiltrate stormwater onsite, and both the South and North
Gateway Sites would include an infiltration trench located in the landscaped areas, which
would capture and infiltrate the SWQDv stormwater flows in accordance with the MS4
Permit. As such, infiltration would continue to occur at the project site in the postdevelopment condition.
As discussed above, the project site is located within the San Gabriel Valley Groundwater
Basin. The San Gabriel Valley Groundwater Basin is identified by the Department of
Water Resources as a low priority basin.106 Therefore, the groundwater basin is not
considered critically overdrafted and a Groundwater Sustainability Plan is not required.
The San Gabriel Groundwater Basin is divided into three adjudicated sub-basins,
including the Main San Gabriel Basin (Main Basin), Puente Basin, and portions of the Six
Basins area. In addition, there is the Spadra sub-basin, which is not adjudicated. The city,
including the project site, is located within the Main Basin and Six Basins management
areas.107
Domestic water for the City is provided by the City of La Verne and the Golden State
Water Company, San Dimas System (GSWC) through a combination of groundwater and
imported water. The City is the water purveyor for the vast majority of the city, with the
remaining parts of the city along its western border and unincorporated areas in the
sphere of influence being served by GSWC. The City’s water sources include imported
water from the Three Valleys Municipal Water District’s (TVMWD) Miramar Treatment
Plant, Metropolitan Water District (MWD), and groundwater extracted from Six Basins.
GSWC’s main source of water supply is groundwater pumped from the Main Basin.108
Based on the project site’s location within the city, the City would provide domestic water
to the project site, primarily extracted from Six Basins in accordance with the Six Basins
Judgment. The Six Basins Judgment is overseen by the Six Basins Watermaster.
According to the Six Basins Judgment, the City has a right to 7.601 percent of the safe
operating yield from the Canyon Basin, Upper Claremont Heights Basin, Lower Claremont
Heights Basin, and Pomona Basin and “the right to produce as much groundwater as it
may reasonably withdraw from the Two Basins Area on an annual basis so long as it does
not substantially injure the rights of any other” parties identified in the Six Basins
Judgment.109 Through compliance with the Six Basins Judgment, groundwater extraction
by the City for domestic use would not exceed safe operating yields. In addition, as
106

107

108
109

California Department of Water Resources. SGMA Basin prioritization Dashboard. Website:
https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bp-dashboard/final/. Accessed March 2025.
City of La Verne. Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report for the La Verne General Plan and
Zoning Ordinance Update (SCH: 2023040002). August 2024.
Ibid.
City of La Verne. City of La Verne 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Page 5-7. June 2021.

97

discussed in Section XIX, Utilities and Service Systems, the City has adequate water
supplies to meet normal year, single dry year, and multiple dry year demand conditions
through the UWMP’s 2040 planning horizon. Through a combination of imported water
from the TVMWD and MWD and local groundwater extracted from Six Basins in
accordance with the Six Basins Judgment, the City would have sufficient water supplies
to serve the proposed project. Therefore, operational impacts related to a decrease in
groundwater supplies or interference with groundwater recharge in a manner that may
impede sustainable groundwater management would be less than significant, and
mitigation is not required.
Overall, implementation of the proposed project would not deplete groundwater supplies
or interfere with groundwater recharge during construction or operation such that the
proposed project may impede sustainable groundwater management. Impacts
associated with groundwater supply and recharge would be less than significant, and
mitigation is not required.
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition
of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i

Result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site?

Less Than Significant Impact
Discussion of Effects: The existing topography of the North Gateway Site gently
slopes from north to south (one percent slope), and stormwater currently drains west
towards Park Avenue, where it is discharged to existing stormwater infrastructure. The
South Gateway Site has a high point running north to south approximately 80 feet east
of the western property line. Currently, stormwater from the west of the high point
drains west towards Park Avenue and stormwater from east of the high point drains
east towards A Street. Stormwater is then conveyed through an existing stormwater
channel before being discharged into Puddingstone Reservoir, approximately 1.6miles southwest of the project site. With implementation of the proposed project,
stormwater runoff from the South and North Gateway Sites would be collected via the
proposed on-site stormwater collection infrastructure and conveyed to the proposed
Infiltration Trenches (RET-3) located in the landscaped areas of each site, which
would capture and infiltrate the SWQDv for the project. Overflows from the porous
pavement and infiltration basin would discharge to existing stormwater infrastructure
in Park Avenue and A Street, similar to existing conditions.

98

Construction. During construction activities, soil would be exposed and disturbed,
drainage patterns would be temporarily altered, and there would be an increased
potential for soil erosion and siltation compared to existing conditions. Additionally,
during a storm event, soil erosion and siltation could occur at an accelerated rate. As
discussed above, and as specified in Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-1, the
Applicant would be required to obtain coverage under the Construction General
Permit, which requires preparation of a SWPPP. The SWPPP would detail erosion
control and sediment control BMPs to be implemented during construction to
minimize erosion and retain sediment on site.
With adherence to Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-1, including
implementation of construction BMPs, construction impacts related to substantial soil
erosion or the loss of topsoil would be less than significant, and no mitigation is
required.
Operation. The proposed impervious surface areas on the project site would not be
prone to on-site erosion or siltation because there would be no exposed soil. The
remaining pervious surfaces on the project site would be landscaped with vegetation
that would stabilize the soil and promote infiltration, thereby minimizing on-site
erosion and siltation. Furthermore, the proposed project would be required to adhere
to Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-2, which requires the preparation of a
SUSMP in compliance with the MS4 Permit and the implementation of source control
and LID BMPs that would minimize stormwater runoff, thereby minimizing on-site
erosion and siltation. With adherence to Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-2,
operational impacts related to on-site or off-site erosion or siltation would be less
than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Overall, with adherence to Regulatory Compliance Measures HYD-1 and HYD-2,
the proposed project would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site.
Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
ii Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on or off site?
and
iv Impede or redirect flood flows?
Less Than Significant Impact
Discussion of Effects: According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) No. 06037C1725F (effective September
26, 2008),110 the project site is mapped as within Zone X, Area of Minimal Flood
Hazard, and is not within a 100-year flood zone. As discussed above, project
construction would comply with the requirements of the Construction General Permit
and the City’s Municipal Code (Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-1), which
require preparation of a SWPPP that would specify construction BMPs to control and
direct on-site surface runoff to ensure that project construction does not increase the
rate or amount of surface runoff or impede or redirect flood flows in manner that would
110

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) No.
06037C1725F. September 26, 2008.

99

result in on-site or off-site flooding. In addition, the proposed LID BMPs (porous
pavement, and infiltration basin), would capture and treat stormwater runoff consistent
with the requirements of the MS4 Permit. Compliance with the MS4 Permit
(Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-2) would ensure that operational activities
would not result in a substantial increase in the rate or amount of surface runoff or
impede or redirect flood flows in a manner that would result in on- or off-site flooding.
Overall, with adherence to Regulatory Compliance Measures HYD-1 and HYD-2,
the proposed project would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site or significantly impede
or redirect flood flows. Impacts would be less than significant, and mitigation is not
required.
iii 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?
Less Than Significant Impact
Discussion of Effects: As discussed above, project construction would comply with the
requirements of the Construction General Permit and the City’s Municipal Code
(Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-1), which require preparation of a SWPPP
that would specify construction BMPs to control and direct on-site surface runoff to
ensure that storm water runoff from the construction site does not exceed the capacity
of the stormwater drainage system and does not discharge polluted runoff during
construction activities.
As detailed in Appendix F1, with implementation of the proposed project, stormwater
runoff from the South Gateway Site would be retained and infiltrated onsite. Sub Area
A would use an onsite Infiltration Trench (RET-3) to collect and infiltrate the SWQDv
stormwater flow at volumes that exceed the existing condition.111 Sub Area 1B would
be graded to utilize the new, expansive landscape areas to retain and percolate
stormwater on site to a much greater degree than the existing condition. Because the
post construction impervious area for Sub-Area 1-B is less than the pre-construction
impervious area, the LID Study determined no further study is necessary. Storm runoff
water would be directed to landscaped areas to be infiltrated rather than surface
flowing to A Street as before.
As detailed in Appendix F2, with implementation of the proposed project, stormwater
runoff from the North Gateway Site would be retained and infiltrated onsite. The onsite
drainage system for the North Gateway Site would include an Infiltration Trench (RET3) designed to collect and infiltrate the SWQDv stormwater flow at volumes that
exceed the existing condition.112
Through compliance with the design requirements for Small Scale Non-Designated
Projects provided in the LID Manual, which would be detailed in the SUSMP
111

112

Cantwell, Richard, P.E. Low Impact Development (LID) Study, Hillcrest Gateway Project, 2692 Park
Avenue, 2675 and 2681 A Street, La Verne, CA. Pages 8, 10, and 11. No Date
Cantwell, Richard, P.E. Low Impact Development (LID) Study, Hillcrest Gateway Project, 2712 Park
Avenue, La Verne, CA. Page 8. No Date.

100

(Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-2), stormwater runoff from the project site
would not exceed the capacity of the existing stormwater system pursuant to the
requirements of the MS4 Permit.
Overall, with adherence to Regulatory Compliance Measures HYD-1 and HYD-2,
the proposed project would not 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. Impacts would be less than
significant, and mitigation is not required.
d. Result in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, or risk release of pollutants
due to project inundation?
Less than Significant Impact
Discussion of Effects:
Flooding. As discussed above, the project site is not within a 100-year flood zone. During
construction, BMPs would be implemented to ensure that during a rain event, pollutants
would be retained on site and would be prevented from reaching downstream receiving
waters in accordance with Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-1. During operation,
the proposed project would generally maintain the existing drainage pattern of the project
site, and development would include porous pavement and infiltration trenches that would
ensure that pollutants would be treated and prevented from reaching downstream
receiving waters, consistent with the requirements of the MS4 Permit. Compliance with
the MS4 Permit, as required by Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-2, would ensure
the proposed project would not result in the release of pollutants due to flooding during
operation.
In addition, according to the California Department of Water Resources Division of Safety
of Dams, the project site is not located within a dam inundation area.113 Therefore, the
proposed project would not result in the release of pollutants due to flooding cause by a
dam failure.
The proposed project would also be reviewed pursuant to Section 18.60.030 and Chapter
18.16, Development Review, of the City’s Municipal Code. If the project site is found to
be subject to floodwater inundation, the proposed project would be conditioned to meet
the requirements established in Chapter 15.40, Floodplain Management, of the City’s
Municipal Code, as well as compliance with State Civil Code Sections 1103 through
1103.4 requiring notification to those potentially affected of the risk involved in location
within a flood hazard or dam inundation area. These requirements will be confirmed
through the City’s building plan check process prior to issuance of building permits.
Tsunami. The project site is over 32 miles northeast of the Pacific Ocean, and intervening
mountain ranges are located between the project site and the Pacific Ocean. Based on
the distance from the Pacific Ocean and the presence of an intervening mountain range,

113

California Department of Water Resources, Division of Safety of Dams. n.d. Dam Breach Inundation
Map Web Publisher. Website: https://fmds.water.ca.gov/webgis/?appid=dam_prototype_v2. Accessed
March 19, 2025.

101

the project site would not be susceptible to inundation from a tsunami and there is no risk
of a release of pollutants from the project site.
Seiches. Seiches are oscillations in enclosed bodies of water (e.g., a bay, lake, or harbor)
that are caused by a number of factors, most often wind or seismic activity. Seiches go
up and down or oscillate and do not progress forward like standard ocean waves. The
nearest sizeable, enclosed body of water to the project site is Puddingstone Reservoir,
which is located approximately 1.7 miles southwest of the project site. Given the distance
of large standing bodies of water from the project site and that seiches are highly
localized, there is no risk of a release of pollutants from the project site due to seicherelated flooding.
Overall, with adherence to Regulatory Compliance Measures HYD-1 and HYD-2,
including the inclusion of rain barrels, porous pavement, and an infiltration basin that
would treat stormwater and address the volume and rate of stormwater flows, and
because the project site is not within a tsunami or seiche zone, implementation of the
proposed project would not result in the release of pollutants from a flood, dam inundation,
tsunami, or seiche. Impacts would be less than significant, and mitigation is not
required.
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater management plan?
Less than Significant Impact
Discussion of Effects: The project site is within the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles
RWQCB. The Los Angeles RWQCB adopted a Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan)
in September 2014, which was updated in November 2024, that designates beneficial
uses for all surface and groundwater within its jurisdiction and establishes the water
quality objectives and standards necessary to protect those beneficial uses. The
proposed project would comply with the Construction General Permit and the existing
MS4 Permit, as detailed in Regulatory Compliance Measures HYD-1 and HYD-2, which
require preparation of a SWPPP and SUSMP, and implementation of construction and
operational BMPs to reduce pollutants of concern in stormwater runoff. Therefore, the
proposed project would not result in water quality impacts that would conflict with the Los
Angeles RWQCB Basin Plan. Impacts related to a conflict with or obstruction of the
implementation of a water quality control plan would be less than significant, and no
mitigation is required.
The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) was enacted in September
2014. SGMA requires governments and water agencies located within high- and mediumpriority groundwater basins to halt overdraft of the basins. SGMA requires the formation
of local Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs), which are required to adopt
Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) to manage the sustainability of the groundwater
basins. The project site is located within the San Gabriel Valley Groundwater Basin, which
is identified by the Department of Water Resources as a very low priority basin; therefore,
development of a GSP is not required.
As discussed previously, no groundwater was encountered in any of the nine test borings.
In addition, the Geotechnical Investigation indicates that the depth to historical high
102

groundwater is greater than 100 feet bgs. Due to the depth to groundwater, it is not
expected that any stormwater that may infiltrate during construction would affect
groundwater quality because the groundwater table is deep, and pollutants would be
filtered prior to reaching groundwater. In addition, the proposed project would include
porous pavement and infiltration basins to collect and treat storm water before it could
reach groundwater. Further, pollutants in stormwater are generally removed by soil
through absorption as water infiltrates. Therefore, in areas of deep groundwater, there is
more absorption potential and, as a result, less potential for pollutants to reach
groundwater. Due to the depth to groundwater, it is not expected that any storm water
that may infiltrate during construction or operation would affect groundwater quality
because there is not a direct path for pollutants to reach groundwater.
Although the proposed project would increase impervious surface area on the project site,
which would decrease on-site infiltration, the proposed project would collect and infiltrate
stormwater on the proje