HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2 - Canyon Estate DEIR Volume 1
State Clearinghouse Number 201404113
CANYON PRIVATE RESIDENCE
Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 14-01
Residential Mountainous Development
Permit No. RM 14-01
Draft Project EIR (2015-01)
Volume 1 of 2
CITY OF ARCADIA
Development Services Department
240 West Huntington Drive
Arcadia, California 91066-6021
SID LINDMARK, AICP
Planning . Environmental . Policy
March 2015
ii
DRAFT PROJECT EIR (2015 – 01)
CANYON PRIVATE RESIDENCE
Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 14-01
Residential Mountainous Development Permit No. RM 14-01
SCH 201404113
Volume 1 of 2
Prepared for:
CITY OF ARCADIA
Development Services Department
240 West Huntington Drive, POB 60021
Arcadia, California 91066-6021
Contact Person: Mr. Tom Li, Associate Planner
(626) 574-5447
Prepared by:
SID LINDMARK, AICP
Planning . Environmental . Policy
Laguna Hills, California 92653-7401
(949) 855-0416
March 2015
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 1
1.1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.2 ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED 9
1.3 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS 9
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 23
2.1 LOCATION AND SETTING 23
2.2 PROJECT HISTORY 28
2.3 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS 28
2.4 INTENDED USES OF THIS EIR 35
3.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS, IMPACTS
AND MITIGATION MEASURES 36
3.1 LAND USE 36
3.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 59
3.3 SOILS AND GEOLOGY 94
3.4 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 107
3.5 WILDLAND FIRE HAZARDS 117
3.6 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GASES 125
3.7 NOISE AND VIBRATION 153
3.8 OTHER EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT 161
4.0 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 169
5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT 171
5.1 ALTERNATIVE 1 – NO-PROJECT/EXISTING CONDITIONS 172
5.2 ALTERNATIVE 2 – CONTIGUOUS DEVELOPMENT/EASTERN ACCESS 172
5.3 ALTERNATIVE 3 – CONTIGUOUS DEVELOPMENT/WESTERN ACCESS 175
5.4 ALTERNATIVE 4 – OPEN SPACE – RESOURCE PROTECTION 177
5.5 ALTERNATIVE 5 – APPROVED TWO UNIT SUBDIVISION 178
5.6 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES MATRIX 182
5.7 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES CONCLUSIONS 184
6.0 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS
OF ENERGY SUPPLIES AND OTHER RESOURCES
SHOULD THE PROJECT BE IMPLEMENTED 186
iv
7.0 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS
OF THE PROJECT 187
8.0 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED 188
9.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY 191
10.0 APPENDICES (VOLUME 2 OF 2) 195
A. Notice of Preparation
B. Comments on the Notice of Preparation
C. Hydrology/Water Quality Study
D. Biological Resource Study
E. Arborist Study
F. Soils/Geology Reports
G. CalEEMod Emissions Reports
H. Correspondence Received
I. Other Project Information
J. Jurisdictional Delineation Report
K. Cultural Resource Study
v
EXHIBITS
1.1 Regional Location 2
1.2 Project Location 3
1.3 Tentative Parcel Map 72681 5
1.4 Site Photo A 7
1.5 Site Photo B 8
2.1.1 Study Area Aerial (Biological Resources) 26
2.1.2 Project Area (ALTA Base) 27
2.3.1 City of Sierra Madre Zoning 29
2.3.2 Conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan 32
2.3.3 Conceptual Landscape Plan (Phase 1) 34
3.1.1 Site Elevations 44
3.2.1 TPM 72681 Vegetation Areas 61
3.2.2 Parcel 1 Vegetation Map 65
3.2.3 Oak Tree Protection Plan 69
3.2.4 Locations of Sensitive Species 73
3.2.5 CDFG Jurisdictional Areas 84
3.3.1 Topography Cross-Sections A-A to C-C 96
3.4.1 Existing Drainage Areas 108
3.4.2 Future Drainage Areas 110
3.7.1 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels 155
5.2.1 Alternative 2: Contiguous Development with Eastern Access 174
5.3.1 Alternative 3: Contiguous Development with Western Access 176
5.5.1 Alternative 5: Approved Two-Unit Subdivision 180
vi
TABLES
1.3.1 Summary of Project Significant Effects 10
3.1.1 Average Rainfall in Arcadia 56
3.2.1 Special Status Plants 76
3.2.2 Special Status Wildlife (May Occur Onsite) 80
3.2.3 Oaks in Parcel 1 (PIP and Removals) 86
3.3.1 Slope Analysis Assumptions 97
3.3.2 Existing Slope Stability 98
3.3.3 Future Slope Stability at Buildout 102
3.3.4 Slope Excavation Characteristics 102
3.4.1 Post-Development Q50 Runoff 112
3.6.1 Air Quality Levels in SRA 9 127
3.6.2 Criteria Pollutants for South Coast Air Basin 129
3.6.3 Ambient Air Quality Standards 131
3.6.4 SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance 133
3.6.5 Conceptual Project Construction Schedule 135
3.6.6 Project Construction Peak Emissions (Summer) 137
3.6.7 Project Construction Peak Emissions (Winter) 138
3.6.8 Project Operational Peak Emissions (Summer) 139
3.6.9 Project Operational Peak Emissions (Winter) 140
3.6.10 Local Significant Screening Thresholds 141
vii
3.6.11 Truck Export Hauling 142
3.6.12 Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions 150
3.6.13 Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions 151
3.7.1 Typical Outdoor Construction Noise Levels 154
5.6.1 Project Alternatives Matrix 182
1
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
This section contains the following sub-sections:
1.1 INTRODUCTION
1.2 ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED
1.3 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The City of Arcadia has prepared this Project Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) in
conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA,” Public Resources Code
Section 21000 et. seq.) and the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental
Quality Act (“CEQA Guidelines,” California Code of Regulations, Section 15000 et. seq.). The
analysis is also subject to Article 12: Special Situations and Section 15182: Projects Consistent
with a Community Plan, General Plan or Zoning. This section limits the analysis of potential
significant effects that must be considered when these effects are not peculiar to the project and
prior environmental documents have identified mitigation measures and to address impacts of
future projects.
This document is a Project EIR (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15161 since it examines the
potential environmental impacts of a specific development project and focuses on the physical
changes on the environment that would result from implementation of the proposed
development project. The EIR examines all phases of the project including planning,
demolition, construction and operation.
The proposed project involves development of one residential dwelling unit consistent the
General Plan and Zoning designations for the 90.5 acre parcel (TPM 72681). The proposed
project site is located in the City of Arcadia in the County of Los Angeles north of Interstate 210
at the northern terminus of Vista Avenue (Exhibit 1.1). The area extending north from Orange
Grove Avenue and west of Highland Oaks Drive to the City of Arcadia’s northern boundary west
of Canyon Drive is designated Residential Estate in the General Plan.
The project site is undeveloped, although it does include some drainage improvements, and is
characterized as diverse woodlands, primarily oak woodland and coastal sage scrub/chaparral.
There is a blue line-stream onsite, but not in the proposed grading and buffer area. Existing
elevations within the project site (TPM 72681) range from 920 feet above msl (mean sea level)
in the southern portion to 1,220 feet above msl near the northwest boundary (Exhibit 3.1.1)
The northern portion of the tentative tract map (Parcel 2) is not impacted by the proposed
project. Two northwest-southeast ridges along the eastern and western portions of Parcel 1 are
the primary topographic features in Parcel 1.
2
Exhibit 1.1: Regional Location
Canyon Road and Carolwood Drive are the closest streets to the southern portion of the site
other than Vista Avenue. Santa Anita Canyon Road in the City of Sierra Madre is the nearest
street to the project site to the west. The project is proposing approximately 7,000 cubic yards
of cut and 7,000 cubic yards of fill. There are no local streets in the City adjacent to the
northern boundaries of the project site (Exhibit 1.2). Approximately fifty dwelling units occur
along Canyon Road north of the project site west of Highland Vista Drive. A photo aerial of the
90.5 acre project area is included as Exhibit 2.1.1. Files of all exhibits in this report are
available upon request as pdf files.
3
Exhibit 1.2: Project Location
The project applicant, Nevis Capital, LLC, of Arcadia, California has filed applications with the
City of Arcadia for one residential unit on the 90.5 acre project site and one open space lot.
Approximately 1.34 acres of the project site would be graded for an access road and the one
building pad. (For comparison, 1.34 acres equates to four 15,000 residential lots or one football
field). Approximately 98 percent of the project site or 89.0 acres (e.g. the size of 67 football
fields) will remain in open space.
Two Spring Rare Plant Surveys in Parcel 1 were completed for the project in May 2012 and
2014. An additional plant survey will be completed in May 2015. The preliminary project
construction schedule is listed in Table 3.6.5, with occupancy in March 2016.
4
.
For purposes of this EIR it should be noted that the environmental analysis and conclusions
related thereto are based on a preliminary grading plan and related technical studies submitted
by the applicant. Therefore, no building plans are being submitted at this time and their
submittal is subject to ministerial action only, not a discretionary permit. Similarly, a water
quality management plan is a ministerial action and is not being submitted at this time.
Tentative Parcel Map 72681 includes two parcels proposed for one private residence (Exhibit
1.3). Parcel 1 is approximately 11.68 and Parcel 2 is 78 acres. The acreage outside of the
building and entrance street (Parcel 1) and all of Parcel 2 is proposed as open space. If
feasible, the open space in Parcel 2 will be subject to a Conservation Easement between the
property owners and the City that will prohibit further development in perpetuity with rezoning to
Open Space. The Conservation Easement(s) is not indicated on TPM 72681 or on the Grading
Plan (Exhibits 1.3 and 2.3.1) because no easement(s) has been approved or recorded to date.
Parcel 1 is approximately 11.7 acres and includes the street, building pad and 10.34 acres of
open space. Within Parcel 1, 0.98 acres will be graded for the street and 0.36 acres graded for
the building pad. The maximum slope ratio of cut slopes is 2:1. The maximum height of a cut
slope onsite is twenty feet and is located directly northwest of the proposed building pad.
As stated earlier, the project proposes approximately 7,000 cubic yards of cut and 7,000 cubic
yards of fill. The maximum height of a driveway retaining wall is 18 feet at 1,025 feet msl and
a maximum height of the street retaining wall along Canyon Road is 3 feet at 960 feet msl. No
grading occurs within Parcel 1 south and east of the building pad marked “2:1 natural grade” on
TPM 72681. The acreage used for the biological assessment is slightly larger than the 1.34
acre graded area since 250 – 500 feet of buffer area is used to assess potential construction
activity impacts.).
5
Exhibit 1.3: Tentative Parcel Map 72681
6
The proposed Grading Plan for the project site is shown in Exhibit 2.3.1. The finished
elevations onsite are from 1,002 feet above mean sea level (msl) for the project entrance on
Canyon Road to 1,090 feet msl for the proposed residential building pad.
The building pad size and elevation are 15,600 sq. ft. and 1,090 feet msl.
Site Photo A is of the central portion of the project site, which will not be graded. Site Photo B is
along the Canyon Drive frontage. A preliminary engineering profile of the Canyon Drive
entrance is included in Appendix I.
7
Exhibit 1.4: Site Photo A
8
Exhibit 1.5: Site Photo B
9
1.2 ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED
The following environmental issues are the primary concerns related to development of the
project that have been expressed by City staff or others following submittal of the project
application:
1. How many oak trees onsite will be removed?
Project grading will result in removal of 32 oaks and 30 oaks will be protected in place
(See Table 3.2.3)
2. Will graded slopes be stable?
The geology report concludes the proposed slopes will be stable at buildout (See Table
3.3.3)
3. Will rare or endangered wildlife or plants be harmed?
The biology reports in Section D, including the Spring Special Status Plan surveys,
concluded no rare or endangered wildlife or plants would be harmed with the
recommended mitigation measures (See Appendix D and Section 3.2.2).
1.3 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
Table 1.3.1 summarizes the significant environmental impacts (effects) of the project,
recommends mitigation measures and states the significance determination.
The discussion of existing conditions, identification of project impacts and recommended
mitigation measures for each topical issue evaluated in the Draft EIR are included in Section
3.0. Project impacts evaluated as Less than Significant are identified in Section 3.7. All
technical reports completed for the project are included in the Appendices. All additional project
application materials are available for review at the Planning Department and the Draft EIR and
public notices for the project are being posted electronically at www.ci.arcadia.ca.us.
10
Table 1.3.1
Summary of Project Significant Effects
Project Significant Effects Mitigation Measures Level of Significance with Mitigation Incorporated
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
SE-01: Vegetation clearing, grading and other
ground disturbing activities onsite during prime
nesting season may impact nesting migratory birds
and raptors, which are protected by the Federal
Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Fish
and Game Code Sections, 3503 and 3503.5. Most
species of birds that occur at the project site are
protected by these regulations. Construction
activities may impact the nests of the Cooper’s
Hawk and Southern California Rufous Crowned
Sparrow (both on the DFG Watch List), the Oak
Titmouse (American Bird Conservancy: State
Special Animal), and the Turkey Vulture (Los
Angeles County Sensitive Bird Species List). All
four species were observed onsite.
The American Peregrine Falcon (CA Endangered,
Federal Delisted) was observed onsite but is not
likely to nest onsite.
BIO-01: If grading occurs during bird nesting
season (March 1 to August 31) for most bird
species and as early as January 1 for some raptors,
nesting bird surveys conforming to the guidelines
in the biological resource report shall be
completed by a professional biologist prior to and
within 72 hours of removal of trees or vegetation
within the grading area and an adjacent area of 300
feet (within 500 feet for raptors). If active nests of
migratory or rare and endangered birds are found,
the biologist shall define the geographical area to
be avoiding and the length of time the area is off-
limits for construction activities. The applicant
shall implement all recommendations of the
approved nesting bird/raptor surveys. Fencing
proposed for use during construction or during the
life of the project shall be constructed with
materials that are not harmful to wildlife. The
Planning Division shall ensure compliance.
LS-01: Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated
SE-02: The destruction of active wood-rat nests
containing young during vegetation removal and
grading may occur. The San Diego Desert Wood-
rat (State Species of Special Concern) and the
Dusky-footed Woodrat (Federal Species of
Concern) are likely present onsite, based on
observation of wood-rat nests (middens).
BIO-02: A pre-construction survey conforming to
the guidelines in the project biological resource
report shall be completed by a qualified biologist
to identify active wood-rat nests onsite that may be
impacted by grading and vegetation removal, or
active wood-rat nests which are located in a 25-
foot buffer zone from the graded area. The
applicant shall implement all recommendation of
the biological study (Appendix D), the California
Fish and Wildlife recommendations (pp. 5-6 of
LS-02: Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated
11
April 2, 2013 correspondence) and of the approved
focused wood-rat nesting report. The Planning
Division shall ensure compliance.
SE-03: Several special-status plants may be
destroyed during vegetation removal and grading
onsite. The two Federal species of concern that
may occur onsite include the Plummer’s Mariposa
Lily and Parish’s Gooseberry. The Southern
Tarplant (Federal Species of Concern) and the
Nevin’s Barberry (Federal Endangered) are
unlikely to occur onsite.
Plants listed on the California Native Plant Society
that were not observed but for which limited
suitable habitat occurs onside are the San Gabriel
Bedstraw (1B), the California Muhly (4), Greta’s
Aster (1B) and the Sonoran Maidenfern (1B).
Category 1B is rare, threatened or endangered in
California and elsewhere. Category 4 is a Watch
List for limited distribution.
Limited suitable habitat occur onsite for three
plant species in the CNPS lists for the San Gabriel
River Dudleya (1B2), the Many-stemmed
Dudyleya (1B), and the Mesa Horkelia (1B).
BIO-03: Prior to and within 1 year of construction,
a Spring Special-Status Plant Survey of special-
status plants shall be completed by a qualified
biologist to identify special-status plans that may
occur onsite and be impacted by grading and
vegetation removal during construction. The
applicant shall implement all recommendations of
the Spring Special-Status Plant Survey and provide
Construction Monitoring by a qualified
biologist/botanist to assure special-status plants in
the open space area adjacent to the graded area are
not impacted by construction activities. The
Planning Division shall ensure compliance.
LS-03: Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated
SE-04: Weekly bird surveys may be required to
avoid significant construction impacts on breeding
birds.
BIO-04: If active nests of migratory or special-
status birds are found, the biologist shall define the
geographical area to be avoided and the length of
time the area is off limits for construction activities
(generally until the young have fledged). If
avoidance of the avian breeding season is not
feasible, a qualified biologist with experience in
conducting breeding bird surveys shall conduct
weekly bird surveys in suitable nesting habitat that
will be disturbed by construction activities. The
LS-04: Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated
12
surveys shall conform to the recommendation of
the California Department of Fish and Wildlife
(Item 4.c., April 2, 2013). The Planning Division
shall ensure compliance.
SE-05: Construction activity may operate outside
the grading area if the areas are not clearly
identified for construction equipment operators.
BIO-05: A qualified biological monitor shall be
present on site during all grubbing and clearing of
vegetation to ensure that these activities remain
within the project footprint (i.e. outside the
demarcated buffer), that the
flagging/stakes/fencing is maintained, and to
minimize the likelihood that active nests are
abandoned or fail due to project activities. The
biological monitor shall send weekly monitoring
reports to Planning Division during the grubbing
and clearing of vegetation, and shall notify the
Planning Division immediately by phone or e-mail
if project activities damage active avian nests. The
Planning Division shall ensure compliance.
LS-05: Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated
SE-06: Roosting sites for bats may be impacted if
grading occurs during the bt maternity season.
BIO-06: If grading occurs during the bat maternity
season (March 1 to September 30) a pre-
construction survey shall be completed by a
professional biologist to identify trees and/or
structures proposed for disturbance that could
provide hiebernacular or nursery colony roosting
habitat for bats. Each tree and/or structure
identified as potentially supporting an active
maternity roost shall be closely inspected by the
bat specialist no greater than 7 days prior to tree
disturbance to more precisely determine the
presence or absence of roosting bats. If bats are
not detected, but the bat specialist determines that
roosting bats may be present at any time of year,
trees shall be pushed down by initial gentle
shaking using heavy machinery, as recommended
in Item 4. B. of Department of Fish and Wildlife
correspondence (April 2, 2013), rather than felling
with a chainsaw, to ensure giving the optimum
warning for roosting bats. A summary report shall
be submitted to the Planning Division. The
Planning Division shall ensure compliance.
LS-06: Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated
13
OAK TREE PRESERVATION
SE-05: Grading for the project may endanger 32
living oaks protected by the City’s Oak Tree
Preservation Ordinance. Of the total 128 trees in
Parcel 1, 32 oak trees will be removed, 33 will be
projected in place. Sixty-three (63) oaks or 51
percent are not impacted by the project.
OAK-01: Prior to issuance of a grading permit and
throughout grading and construction, the project
applicant shall comply with the recommended
general impact mitigation measures for tree
protection listed on pages 4-7 in the certified
arborist report dated January 30, 2014 (Appendix
E) or as amended by an updated arborist report to
be submitted prior to the issuance of a grading
permit. Building Services shall ensure
compliance.
LS-05: Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated in the long-term.
OAK-02: Protective fencing shall be installed
prior to any grading activity or construction onsite
for all trees listed as protect-in-place (PIP) in the
Oak Tree Inventory in Appendix E. Fencing shall
be installed between the edge of grading and the
tree canopy, as far from the tree as construction
will allow. When a protected oak is not near
grading, the fencing shall extend at least to the drip
line of the tree. Fencing shall also be installed
along the project boundary. All fencing shall be
chain-link, at least 5 feet high, and held securely in
place by steel stakes driven directly into the
ground. There shall be no gate, opening, or easy
access into the fenced protection zone. All
protective fencing shall remain intact until
construction is completed. No workers or
equipment shall enter the fenced area. No storage,
waste disposal, equipment clean-out, outhouse, or
vehicle parking shall be allowed within the fenced
area. Fencing proposed for use during
construction or during the life of the project shall
be constructed with materials that are not harmful
to wildlife. Building Services shall ensure
compliance.
OAK-03: Before any construction work is
conducted in the vicinity of Tree Number 19, the
project arborist shall be called to discuss the
required steps to ensure safety and maximum tree
14
viability. Any pruning of this tree shall be carried
out with the project arborist in attendance to
oversee pruning and judge the effect on the health
and safety of the tree. When grading or excavation
takes place within 30 feet of the dripline or 30 feet
of the trunk of this oak in any direction, the project
arborist shall be called to be onsite and examine
the extent of root damage and judge the viability
and safety of the tree. Building Services shall
ensure compliance.
SE-06: Unauthorized use or creation of mountain
bicycle trails onsite may result in soil erosion and
declines in water quality of runoff.
OAK-04: The property shall be signed as Private
Property: No Access and restrict mountain bikes
and all-terrain vehicles. The Police Department
shall ensure compliance based on observation or
by responding to citizen complaints. Building
Services shall ensure compliance with the signage
requirement.
LS-06: Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated
SE-07: The loss of up to thirty (30) oaks, while
saving seventy-five (65) oaks, and the removal of
all vegetation will occur on 1.34 acres of the 90.5
acre site.
OAK-05: The project applicant shall plant
young oak seedlings started in pots in the open
space area in Parcel 2 and screen them if deer are
prevalent in the area of planting. A certified
horticulturist shall supervise the planting and
confirm that a minimum of thirty-two (32) oaks
trees are established after ten years. The
horticulturalist shall submit an annual report to the
City by July 1 on the health of the seedlings. The
Planning Division and Building Services shall
ensure compliance.
LS-07: Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated in the long-term.
SOILS AND GEOLOGY
SE-08: Rough and finish grading onsite may
result in slope instability, mudflows, soil erosion,
fire danger and landslides.
GEO-01: Project contractor documents shall
specify that all contractors shall follow all
recommendations listed in the EGL Report,
dated January 7, 2011 and in prior referenced
reports from 2001, 2007, 2009. Building
Services shall ensure compliance.
LS-08: Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated
GEO-02: Neither heavy equipment loading
nor additional surcharge loading shall be
15
permitted at the top of the descending slope.
A professional geologist shall inspect
temporary excavations to make any
necessary modifications. These observations
apply to the top of the descending slope and
do not occur or apply at lower elevations
adjacent to offsite properties. Building
Services shall ensure compliance.
GEO-03: An additional two (2) feet of high
freeboard of proposed upper ascending slope
retaining wall shall be designed for an impact
load of 125 pcf. Building Services shall ensure
compliance.
SE-09: Grading onsite will permanently alter the
existing landforms and new slopes will be created
onsite that are potentially unstable.
GEO-04: All cut slopes onsite shall be at a
slope ratio of no steeper than 2:1 (H:V). All
permanent fill slopes onsite shall be at a slope
ratio of no steeper than 2:1 (H:V) and keyed
and benched to approved competent bedrock
materials. Building Services shall ensure
compliance.
LS-09: Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated with compliance with all engineering
standards of the grading permit and
recommendations of the soil, geology and drainage
reports.
GE0-05: All project contractors shall comply
fully with an approved staging plan for rough
grading, including the placement of waste
containment and stockpile areas and the
proposed truck haul route. The applicant shall
submit both plans for approval prior to
issuance of a grading permit. Building
Services shall ensure compliance.
SOILS-01: Since groundwater may be a
significant constraint if grading is completed
during the rainy season when perched water
is more likely to occur, grading is limited to the
non-rainy season (WQ-01 below). Sub-drains
shall be placed around the basement
foundations for the onsite residence and
waterproofing of any basement shall be
properly designed by waterproofing
specialists. Building Services shall ensure
16
compliance.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
SE-10: Creation of impervious surfaces onsite and
grading will change area and site drainage and
debris flows.
HYDRO-01: Prior to issuance of a building permit,
all recommendation of the final Hydrology/Water
Quality Report shall be implemented. These
improvements include, but are not limited to the
onsite retaining walls, filtration basin, parkway
drainage units and all associated improvements. The
Building and Construction Division shall monitor
compliance.
LS-10: Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated
SE-11: Construction activities and grading will
decrease the water quality of drainage flows.
WQ-01: Grading activities shall occur between
April and October to avoid the rainy season.
Building Services shall monitor compliance.
LS-11: Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated
WQ-02: Project contractors shall apply chemical
stabilizers according to manufacturer’s
specifications to all previously graded construction
areas which remain inactive for 96 hours or more.
Building Services shall monitor compliance.
WQ-03: Project contractors shall reestablish
ground cover within the construction site within 20
days of grading completion through seeding and
watering on portions of the site that will not be
disturbed for a period of two months or more.
Building Services shall monitor compliance.
WQ-04: Project contractors shall sweep streets
twice per week or more during rainy weather to
prevent silt and other debris from being carried
over to adjacent public thoroughfares. Building
Services shall monitor compliance.
WQ-05: The proposed project meets the criteria for a
Standard Urban Stormwater Management Plan
(SUSMP) report as a hillside development and must
have an approved report prior to the issuance of a
grading permit. All construction activities onsite and
plans shall conform to the approved SUSMP for the
project. Building Services and the Engineering
Division shall monitor compliance.
WQ-06: The proposed project requires obtaining a
permit from the Regional Water Quality Control
17
Board under the General Construction Permit. The
applicant shall provide evidence that the permit has
been obtained prior to issuance of a grading permit.
Building Services and the Engineering Division shall
monitor compliance.
WILDLAND FIRE HAZARDS
SE-12: Construction activities, construction
equipment, building of structures and human
habitation may result in fire danger onsite and
offsite.
FIRE-01: The project shall comply with all 2013
California Fire Code regulations adopted by the City,
2013 California Building Code (Chapter 33), Arcadia
Brush and Structure Pre-Fire Plan, and Very High Fire
Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) policies. The Fire
Department shall ensure compliance.
LS-12: Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated
FIRE-02: The applicant or subsequent property
owners shall comply with all City fire regulations
to ensure defensible spaces and brush clearances
onsite. The property owner shall implement the
Fuel Modification Zones included in the
Conceptual Landscape Plan and the City’s Fire
Hazard Reduction and Safety Guidelines. Access
to the site for fire equipment shall be available
during and following construction completion.
The Fire Department shall ensure compliance.
FIRE-03: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the
Water Division shall complete a fire flow test
confirming what pressure and water supply can be
provided to the project site. Access to the site for
fire equipment shall be available during
construction and following construction
completion. Building Services shall monitor
compliance.
SE-13: Thinning and irrigation practices in Zones
A – C may result in impacts on rare and sensitive
plants and on the long-term vitality of the
protected oak trees onsite. Management practices
must support the dual objectives of promoting fire
safety and assuring long-term oak vitality.
FIRE-04: Prior to approval of a grading plan, the
applicant shall submit a Fuel Modification Plan
acceptable to the City that defines management
practices for thinning and irrigation in Zones B
(i.e. beyond 100 feet from the structure) and Zone
C. The Plan shall be prepared by a certified
arborist, a landscape architect, a project biologist
and a fire safety specialist. The preparers shall
consult with the City of Arcadia Fire Department
LS-13: Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated
18
during the plan preparation. The plan shall specify
when and where irrigation in Zone B is permitted
(e.g. during extreme drought conditions and during
extreme fire danger episodes as specified by the
Fire Department or other agencies) and what
thinning practices may be used within Zones B, C.
The Fuel Modification Plan shall include measures
that promote the long-term viability of the existing
and new oak trees in Parcel 1 and the replacement
oak trees in Parcel 2. The Planning Division shall
ensure compliance.
AIR QUALITY DURING CONSTRUCTION
SE-14: Although the daily emissions for
construction and operation of the project are not
above SCAQMD thresholds, measures are
required to reduce PM10 and PM2.5 cumulative
emissions in the South Coast Air Basin.
AQ-01: The applicant and their contractors shall
comply with all feasible Best Available Control
Measures (BACM) included in Rule 403 included
in Table 1: Best Available Control Measures
Applicable to All Construction Activity Sources.
In addition, the project shall comply with at least
one of the following Track-Out Control Options:
(a) Install a pad consisting of washed gravel
(minimum-size: one inch) maintained in a clean
condition to a depth of at least six inches and
extending at least 20 feet wide and 50 feet long,
(b) Pave the surface extending at least 100 feet and
a width of at least 20 feet wide, (c) Utilize a wheel
shaker/wheel spreading device consisting of raised
dividers (rails, pipe, or grates) at least 24 feet long
and 10 feet wide to remove bulk material from
tires and vehicle under carriages before vehicles
exit the site, (d) Install and utilize a wheel washing
system to remove bulk material from tires and
vehicle undercarriages before vehicles exit the site,
(e) Any other control measures approved by the
Executive Officer and the U.S. EPA as equivalent
to the methods specified items (a) through (d)
above. Individual BACM in Table 1 that are not
applicable to the project or infeasible, based on
additional new project information, may be
omitted only if the Planning Division specifies in a
LS-14: Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated
19
written agreement with the applicant that specific
BACM measures may be omitted. Any
clarifications, additions, selection of alternative
measures, or specificity required to implement the
required BACM for the project shall be included in
the written agreement. The written agreement
shall be completed prior to issuance of a
demolition and/or grading permit for the project.
The Planning Division shall include the written
agreement within the Mitigation Monitoring
Program for the project and Building Services
ensure shall compliance.
AQ-02: Project construction contracts shall
prohibit vehicle and engine idling in excess of five
(5) minutes and ensure that all off-road equipment
is compliant with the CARB’s in-use off-road
diesel vehicle regulations and SCAQMD Rule
1186 and 1186.1 certified street sweepers or
roadway washing trucks, and all internal
combustion engines/construction equipment
operating on the project site shall meet EPA-
Certified Tier 2 emissions standards, or higher
according to the adopted project start date
requirements. A copy of each unit’s certified tier
specification, BACT documentation and CARB or
SCAQMD operating permit shall be provided to
the construction manager at the time of
mobilization of each applicable unit of equipment.
Engineering Services shall ensure compliance.
AQ-03: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the
applicant shall obtain approval for a Truck Route
Plan for all construction equipment transport and
truck hauling to the project site. Hauling of earth
materials shall only occur between 9:00 am and
2:00 pm Monday through Friday and between 8:00
am to 5:00 pm on Saturdays to void school and
20
rush hour traffic. Light duty trucks with a weight
of no more than 8,500 pounds are exempted from
this restriction. Engineering Services shall ensure
compliance.
AQ-04: All diesel construction equipment used
onsite shall use ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel.
Building Services shall ensure compliance.
AQ-05: During grading and construction, fugitive
dust from construction operations shall be reduced
by watering at least twice daily using reclaimed
water or chemical soil binder, where feasible, or
water whenever substantial dust generation is
evident. The project shall comply with Rule 403:
Fugitive Dust (South Coast Air Quality
Management District). Project contractors shall
suspend grading operations, apply soil binders, and
water the grading site when wind speeds (as
instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour.
Traffic speeds on all unpaved graded surfaces shall
not exceed 15 miles per hour. All grading
operations shall be suspended during first and
second stage smog alerts. All project contracts
shall require project contractors to keep
construction equipment engines tuned to ensure
that air quality impacts generated by construction
activities are minimized. Upon request, equipment
tuning logs shall be made available to Building
Services. Building Services shall ensure
compliance.
SE-15. Building construction may result in VOC
emissions from painting equipment and paint
composition (e.g. vinyl-acrylic resins, titanium
dioxides and extender pigments, etc.).
AQ-06. To reduce VOC emissions, the applicant
shall use paint with low VOC emissions (ROG
emission rate of less than 0.80 pounds per gallon),
limit painting to eight hours per day, use paint
thickness of 0.75 millimeters or less, use water-
based and low-VOC coatings with ROG/VOC
emissions of less than 8.0 pounds per 1,000 square
feet of painted surface, and use high-volume, low
pressure sprayers. Building Services shall ensure
compliance.
LS-15: Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated
21
GREENHOUSE GASES
SE-16: Although project construction and
operational GHG emissions are not above
SCAQMD thresholds, measures are required to
reduce GHG cumulative emissions in the
SCAQMD and in the State of California.
GHG-01: If the applicant is building the
residences onsite for sale, all appliances shall be
Energy Star rated. If the applicant sells the
improved lots to others, the requirement shall be
placed on the building permit.
LS-16: Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated
GHG-02: Roof coverings shall have a minimum
three-year aged solar reflectance and thermal
emittance, or a minimum reflectance index (SRI)
greater than or equal to the values specified in
Table A4.106.5 in Appendix A4 for Residential
Uses in the 2010 California Green Building
Standards Code (CalGreen). Building Services
shall ensure compliance.
CONSTRUCTION NOISE AND VIBRATION
SE-17: Construction equipment may cause
ground-borne vibrations that are annoying to
offsite residents of dwelling units within 50
meters. However, the equipment will not cause
structure damage (Section 3.3).
VIB-01: Earth-moving and ground-impacting
operations shall be phased so as not to occur in the
same period whenever feasible. Unlike noise
impacts, the total vibration level produced could
be significantly less when each vibration source
operates separately. Building Services shall
ensure compliance.
LS-17: Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated
SE-18: Construction activities during non-exempt
hours would violate the Noise Ordinance.
NOI-01: Grading and construction activities onsite
shall be limited to 7:00 am to 5:00 pm Monday
through Friday, and 8:00 am to 5:00 pm on
Saturdays. Construction and grading shall be
prohibited on Sundays and holidays specified in
Ordinance 2316. Building Services shall ensure
compliance.
LS-18: Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated
LAND USE/VIEWS
SE-19: Clearing of vegetation and grading onsite LU-01: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the LS-19: Less than Significant with Mitigation
22
will alter the existing landforms and remove
natural vegetation on 1.34-acres until the
Landscape Plans (Phase 1, 2) are implemented and
the new vegetation matures. Some of the graded
slopes onsite will be visible offsite for residences
to the south and to the east. The project will
partially conflict with Hillside Management Policy
5.1 to maintain the visual character of the hillside
in the short-term until new landscaping matures.
Any short-term viewshed impacts due to sparse
new landscaping cover occurs only until the new
landscaping has matured and provided sufficient
cover for the slopes and street entrance areas
(Exhibit 2.3.2: Conceptual Landscape Plan and
Exhibit 3.2.3:Oak Protection Plan).
applicant shall obtain approval for a Landscape
Plan (Phase 2) for Zone A. Prior to issuance of an
occupancy permit, the applicant shall implement
the approved Landscape Plans (Phase 1, 2) for the
project. The Planning Division shall ensure
compliance.
Incorporated in the long-term when the
landscaping matures. In the short-term, the project
impact on local views is Unavoidable Adverse
because of the removal of natural vegetation and
grading, resulting in barren slopes
SID LINDMARK, AICP, December 17, 2014
23
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Section 2.0 provides a description of the project, its location and setting, the history of recent
prior project on the project site, a more detailed discussion of the project, and the intended uses
of the Draft EIR. This section contains the following sub-sections:
2.1 LOCATION AND SETTING
2.2 PROJECT HISTORY
2.3 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
2.4 INTENDED USES OF THIS EIR
2.1 LOCATION AND SETTING
The City of Arcadia is located in central Los Angeles County in the northwestern portion of the
San Gabriel Valley. The northern portions of the City extend to the foot of the San Gabriel
Mountains and the Angeles National Forest. The City is bisected by Interstate 210, with
residential uses dominating the area north of Foothill Boulevard and the Arboretum of Los
Angeles County and Santa Anita Racetrack being two community identifiers immediately south
of the freeway. Commercial and residential uses occur south of Interstate 210. The City had an
estimated population of 56,866, 20,692 dwelling units and a 2.86 persons per household
average for January 2013 (Table E-5: Population and Housing Estimate for Cities, Counties and
State 2011-2013, California Department of Finance).
On the north side of Interstate 210, the City is bordered by Sierra Madre to the west and
Monrovia to the east. South of Interstate 10, unincorporated Los Angeles County is located to
the west, Temple City to the south and Monrovia and unincorporated Los Angeles County to the
east. The land elevation ranges from 300 feet above mean sea level (msl) south of Interstate
210 and increases in the north in the San Gabriel foothills to approximately 1,200 feet above
msl.
Historically, the City was initially developed in the 1930s, with hillside development occurring in
the early 1960s. Existing residential uses (3,930 acres) comprise 55 percent of the 7,109 acres
within the City, with the Single Family 2 (Residential Estates) land use designation comprising
10.2 percent (399.1 acres) of the total acres in the City (Table 4.9-1: Existing Land Use
Designations - 2009 General Plan EIR).
At buildout of the 2010 General Plan, residential land uses will increase to 4,006 acres, or 69.2
percent of the total acres in the City. The Residential Estates land use designation will
comprise 545.2 acres or 13.6 percent of all residential land uses. Open Space – Outdoor
Recreation (511.4 acres) and Open Space – Resource Protection (160.79 acres) land use
24
designations will comprise 8.8 percent and 3.0 percent respectively of all land uses (Table LU-1:
Buildout by Land Use Designation, Land Use and Community Design Element).
The City is underlain by the Main San Gabriel and Raymond Groundwater Basins. By
adjudication, the City is allowed to pump 3,526 acre feet from the Santa Anita Subarea (East
Raymond Basin) and 2,118 acre feet from the Pasadena Subarea (West Raymond Basin).
However these rights may will be reduced to 1,482.6 acre-feet. However, a new project of one
dwelling unit has no significant effect on current or future water demand. In addition to its
groundwater extraction rights, the City of Arcadia has a long-term storage account within the
Pasadena Subarea of 1,591.2 acre-feet, which allows producers to exchange and/or lease
water rights. If the City pumps more water than the allowed amount, replacement water must
be purchased from the Metropolitan Water District for spreading and recharging the Main San
Gabriel Groundwater Basin. Alternatively, the City may pre-purchase water for cyclic storage for
later use.
Runoff from the City travels along four major washes; Eaton Wash, Arcadia Wash, Sierra Madre
Wash and Santa Anita Wash. The project drains to the Santa Anita Wash, which extends to the
Rio Hondo River and the Los Angeles River. The local drainage area for the project site is
approximately 46 acres and extends slightly into the City of Sierra Madre to the west and south
to Carolwood Drive. The northernmost portion of the local drainage area extends from 1,294
above msl offsite south of Santa Anita Canyon Road. Existing drainage from the project site is
directed to an existing offsite debris settlement area located north of Vista Avenue and toward
Canyon Road, with flows entering the Lannan Channel.
The City is located at the boundary between the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province on the
south and the Transverse Ranges (San Gabriel Mountains) geomorphic province on the north.
Erosion of the San Gabriel Mountains has formed fan-shaped alluvial wedges that fill the San
Gabriel Valley, providing a basin for groundwater storage and a geomorphic surface with
younger fault movements. Within the northern portions of the City, cretaceous-age crystalline
granitic and metamorphic basement rocks underlie the City.
Geologic hazards in the City include landslides, soil erosion potential and active and potentially
active faults; including the Raymond Hill fault, the Sierra Madre Fault and the Puente Hills Blind
Thrust Fault. The project site is not in a liquefaction zone, is not in a dam inundation area, and
is not in a designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. However, the project site is located
in the Fault Hazard Management Zone related to the Sierra Madre Fault (Figure S-2: Alquist-
Priolo and Fault Rupture Hazard Zones, Safety Element). In addition, the project site is subject
to earthquake induced landslides and subject to area and regional seismic events, which require
close adherence to California Building Codes (Figure S-3: Liquefaction and Landslide Hazards,
Safety Element).
Cretaceous and Proterozoic age crystalline granitic and metamorphic bedrock units are
exposed in the northern and northeastern edge of the City. These bedrock units are susceptible
to slope instability, which may manifest themselves as rock fall, debris slides and surficial soil
25
slumps. Soils associations in the City are primarily of Hanford soils, with Vista Amargosa soils
in the northeast and Tujunga-Soboba soils in the southeast. Soil erosion hazards from both
soils are slight to moderate.
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection maps areas of significant fire hazards
based on fuels, terrain, weather and other factors. The project area is in a Very High fire hazard
zone (Figure S-6: Fire Hazard Zones, Safety Element). New construction in this wildland/urban
interface is required to maintain “defensible space” and comply with special building code
requirements for high-fire hazard areas. While this primarily impacts the building permit
application, it is also applicable to construction activities.
The City of Arcadia is located in the South Coast Air Basin, which includes all of Orange County
and the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. The
closest air quality monitoring station for the City is the West San Gabriel Valley station in
Pasadena. Due to the unique geography and meteorology of the Basin, it is a non-attainment
area for California standards for ozone, respirable particulates (PM10), and fine particulates
(PM2.5). The Basin is also a non-attainment area for federal standards for these three
pollutants.
The 90.5-acre project site is located north of the terminus of Vista Avenue and northwest of the
intersection of Canyon Road and Carolwood Drive (2125 Canyon Road, Assessor Parcel
Numbers 5765-002-012 and 5765-002-013). The project site includes a northwest to southeast
ridge, with smaller canyons along Canyon Road and the westerly project site boundary. The
topography of the project site ranges from 910 feet above mean sea level (msl) to 1,220 feet
above msl. Coast Live Oak and California Scrub Oak trees are the dominant vegetation onsite.
There is a blue line stream in the northern portion of the 90.5-acre site and several intermittent
streams elsewhere onsite. Of the 90.5 acres, only 1.34 acres located west of Canyon Road in
the southern portion of the property will be graded (Exhibit 2.1.2).
Seven residential parcels are located along the southern boundary of the project site and two
are located along Canyon Road north of the project site. Additional residential subdivisions are
located north of the project site along Canyon Road. The project is a contiguous Residential
Estates development adjacent to existing Residential Estate development and does not
constitute leap-frog development.
26
Exhibit 2.1.1: Study Area Aerial (Biological Resources)
27
Exhibit 2.1.2: Project Area (ALTA Base)
28
2.2 PROJECT HISTORY
The applicant has owned the project site since 2004. A project onsite for two dwelling units
onsite adjacent to Canyon Road was approved in March 2010 (Tentative Parcel Map TPM 09-
08 (71182) and Residential Mountainous Permit RM 07-01). Approximately 2.0 acres of grading
was proposed along Canyon Road. The remaining 88.3 acres would have been permanent
open space. Twelve oak trees would have been removed during grading of the project site.
A project for two dwelling units onsite, with the second building pad (23,000 sf) located west of
the proposed building pad at an elevation of 1,140 feet msl was denied by the City Council in
August 2013. The prior project proposed grading of 3.9 acres. The Draft EIR (SCH
2011121041) was circulated for public review but was not certified by the Lead Agency.
TPM 09-08 would have had steeper compacted slopes (1.5:1 H: V) than the proposed project,
which have maximum compacted slopes of 2:1 (H: V). The limited area below the ridge along
Canyon Road necessitated the steeper slopes to create the single building pad. The graded
area along Canyon Road would have been highly visible from the east.
TPM 09-08 has not expired and is valid until March 2016. TPM 09-08 is included in Appendix I.
2.3 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
2.3.1 Existing Land Uses
The environmental setting is the description of the physical environmental conditions of the
project area, as it existed at the time the Notice of Preparation (NOP) is published. (CEQA
Guidelines, Section 15225 (a)). This constitutes the baseline physical conditions by which the
Lead Agency evaluates the project’s impacts. The NOP was published in January 2014 and the
description of the existing land uses in the project area reflects that date.
The 90.5-acre project site is located northwest of the intersection of Canyon Road and
Carolwood Drive in the City of Arcadia, in the County of Los Angeles. The project site is
undeveloped, except for some existing drainage facilities in the interior westerly canyon. There
are no utility towers or fire roads onsite. The vegetation onsite consists of oak woodlands and
chaparral, mulefat scrub and coastal sage scrub.
As previously stated the property is designated Residential Estates in the General Plan and
zoned Residential Mountainous Single Family. The project is a contiguous development
adjacent to existing Residential Estates development immediately adjacent to the south and
Very Low Density Residential east of Canyon Road.
29
2.3.2 Existing Surrounding Land Uses
The project site is bounded by seven developed residential lots on the south and southwest
(Residential Estates) and two developed residential lots on the northeast along Canyon Road
(Very Low Density Residential). Approximately 650 linear feet of the project site fronts on
Canyon Road. Undeveloped land designated Residential Estates and Open Space - Outdoor
Recreation lie to the north. The lands east of Canyon Drive fronting the project site include the
Lannon Channel and are designated Very Low Residential Density (2-4 du/acre) west of the
Santa Anita Wash.
The western boundary of the project site is the City of Arcadia’s boundary with the City of Sierra
Madre. The yellow parcels east of Santa Anita Drive (lower loop) in Sierra Madre are
designated R-1-11, One Family Residential (11,000 sq. ft. minimum). The land in Sierra Madre
adjacent to the project east of Santa Anita Drive (upper loop in green) is in the Hillside
Management Zone. The Vista Avenue cul-de-sac in the City of Arcadia, if it is extending
westerly, defines the boundary between the two zones (City of Sierra Madre Zoning Map).
Exhibit 2.3.1: City of Sierra Madre Zoning (Green: Hillside Management Zone,
Yellow: R-1-11 (11,000 sf minimum)
30
East of the project site, lands in the City of Monrovia are predominantly designated Residential
Foothills (1 du/acre) but a small north-south segment along the boundary is designated Hillside
Wilderness Area in the General Plan.
Very Low Density Residential Density subdivisions are located further north of the project site
west of Highland Vista Drive. The 45.4 acre Arcadia Wilderness Park (Open Space: Outdoor
Recreation) is located northeast of this subdivision.
2.3.3. Sequence of Project Development
The general sequence of development for the project are:
1. Demolition and removal of all existing vegetation within the proposed grading area of
1.34 acres.
2. Grading of the project site (7,000 cy of cut and 7,000 cy of fill).
3. Construction of the onsite access road from Canyon Drive.
4. Construction of slope retaining wall and drainage catch basins.
5. Installation of water and sewer lines from Canyon Drive.
6. Extension of electrical and natural gas facilities to the building pad.
7. Installation of paving, and other hardscape features.
8. Slope retention materials, including netting, soil binders and hydroseeding.
9. Installation of area landscaping.
10. Installation of property address signage near project entrance.
11. Construction of the single family residence.
The general tasks for completion of the project and compliance with the recommendation of the
technical reports for the project are described below to facilitate understanding of
implementation of the project and the requirements recommended for the project based on the
CEQA analysis:
A. Protection of Oak Trees and Removal of Vegetation in the Grading Area.
The recommendations of the Arborist Report will be implemented to ensure that all protected
healthy oak trees onsite are not harmed by construction activity. The property (e.g. tract) will be
fenced, the grading area marked and all vegetation within the grading area, except protected
oaks, removed. Access to the site and construction equipment will be restricted to prevent theft
or fires.
B. Grading of the Project Site
The Grading Plan specifies the requirements for grading and compaction to assure the
manufacturing slopes are stable upon completion and stable during any future seismic event.
Grading will proceed simultaneously with minimizing runoff from the site during the grading
period. Grading will not occur during the winter rainy season from November through March.
31
Best Management Practices will be implemented to minimize dust and track-out of dirt on
adjacent streets. Grading for the project requires 7,000 cy of cut and 7,000 cy of fill
C. Construction of the Onsite Access Road
The access road will be completed and paved to minimize dust emissions and track-out to
adjacent streets from construction vehicles. The access road is designed in comply with the
Fire Department criteria for roadway width and slope gradient. A parking area for fire or
emergency vehicles near the driveway is included.
D. Construction of Slope Retaining Walls, Benches and Drainage Catch Basins
The grading will stabilize project slopes and allow construction of retaining wall, benches and
drainage catch basins installed to minimize runoff and impacts on water quality. See Exhibit
2.3.1 for location of benches and Exhibit C-1: SUSMP Exhibit Map in Appendix C for the
location of catch basins. The Hydrology Study assures project facilities accommodate the future
drainage flows.
E. Installation of Water and Sewer Lines from Canyon Drive
Water and sewer lines will be extended to the building pad onsite from Canyon Drive. A booster
station onsite will provide the required water flows.
F. Extension of Electrical and Natural Gas Facilities
Electrical and natural gas services will be extended to the building pad onsite from Canyon
Drive.
G. Installation of Paving, and Hardscape Features
The access road and driveways will be paved. Any hardscape features (entrance gate, etc.) will
also be completed.
H. Slope Retention Materials, including Netting, Chemicals and Vegetation
With completion of grading in any area, the slopes can be further stabilized using netting,
chemical stabilizers, and hydro-seeding. The Landscape Plan specifies the materials, sizes
and required pounds per acre for seeding the slopes.
32
Exhibit 2.3.2: Conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan
33
I. Installation of Area Landscaping.
As infrastructure and site improvements are completed, all grading areas will be landscaped so
plants are viable at the earliest possible date. The proposed Conceptual Landscape Plan
(Phase 1) is shown below.
The Conceptual Landscape Plan (Phase 1) includes re-vegetation of portions of the 1.34 acres
to be graded with drought-tolerant and erosion control ground cover and fuel modification within
8.87 acres surrounding the residence. The hydroseed /slurry mix will include wood cellulose
fiber and commercial fertilizer and eight plant species. The plants include: (1) Small Fescue
(Vulpia Microstachys), (2) Arroyo Lupine (Lupinus Sucenlentus), (3) Common Deerweed (Lotus
Scoparius), (4) Coast Sunflower (Encelia Californica), (5) Golden Yarrow (Eriophyllum
Confertiflorum), (6) California Poppy (Eschscholzia Californica,) (7) California Goldfields
(Lasthenia Californica), and (8) Desert Indian Wheat (Plantago Insularis). The proposed
planting rates (labs/acre) are listed in the plan. An automatic irrigation system shall be installed
in all new landscaping areas.
The Conceptual Landscape Plan (Phase 1) includes three Fuel Modification Areas within Parcel
1: (1) Zone A: Setback Zone, Zone B: Irrigation Zone (Not in Oak Tree Drip Line Areas), and
Zone C: Thinning Zone. The fuel modification areas are a key component of the fire safety plan
for the project.
Section 2.0 includes the arborist’s recommendation that a minimum of thirty-two (32)
replacement oak trees be added in Parcel 2, which will be seedlings grown from onsite acorns
acclimated to the onsite habitat. A certified arborist will specify the area for replacement trees,
supervise the planting and monitor the growth of these replacement trees annually for ten years.
The replacement trees will be added within the conservation area where terrain, soil, climatic,
and moisture are conductive to longevity.
The Conceptual Landscape Plan (Phase 1) includes planting of thirty-two (32) coast oaks in
Parcel 2.
J. Installation of New Project Signage and Gate at Project Entrance.
Project address signage and an entrance security gate will be installed when heavy construction
equipment is no longer needed onsite.
K. Construction of the Single Family Residence
Following design review and building permit application approvals, the residence will be
constructed onsite.
34
Exhibit 2.3.3: Conceptual Landscape Plan (Phase 1)
35
2.3.4 Proposed Project Objectives
The applicant, Nevis Capital LLC, has identified the following goals and objectives for the
project:
Develop one residential dwelling unit onsite consistent with the General Plan and Zoning
designations in the City of Arcadia.
Develop a building pad and street consistent with City guidelines and the Residential
Mountainous Development Permit.
Minimize the dangers of landslides, mudflows and wildfire hazards onsite for future
onsite residents and the adjacent offsite property owners through implementation of the
Grading Plan and Drainage Plan.
2.4 INTENDED USES OF THIS EIR
The City of Arcadia will use this Project EIR in their review and consideration of the proposed
project and any future projects consistent with the analysis contained herein. The project will be
reviewed by the Planning Commission and by the City Council. The required City CEQA-related
actions for the project include Certification of the Final EIR, approval of a Statement of Facts
and Findings, approval of a Statement of Overriding Considerations and, approval of a
Mitigation Monitoring Program. The local discretionary actions include review of Tentative
Parcel Map (TPM 72681), review of a Residential Mountainous Development Permit Application
RM 14-01, a rezoning to Open Space: Resource Protection or Recreation. (The zone change
depends on if a conservation or mountain recreation agency accepts management). The
General Plan will also be amended to change the designation from residential to Open Space.
The following agencies, having discretionary approval over the project, or are Responsible
Agencies under CEQA Guidelines Section 15381:
California Department of Fish and Game
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
36
EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
3.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
MEASURES
Section 3.0 includes the evaluation of the existing environmental setting for the project site and
area, the potential environmental impacts of the project and, any recommended mitigation
measures to reduce the project impacts to a level considered Less than Significant With
Mitigation Incorporated when feasible. The resource areas in Sections 3.1 through Section 3.4
were identified in consultation with the City. Additional topics listed in the CEQA Environmental
Checklist for which significant effects were not identified are discussed in Section 3.8. Section
3.0 is organized in the following eight sections.
3.1 LAND USE
3.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
3.3 SOILS AND GEOLOGY
3.4 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
3.5 WILDLAND FIRE HAZARDS
3.6 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
3.7 CONSTRUCTION NOISE/VIBRATION
3.8 OTHER EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
Section 15120 of the CEQA Guidelines states “the information required by Sections 15122 –
15531 shall be included in an EIR.” Section 3.0 – Section 9.0 herein meet that criteria. The
topical issues listed in the CEQA Environmental Checklist Form (CEQA Guidelines Appendix G)
are discussed within the topical sections listed above. However, Aesthetic, and Cultural
Resources are included in Section 3.1 Land Use because these issues are intertwined with the
policies and regulations of the General Plan or Zoning Code, and intertwined with the evaluation
criteria for a Residential Mountainous Development Permit.
3.1 LAND USE
3.1.1 Existing Land Use Conditions
The project site is undeveloped and includes California Live Oaks, California Scrub Oaks and
Coast Live Oak Woodland habitat (Helix). There are limited drainage facilities in the westerly
interior canyon but no fire roads, hiking trails or other common pathways.
As stated in Section 2.3.2, there are nine (9) developed residential parcels adjacent to the
project site located to the south and northeast. These lots were developed in 1975 – 1980 with
single-family dwelling units.
37
The land uses located west of the Arcadia City limit adjacent to the project in the City of Sierra
Madre are designated in the City of Sierra Madre’s General Plan as Hillside Management north
of Santa Anita Avenue and 1-Family Residential (9,000 sq. ft) south of Santa Anita Avenue.
The lands immediately north of the project site in the City of Arcadia are designated in the
General Plan as Open Space - Outdoor Recreation and Residential Estates. Additional
residential subdivisions are located north of these intervening lands.
A. Existing General Plan and Zoning
The City of Arcadia General Plan designated the project site (TPM 72681) as Residential
Estates and the zoning is Residential Mountainous Single Family.
1. Residential Estates (Land Use and Community Design Element)
The Residential Estates designation accommodates low-density single-family residential
neighborhoods. Development is typified by large lot, detached single-family residences on
estate-type lots of 22,000 square feet or larger. Permitted uses include single-family residences
on a single lot and private tennis courts and similar facilities.
2. Residential Mountainous Single Family (Chapter 9250.34 of Zoning Code)
Building Height (9250.3.1)
No building or structure shall contain more than two (2) stories nor shall any building or
structure, including flag poles, television mats, chimneys, smokestacks, architectural features
and similar structures which are attached to and an integral part of the main dwelling exceed the
limit as set forth in the following table as may be approved by the Planning Commission or City
Council (upon appeal) pursuant to the modification regulations. (The maximum height ranges
from 25 feet for a lot width at required building setback line less than 71 feet to 35 feet for a lot
width at required building setback line less than 100 feet or greater). The parcels proposed
onsite have a lot width at required building setback line of more than 100 feet so the maximum
building height is 35 feet (Section 9250.3.1). The Code has exceptions for attached antennas
(35 feet maximum) and chimneys (maximum of two feet above the roof line).
Landscaping Requirements (9250.3.8)
All cut or fill slopes exceeding two (2) meters (6.6 feet) in vertical height between two or more
contiguous lots shall be planted with adequate plant material to protect the slopes from erosion.
Said planting shall cover the bank within two years from the time of planting. The permittee,
owner or developer shall water the planted slopes at sufficient time intervals to promote growth.
38
Lot Coverage (9250.3.12)
The combined ground floor area of all buildings on any one lot shall not exceed forty-five
percent (45%) of the total area of the lot for single-story homes. The combined ground floor
area of all buildings on any one lot shall not exceed thirty-five percent (35%) of the total area of
the lot for two-story homes.
1. As used in this Section, “lot coverage” shall mean the combined ground floor area of all
permanent and temporary buildings and structures, including but not limited to: covered
porches and patios (including trellis covers), carports, porte-cocheres, storage sheds,
playhouses, etc., on any one lot. Uncovered swimming pools and spas are exceptions.
2. If ambiguity exists with reference to the interpretation of what constitutes a “building” for
purposes of lot coverage, it shall be the duty of the Planning Director to ascertain all
pertinent facts and make a final determination thereof consistent with applicable criteria.
3. Modification to the lot coverage limitation shall be permitted only by action of the
Planning Commission, or the City Council on appeal.
B. Special Zones
Oak Tree Protection Regulations (Chapter 9703 of Zoning Code)
a. Oak Tree Permit Required.
1. An oak tree permit shall be obtained prior to the removal of any oak tree.
2. An oak tree permit shall be obtained prior to any encroachment into the protected zone
of any oak tree.
b. Required Protective Measures. The following protective measures are hereby
established to protect oak trees during development or construction activity.
1. No building, structure, wall or impervious paving shall be located within the protected
zone of any oak tree.
2. No construction related activities shall occur within the protected zone of any oak tree,
including but not limited to, building construction, storage of materials, grade change, or
attachment of wires to or around tree trunks, stems, or limbs.
3. Each and every oak tree shall be shielded from damage during construction by a four (4)
foot high barrier composed of wooden stakes, chicken sire, or chain ink fencing material,
which shall enclose the entire dripline area on the construction site. Such barriers shall
39
be installed prior to the commencement of any development on the site and shall remain
in place throughout the construction period.
4. Branches that may be injured by vehicles or that interfere with construction shall be
pruned carefully.
C. Other Project Issues
Viewshed Management Areas
The City has not adopted viewshed management areas, a viewshed ordinance or a ridgeline
protection ordinance. However, viewshed goals and policies are included in the Land Use and
Community Design Element. These are discussed below in Section D.
The Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Element also addresses policies for hillside
areas, areas of remaining natural vegetation or other physical characteristics that are important
to the special character or aesthetic setting of the community. This issue is discussed in
Section D.
Homeowner’s Association
The project site is located in the Highland Oaks “D” Architectural Design Zone Area (Resolution
5289). Resolution 6770authorizes review authority (e.g. building permits) to the Architectural
Review and Area Planning Committee of the Homeowner’s Association. However, the issuance
of building permits is a ministerial action, as opposed to a discretionary action, and is not
subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. The applicant is not submitting building
permit applications with the current Tentative Parcel Map application.
Topography
The City does not preclude development on land areas based on topography or slope. Usually
the high cost of developing at higher elevations, access or fire danger precludes development in
remote areas at higher elevations. All development proposed onsite is below 1,120 feet msl.
D. Hillside Management
The Land Use and Community Design Element of the General Plan include goals and policies
for hillside management. The specific goals and policies are:
Goal LU-5: Hillside management approaches that balance desires for unique neighborhood and
home sites with the need to protect residents from environmental hazards and to respect wildlife
habitat and view sheds.
40
Hillside Management Policies 5.1 to 5.6
1. Maintain the visual character of hillsides, recognizing both the importance of exposure of
hillside development from off-site public views and the importance of providing
panoramic public views from and of hillsides.
2. Minimize the alteration of existing landforms and maintain the natural topographic
characteristics of hillside areas, allowing only minimal disruption.
3. Protect the natural character of hillside areas by means of contour grading to blend
graded slopes and terraces with the natural topography.
4. Avoid mass graded pads within hillside areas. Smaller steps or grade changes should
be used over single, large, slope banks to the greatest extent feasible.
5. Ensure that any change in hillside land use is accompanied by appropriate safety
measures and that the environmental constraints are adequately addressed especially
with respect to runoff and erosion.
6. Require hillside development to incorporate architecture, scale, massing, building form,
building color, roof materials, and landscaping to reflect the natural hillside setting.
The Resources Sustainability Element of the General Plan includes goals and policies for the
Hillsides. The specific goals and policies are:
Goal RS-8: Balanced use of hillside properties that respects the natural environment and
private property rights.
Resource Sustainability Policies 8.1 to 8.3
1. Determine the environmental sensitivity of individual hillside sites using site-specific
investigation, information in the General Plan EIR, and other applicable information
sources and regulation documents. Incorporate the findings into conditions of approval
for individual development projects.
2. Require detailed biological and other appropriate environmental resource and hazard
studies for properties within the foothills, and ensure that appropriate mitigation is
employed to avoid and/or minimize impacts.
3. Investigate the value and feasibility of establishing hillside areas within Arcadia as
habitat mitigation/banking sites.
41
Parks, Recreation, and Community Resources Policies (i.e. selected from page 7-50)
A resource will be considered to be of significant cultural value if it possesses one of more of the
following characteristics:
1. It is a grouping or set of structures, historic sites or features, design components, natural
features and landscape architecture, or other interesting details which together create
exceptionally rich historic or cultural ambiance.
2. It is a hillside, geological formations, body of water, arroyo, remaining natural vegetation,
or other striking or familiar physical characteristic that is important to the special
character, historic identity, or aesthetic setting of the community.
Parks, Recreation, and Community Resources Goals 9.1, 9.2, and 9.5 to 9.7.
1. Encourage the maintenance and preservation of historically, culturally, and/or
architecturally significant structures and sites in the community.
2. Explore partnerships with local community organizations such as the Arcadia historical
Society, to continue the preservation of historic and cultural resources.
3. Identify historic sites, structures, neighborhoods, and other resources through a Historic
Resource Inventory.
4. Explore the establishment of a Cultural Heritage Ordinance.
5. Develop incentives to promote preservation and rehabilitation of historic structures, sites
and other resources.
E. Conservation Easements
Cites may accept or purchase easements from private landowners for open space and resource
conservation purposes. Open space and conservation easements are purchases of
development rights. The deed transferring an easement to a local government restricts the
property’s use to open space or resource conservation activities. Cities acquire open space
easements pursuant to either the Open Space Easement Act of 1974 (Government Code
Section 51070 et seq.) or the Conservation Easement Act (Civil Code Section 815-816).
Section 815 describes the objectives of the Act as follows: “8.5. The Legislature finds and
declares that the preservation of land in its natural, scenic, agricultural, historical, forested, or
open-space condition is among the most important environmental assets of California. The
Legislature further finds and declares it to be the public policy and in the public interest of this
state to encourage the voluntary conveyance of conservations easements to qualified nonprofit
organizations.”
42
Under Section 51070 land must remain within an easement in perpetuity or, alternatively, for at
least ten years. An easement’s term is automatically extended each year by an additional
twelve months. The City must have an adopted open space plan/element as a prerequisite to
acquiring an open space easement. The preserving of easement land in open space must also
be consistent with the jurisdiction’s General Plan.
Section 815-816 does not require conservation easements to conform to local General Plans.
Cities may acquire a perpetual easement for the conservation of agricultural land and open
space, or for historic preservation. Unlike Section 51070, there is no procedure for non-renewal
of conservation easements and there is no expiration. In establishing an easement, a
landowner and the City agree upon the permitted land uses within the conservation area. The
easement is binding upon successive owners of the land (Putting Action into the Open Space
Element: Open Space and Conservation Easements, Governor’s Office of Planning and
Research, November 1997). The particular characteristics of a conservation easement are
those specified in the agreement creating or transferring the easement (Section 815.2).
F. Noise and Land Use Compatibility
The Noise Element of the General Plan (Chapter 9) includes the guidelines and regulations
pertaining to land use compatibility with the City’s noise guidelines and noise regulations.
Figure N-4: Noise and Land Use Compatibility Criteria for Estate Residential Uses specifies 60 -
65 dB CNEL as an acceptable noise environment. Table N-2: Interior and Exterior Noise
Standards are for used for a project specific basis and include a maximum exterior noise level of
65 dBA CNEL for Single Family Residential Use and a maximum interior noise level of 45 dBA
CNEL.
G. R-M Development Permit Application Evaluation Criteria
The following statements are the evaluation criteria for an R-M Development Permit Application
from the Arcadia Municipal Code Section 9250.5.9:
1. The extent of grading required for the reasonable use of the property.
2. Visual impact of the proposed project.
3. Relationship of the proposed project to adjoining properties and/or structures.
4. Adequacy of proposed landscaping areas, drainage facilities, erosion control devices
and other protective devices.
5. Adequacy of fire equipment access.
6. Extent of preservation of existing ridge and crest lines.
7. Extent of attempt to have roads follow existing contours.
8. Develop-ability of sites.
An application shall be denied if, in the judgment of the City, based upon the purpose of this
Division, the proposed work or design of the lots and streets in the development would:
43
1. Cause excessive or unnecessary scarring of the natural terrain and landscape through
grading or removal of vegetation; or
2. Cause unnecessary alteration of a ridge or crest line; or
3. Unnecessarily affect the view from neighboring sites; or
4. Would adversely affect existing development or retard future development in this zone;
or
5. Be inconsistent with the provisions of this Division.
In granting a development permit, the City may impose conditions which may be reasonably
necessary to prevent danger to public or private property or to prevent the operation from being
conducted in a manner likely to create a nuisance. No person shall violate any conditions so
imposed in said permit by the City of Arcadia. Such conditions may include but not be limited to
any of the aforementioned requirements of this Division. The City Engineer or a designated
alternate may issue a permit for any emergency hillside work that may be necessary to prevent
danger to public or private property.
H. Arcadia Housing Element
The Housing Element addresses the housing needs within the City and includes projections for
compliance with the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The element projects that the
City will need 434 dwelling units in the Above Moderate income category (120% of median
family income or more) between 2013 - 2022.
44
Exhibit 3.1.1: Site Elevations
45
3.1.2 Project Land Use Impacts
A threshold of significance is an identifiable quantitative, qualitative, or performance level of a
particular environmental effect, non-compliance with which means the effect will normally be
determined to be significant by the Lead Agency and compliance with which means the effect
normally will be determined to be Less than Significant (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7).
Thresholds of Significance
The thresholds of significance used in the land use section are whether the project: (1) Conflicts
with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect, (2) Create substantial adverse effects on a protected scenic
vista, (3) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surrounding, (4) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect
day or nighttime views in the area, (5) The proposed land uses conflict with the Noise Element
of the General Plan.
The CEQA Guidelines identifies the following issues for analysis of aesthetics. Would the
project: (1) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (2) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway? (3) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the
site and its surroundings? (4) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Consistent with the CEQA Guidelines, both short-term and long-term effects are evaluated by
comparing post-development conditions with existing conditions. However, all significant effects
are determined in relationship to a threshold of significance that varies for each environmental
issue.
City policies require the building permit and Draft Landscape Plan for the building pad be
reviewed concurrently. Both plans are subject to Design Review and Plan Check Review.
Neither plan is submitted with a Tentative Parcel Map application. Therefore, for this project,
“project buildout” is completion of grading, drainage improvements, and implementation of the
Conceptual Landscape Plan (Phase 1).
The geographical area used for identification of project land use impacts is TPM 72681 and its
immediate surroundings.
Consistency with City Land Use Policies and the CEQA Guidelines
A key consideration in evaluating the project’s consistency with the City policies is the concept
of balancing multiple goals and policies. An emphasis on balance is included in Goal LU-5 of
the Land Use and Community Design Element, which seeks to balance the need for unique
home site with protection for residents from environmental hazards, while respecting wildlife
habit and view sheds. Goal RS-8 of the Resources Sustainability Element emphasizes the
46
need for balance between private property rights and use of hillside properties that respect the
natural environment. Therefore, the concept of balancing multiple goals and policies for the
project is central to determination of the potential project impacts and the feasibility and
economic aspects of the project.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183: Projects Consistent with a Community Plan or Zoning.
Section 15183 (a) mandates that projects consistent with the development density established
by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies with a certified EIR shall not require
additional environmental review, except as is necessary to examine whether there are project-
specific significant effects that are peculiar to the project or its site. This streamlines the review
of such projects and reduces the need for repetitive environmental studies.
Section 1518 (b) states that a public agency shall limit its examination of environmental effects
to those which are: (1) Peculiar to the project on which the project would be located, (2) Were
not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR, (3) Are potential significant off-site impacts and
cumulative impacts which were not discussed in a prior EIR for the general plan, community
plan or zoning action, or (4) Were previously identified significant effects but, based on
substantial new information not known when the EIR was certified, are determined to have a
more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior EIR.
Section 15183 (e) limits the analysis of only those significant environmental effects for which:
(1) Each public agency with authority to mitigate any of the significant effects on the
environment identified in the EIR on the planning or zoning action undertakes or requests others
to undertake mitigation measures specified in the EIR which the lead agency found to be
feasible, and (2) The lead agency makes a finding at a public hearing as to whether the feasible
mitigation measures will be undertaken.
Section 15183 (f) limits the analysis of only those significant environmental effects for which: (f)
An effect of a project on the environment shall not be considered peculiar to the project or the
parcel for the purposes of this section if uniformly applied development policies or standards
have been previously adopted by the city or county with a finding that the development policies
or standards will substantially mitigate that environmental effect when applied to future projects,
unless substantial new information shows that the policies or standards will not substantially
mitigate the environmental effect (i.e. indicates additional material in this section not applicable
to this project is not stated herein). Moreover, such policies or standards need not be part of a
general plan or any community plan, but can be found within another pertinent planning
document such as a zoning ordinance.
Section 15183 (g) states: Examples of uniformly applied development policies or standards
include, but are not limited to: (3) Grading ordinances, (4) Hillside development ordinances, (6)
Habitat protection or conservation ordinances, (7) View protection ordinances.
47
Section 15183 (j) states: If a significant offsite or cumulative impact was adequately discussed
in the prior EIR, then this section may be used as a basis for excluded further analysis of that
offsite or cumulative impact.
The 2010 General Plan Update Final EIR (SCH 2009081034) indicated that the proposed
mitigation measures included in Section 4.0 of that EIR would reduce potential significant
adverse impacts to a less than significant level for the following issues: Biological Resources,
Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Utilities and Service
Systems.
Significant and unavoidable impacts of implementation of the General Plan were identified for
Air Quality (Air Quality Standards Violation, Exposure of Sensitive Resources, and Cumulative
Air Quality Impacts), Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Increase in GHG and Cumulative GHG
Impacts), Noise (Noise Standard Violation and Cumulative Noise Impacts) and
Transportation/Traffic (Circulation System Performance and Cumulative Impacts).
Consistency with CEQA Guidelines for Aesthetics
The lower elevations of the project site (i.e. below 1,200 feet msl) are not a scenic vista,
because they do not have any formal designation and are overshadowed by the higher
elevations to the north and west. Canyon Road is not designated a scenic highway and the
road has no formal scenic designation within City regulation or policy. It's not appropriate to
conclude the project has "substantial degradation on existing visual character" of the site when
the City has no viewshed ordinance and some development onsite is presumed with current
GP/Zoning.
Substantial degradation implies destruction of a major landform and needless beyond that
reasonably need with standard engineering practices to create a stable hillside building pad.
While the project will include street and residential lighting, it does not create substantial light
and glare for adjacent offsite residents or at greater distances in the City. The project impacts
on these three issues listed in the CEQA Guidelines is Less than Significant.
The project’s consistency with the individual elements of the General Plan and General Plan
policies is discussed below in Sections A – K.
A. Consistency with Residential Estates Designation
The proposed project is consistent with the Residential Estates land use designation for the
project site in the City’s General Plan. The project site is designated Residential Estates and
one dwelling unit is proposed. The project is a contiguous development adjacent to existing
development, does not constitute leap-frog development and is not zoned for open space.
Existing parcels offsite to the northeast and south are compatible residential land use
designations. The proposed lot size for the project is 15,600 square feet.
48
At buildout of the 2010 General Plan, there will be 545.2 acres of land designated Residential
Estates in the City or 13.6 percent of the 4,006 acres of the residential land in the City (Table
LU-1: Buildout by Land Use Designation, Land Use and Community Design Element). This data
does not include the additional 78 acres within Parcel 2 proposed for inclusion in the
Conservation Easement area. If the City rezones the Conservation Easement area as Open
Space, the total amount of open space in the City will increase. The project will have a
beneficial impact on the amount of open space within the City.
B. Consistency with Residential Mountainous Single-Family Development Zone
The proposed project is consistent with the R-M Residential Mountainous Single Family Zone in
the City of Arcadia’s Zoning Code. The project site is designated R-M and one single-family
dwelling unit is proposed. The proposed lot size is 15,600 square feet.
The Zoning Code has exceptions for attached antennas (35 feet maximum) and chimneys
(maximum of two feet above the roof line).
The project is a contiguous development in the Residential Estates designation adjacent to
existing Residential Estates development, does not constitute leap-frog development. The
project site is not zoned for open space.
C. Consistency with Special Zones
The project will comply with all oak tree protection regulations (see Sections 3.2.1 D and
Section 3.2.2 G).
D. Consistency with Hillside Management Policies 5.1 – 5.6
Hillside Management Policies 5.1 – 5.6 are diverse requirements that relate to grading, safety,
views, landform modification and water quality. The policies were previously listed in Section
3.1.1 (d) and are not repeated here.
The grading proposed onsite on 1.34 acres is balanced, with 7,000 cubic yards of cut and 7,000
cubic yards of fill. Contour grading and site design will preserve the natural vegetation and
avoid mass grading within Parcel 1. The natural topography of the site is retained in all of
Parcel 2 (78.8 acres) and only minimal disruption occurs when grading 1.34 acres for creation of
the building pad and entrance road in Parcel 1 (11.7 acres)
The proposed Conceptual Landscaping Plan (Exhibit 2.3.2) includes plants and oak trees to
reflect and blend in with the natural hillside setting and the building pad and graded slopes are
not highly visible from the residential lots to the south or from Canyon Road to the east. The
landscaping requirements of AMC Section 9250.3.8 require the planting cover the slope banks
within two years from the time of planting.
49
The proposed drainage system includes infiltration basins and other Water Quality Management
Plan requirements to assure water quality is maintained.
The proposed Conservation Easement will assure the public has continued panoramic views
from and of hillsides. The visual character of hillsides, above 1,115 msl within Parcel 1 are
retained, along with the intervening natural slopes resulting from contour grading between the
entrance road and the building pad. The dominant exposure of hillside development onsite
(Exhibit 2.3.2: Conceptual Landscape Plan) are the entrance slope near Canyon Road and the
entrance street. Upon project completion, the graded slope north of the building pad will not be
not highly visible from the south or the east.
As stated earlier, a conflict with an applicable land use policy adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating a environmental effect is one threshold of significance for land use
impacts. Hillside Management Policy 5.1 states: maintain the visual character of hillsides,
recognizing both the importance of exposure of hillside development from off-site public views
and the importance of providing panoramic views from and of hillsides.
The project conflicts with Hillside Management Policy 5.1 in the short-term by having exposed
graded areas until the landscaping is installed and matures to blend in with the natural
vegetation of the hillside location. The short-term visual character or viewshed impact is
significant because the building pad slopes are visible from adjacent properties, the natural
vegetation has existed undisturbed for years, and the graded slopes will not be covered by
subsequent landscaping material for 1-2 years.
However, this exposure of grading area applies to 1.34 acres, is temporary in nature, and the
lower elevation viewshed is altered primarily because of the entrance drive when viewed from
offsite southerly adjacent residential areas. The Conceptual Landscape Plan (Exhibit 2.3.2)
adds sixteen (16) oaks along the entrance drive for adequate screening. The grading has no
impact on the natural areas left ungraded within Parcel 1 and within the open space areas of
Parcel 2. The hillsides, topography, visual character, panoramic views and natural vegetation
are retained throughout the 78.8 acres of Parcel 2 and within the majority areas of Parcel 1,
where 10.3 acres is not graded. Therefore, the area exposed is limited to the graded 1.34 acres
and the exposure is of limited duration until project landscaping matures. The project’s site
design is a balanced approach to development onsite, based on standard engineering practices.
The mitigation measures recommended for the project result in the needed fire safety, resource
protection and water quality improvements needed for the project.
Therefore, while a Statement of Overriding Considerations is recommended for short-term
impacts on visual character of hillsides, the project impact in the long-term is Less than
Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Compliance with the Oak Tree Protection Regulation
and implementation of the Conceptual Landscape Plan provide sufficient screening when the
plants and trees are mature to minimize the project’s limited impact on hillside views from
Canyon Road and from the developed areas to the south.
50
The potential aesthetic impact of building one residence onsite in the long-term is also likely
Less than Significant. The building plan must conform to the City’s Development Standards,
including building setback, height and total square footage. The building scale, mass, color,
materials and building pad landscaping will reflect the natural hillside setting. The building
design is subject to Design Review and Plan Check Review, will be compatible with its
surroundings, and not create adverse aesthetic effects. A future Draft Landscape Plan for the
building pad will provide new information for the proposed landscaping surrounding the
residence on the 0.36 acre building pad.
The project complies with the remaining Hillside Management Policies 5.2 – 5.6.
When the landscaping matures in the long-term, the project effect is Less than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated. The groundcover and mitigation oaks included in the Conceptual
Landscape Plan (Exhibit 2.3.2) provide sufficient mitigation for the project’s grading within a
natural vegetation area zoned for residential use. The required mitigation oak trees range in
size from one and five gallons to 24 –inch box specimens. The same number of removed
during grading will be planted in Parcel 2 and monitored for vitality for 10 years. The required
hydroseed mix for slope areas within Parcel 1 is also specified in Exhibit 2.3.2.
E. Consistency with R-M Development Permit Application Evaluation Criteria
The following numbered statements are the evaluation criteria for an R-M Development Permit
Application from the Arcadia Municipal Code Section 9250.5.9. A brief discussion of the project
in relation to the evaluation criteria is included below:
1. The extent of grading required for the reasonable use of the property.
Only 1.34 acres of the 90.5 acre property would be graded for the proposed building pad and
entrance road. The proposed grading onsite is dictated by the site topography, the need for
emergency access and separation from existing offsite development to the south and north
along Canyon Road. Contour grading has been used to retain natural grades and the existing
vegetation to the south and east of the building pad toward the street entrance (Exhibit 2.3.1).
The entrance road gradients are required for fire and emergency vehicles. All grading onsite is
balanced and export is not required. The proposed grading is required to create one residential
lot; a reasonable use of the property. The proposed grading plan is consistent with the City’s
grading requirements and policies. No grading occurs within Parcel 2 (78.8 acres).
2. Visual impact of the proposed project.
The visual impact of the proposed project in the long-term is Less than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated with implementation of the Conceptual Landscape Plan (Exhibit 2.3.2)
and compliance with the Oak Tree Protection Regulations (Exhibit 3.2.3). The proposed
building pad is not adjacent or near offsite residences and does not include the higher
elevations onsite to the west and north. The grading onsite does not unnecessarily affect the
51
view from existing residential areas. Contour grading preserves a natural slope onsite, which
may be visible from the offsite southerly neighborhoods. Intervening existing vegetation onsite
or offsite may block some views. The dominant view will be the remaining open space,
landforms at higher elevations and intervening open space between the building pad and the
neighborhoods to the south. The slope to the north of the building pad will be hydroseeded and
the house and landscaping on the pad will minimize the visual impact of the northern slope.
Nine existing oak trees above the northern slope will remain.
With the implementation of a Conceptual Landscape Plan ) the loss of vegetation from grading
of 1.34 acres onsite will result in a temporary adverse impact change in some of the local
viewsheds until the new landscaping matures. The hydro-seeded plants and new trees will
require time to mature to provide sufficient cover and screening for local viewshed impacts of
grading at the project entrance and grading for the interior entrance road. The Conceptual
Landscape Plan (Exhibit 2.3.2) includes a variety of oak tree sizes, including 24-inch box trees,
to increase screening and provide a more natural setting upon buildout.
Existing open space is not graded south and east of the building pad, preserving the majority of
the viewshed from the south. The grading near the entrance has no impact on residences to
the south. Grading for the street is limited to the required width of the street and adjacent slope.
Again, natural vegetation and land contours are retained between the street and the building
pad. The Phase 1 landscaping will mature in one to two years and provide sufficient cover and
screening for aesthetic and landform impacts of the project in the long-term.
Grading along Canyon Road is limited to approximately 280 linear feet for the project entrance
and adjacent slope. Nine oak trees will be planted along the roadway.
The higher elevations of the project site northwest and outside the graded area for the project
range from 1,180 feet msl to 1,300 feet msl (Exhibit 3.1.1) and will be the dominant viewshed
from the south. The elevations of the project site along the northern segments of Santa Ana
Canyon Road extend to 1,560 feet msl (Exhibit 3.1.1).
Offsite views of the grading and landform modification may be visible offsite from the south for
approximately one-half mile or less (e.g., Grandview Avenue and Highlands Oaks Drive)
because onsite views are blocked by intervening mature residential landscaping, buildings, or
intervening existing onsite natural vegetation. (The intersection of Alta Oaks Drive and Highland
Oaks Drive is approximately ¾ mile from the project site and the intersection of East Orange
Grove Avenue and Highland Oaks Drive is approximately one mile from the project site). At
greater distances, the 1.34 acre graded area will be less noticeable but may be apparent at
lower elevations to the south within the City (see Google Earth and its street level view
features). When the landscaping onsite matures, this viewshed from longer distances will be
less apparent. The aesthetic effect from these greater distances is Less than Significant
because the higher elevations onsite and north dominate the viewshed.
52
The majority of the site will remain in its existing condition and be open space. The higher
elevations above 1,110 feet msl of the project site, including the major southerly ridgelines, and
areas to the north will remain as the dominant viewshed from the south.
3. Relationship of the proposed project to adjoining properties and/or structures.
The proposed building pad is approximately 175 feet from offsite residences to the northeast
and the entrance road is 90 feet or more from the residences to the southwest. The building
structure will be centrally located near the rear of the building pad area. The project street
entrance is located 100 feet from the closest offsite residence to the northeast along Canyon
Road.
The existing residences to the southwest in the Vista Avenue cul-de-sac and the residences
near Carolwood Drive and Canyon Road southeast of Parcel 1 are located at approximately 925
feet msl and the proposed onsite building pad is located at 1,090 feet msl. When the building
pad is landscaped, the proposed residence will likely not be seen by homeowners to the south
and southeast because the house is located near the northern edge of the pad. The entrance
street onsite is at approximately 1,050 feet msl along its southern alignment and then rises to
1,090 feet msl at the project driveway. The slope and width of the street complies with City
Engineering and Fire Department regulations. The contour grading provides the dominant
viewshed from the neighborhoods to the south.
4. Adequacy of proposed landscaping areas, drainage facilities, erosion control devices
and other protective devices.
The project Landscape Plans, Drainage Plan and Standard Urban Stormwater Management
Plan (SUSMP) comply with existing City regulations and policies. These plans will provide
adequate landscaping, drainage, erosion control and retaining walls for the project. Section
9250.3.8 of the AMC requires landscaping planting to cover all slopes exceeding two meter in
vertical height between two contiguous lots to have plant material covering the bank within two
years from the time of planting.
5. Adequacy of fire equipment access.
The project entrance, grade, street width, materials and construction will comply with all City
regulations for fire equipment access. The three Fuel Modification Zones included in the
Conceptual Landscape Plan (Phase 1) total 8.9 acres, providing an extra degree of protection
for fire safety, including an irrigation zone (Zone B) and a thinning zone (Zone C).
6. Extent of preservation of existing ridge and crest lines.
The proposed grading plan avoids the higher elevations onsite within Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 and
all grading occurring within Parcel 1 is below 1,120 feet msl. Contour grading is proposed near
the building pad to preserve the existing landform. No major ridge or crest line is altered by the
53
proposed grading plan. The 15,600 square foot building pad is located at 1,090 feet msl.
Sixty-three (63) oak trees in Parcel 1 of TPM 72681 are not impacted by the project. Thirty-two
(32) replacement oak seedlings will be planted in Parcel 2 and maintained for ten years. In
addition, the Conceptual Landscape Plan replaces forty (40) oaks in varying sizes (1, 5 gallon
and 24-inch box) in Parcel 1.
7. Extent of attempt to have roads follow existing contours.
The proposed street alignment provides grade slope and curvatures consistent with City
regulations for street design and graded slopes. The proposed road follows the existing contour
of the landform. The cut and fill sections proposed for the road generally do not exceed ten feet.
8. Developability of sites.
An application shall be denied if, in the judgment of the City, based upon the purpose of this
Division (Arcadia Municipal Code Section 9250.5.9), the proposed work or design of the lots and
streets in the development would:
1. Cause excessive or unnecessary scarring of the natural terrain and landscape through
grading or removal of vegetation; or
2. Cause unnecessary alteration of a ridge or crest line; or
3. Unnecessarily affect the view from neighboring sites; or
4. Would adversely affect existing development or retard future development in this zone;
or
5. Be inconsistent with the provisions of this Division.
In granting a development permit, the City may impose conditions which may be reasonably
necessary to prevent danger to public or private property or to prevent the operation from being
conducted in a manner likely to create a nuisance. No person shall violate any conditions so
imposed in said permit by the City of Arcadia. Such conditions may include but not be limited to
any of the aforementioned requirements of this Division. The City Engineer or a designated
alternate may issue a permit for any emergency hillside work that may be necessary to prevent
danger to public or private property.
F. Consistency with Resource Sustainability Element – Hillside Management Policies
The project EIR meets the policy criteria to determine the environmental sensitivity of a hillside
site. The City will determine appropriate conditions of approval during the review process. A
biological study, a geotechnical report, a drainage report, and an oak tree preservation study for
the project site are provided in Appendices C-E for compliance with Policy RS-8.2. The
54
proposed Conservation Easement onsite (Parcel 2) may incorporate habitat mitigation/banking
capabilities between the property owner and other parties. The proposed oak tree replacement
will occur in Parcel 1 (Exhibit 3.2.3) and seedlings will be planted in in Parcel 2. The project
balances the use of a hillside property for residential use while respecting the natural
environment and private property rights, the primary goal of the Hillsides section of the
Resource Sustainability Element (Goal R-S-8). The project is a contiguous development
adjacent to existing Residential Estates development, does not constitute leap-frog
development and is not zoned for open space.
Street lights along the entry drive are required by City regulations. Security lighting for the
residences onsite is also proposed.
G. Consistency with Parks Recreation and Community Resources Goals and Policies
In regards to the three City goals in the Parks Recreation and Community Resources Element:
(1) the project site is not included in the City’s Historic Resource Inventory (Table 4.5.2: Built
Environmental Historic Resources), (2) the City has not adopted a Cultural Heritage Ordinance,
and, (3) the City has not developed incentives to promote preservation sites and other
resources that are present or may be present on the property. Therefore, the policies listed do
not now apply to the project.
As stated in City policies in the Parks Recreation and Community Resources Element, removal
of natural vegetation onsite may be regarded as a significant cultural value. The criteria listed
were: (1) The resource must be a natural feature that creates exceptionally rich historic or
cultural ambience, (2) The resource is a hillside, geological formation, remaining vegetation, or
other striking or familiar physical characteristic that is important to the special character or
aesthetic of the community.
The graded portion of the property has no significant historic or cultural ambience. The ASM
cultural resources study (Appendix K) found no cultural resources associated with the property.
Natural vegetation in its entirety or large acreages may be of cultural value. The removal of 1.34
acres of natural vegetation within a 90.5 acre property is a Less than Significant cultural effect.
The project impact on natural vegetation as a cultural resource is Less than Significant. There
are no notable geological formations, striking or familiar physic characteristics in Parcel 1, in
contrast to the higher elevations offsite to the north. The special character of aesthetic of the
community refers to the entire City and should not be interpreted in the context of a local
neighborhood or a few select residential lots. Therefore, the project impact on significant
cultural values is Less than Significant.
The project is consistent with the Parks, Recreation and Community Resources goal of
providing an opportunity for “preservation” of natural vegetation and landforms within the
proposed Conservation Easement area. The Conservation Easement may be a partnership
with the City and could also be a partnership with local community organizations, as described
in Policy PR-9.2.
55
Notable local mountain peaks north of TPM 72681 at higher elevations, which are identified on
USGS maps, include: Clamshell Peak Summit (4,390 feet msl), Lookout Point Summit (3,238
feet msl), Mt. Harvard (5,381 feet msl), Mt. Zion (3,570 feet msl) and Rankin Peak (5,297 feet
msl). For reference, Mt. Wilson is 5,699 feet msl (www.MountainZone.com). These peaks are
important to the special character, historic identity, or aesthetic setting of the community.
The cultural resource study for the project (Appendix K) identified three previously recorded
historic sites within a ½ mile radius of the project site boundary: the Sierra Madre Ranger
Station, the Los Angeles National Forest and Chantry Road (Table 2, page 20). The project will
have no impact on these three sites.
H. Consistency with the Conservation Easement Act
The City does not have an Open Space Element and does not plan on changing the General
Plan and zoning designations for the property. However, the City may accept a Conservation
Easement voluntarily offered by the applicant for the open space onsite pursuant to the
Conservation Easement Act (Civil Code Sections 815-816). The applicant and the City must
agree upon the permitted uses within the conservation area, the agreement is in perpetuity and
the easement is binding on any successive land owners of the property.
The City cannot condition the issuance of an entitlement for use (e.g. TPM 72681) on the
applicant granting a conservation easement (California Civil Code Section 815.3 (b)). However,
evidence of such an easement may be required for a ministerial action, such as issuance of a
grading or building permit.
The applicant has agreed to initiate an agreement with the City consistent with the Conservation
Easement Act (Civil Code Sections 815-816) for the open space areas outside of the proposed
1.34 acre graded area in TPM 72681. A Condition of Approval for the project will assure the
agreement is initiated. The agreement provides extensive protection for aesthetic resources in
perpetuity outside of the proposed 1.34-acre grading area. The Conservation Easement would
assure that development does not occur at higher elevations outside Parcel 1.
The following Condition of Approval is recommended:
CA-01: Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the project applicant and the City shall
finalize an agreement consistent with the Conservation Easement Act (Civil Code Sections 815-
816) for the open space area of Parcel 2 of TPM 72681. The agreement shall specify all
permitted uses, maintenance, security, access and operational aspects of maintaining the
hillside area as a healthy, natural environment. The creation of habitat land banks and habitat
replacement areas for sensitive status species shall be permitted. The agreement shall also
specify that the landowner shall comply with all applicable fire safety requirements. The City
Attorney shall approve the language of the final agreement. The applicant shall provide
evidence of filing the agreement with the County of Los Angeles Recorder’s Office prior to
issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The Planning Division and the Fire Department shall
ensure compliance.
56
I. Consistency with Grading Guidelines
The Grading Plan for the project must comply with relevant policies of the Hillside Management
Area (See Section 3.1.1 (d) above), with all adopted regulations of Building Services and, with
all recommendations of the final project Soils/Geology Report (Appendix F). See Sections 3.3:
Soils and Geology and Section 3.4: Hydrology and Water Quality for additional discussion of
grading and drainage issues. The retaining walls proposed onsite will be a maximum of six feet
in height and will be landscaped with an irrigation system.
The Grading Plan (Section 3.3) demonstrates that the project site may be graded to maintain
slopes that will be stable during static and seismic events (Table 3.3.3). All of the grading
proposed is required (i.e. minimal disruption of existing landforms) to create the residential pad,
provide an access road, assure slope stability and provide the required drainage facilities.
Therefore, the project impacts on landform modifications are Less than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated.
The project is consistent with City policies for grading since it is scheduled to occur between
April and October to avoid the rainy season and prevent major impacts to offsite water quality.
The majority of rainfall in the City occurs during January, February, November and December.
Table 3.1.1: Average Rainfall in Arcadia
Average High
(degrees)
Mean
(degrees)
Average
Precipitation
(inches)
Jan 68 56 3.7
Feb 71 58 3.8
Mar 71 58 3.3
Apr 75 62 1.3
May 77 66 0.3
Jun 82 70 0.1
Jul 88 75 0.0
Aug 88 76 0.1
Sept 87 74 0.5
Oct 82 68 0.5
Nov 74 61 2.3
Dec 68 56 2.3
www.countrystudies.us/united-states/weather/California/arcadia.htm.
Another weather data source had rainfall data for Arcadia Wilderness Park, which at 2,040 msl
has slightly higher rainfall in the winter months, but comparable average precipitation for May to
October.
57
J. Consistency with Noise Element
The project site will not be exposed to exterior noise levels above 65 dB CNEL when
construction is complete. Standard building construction, conforming to the California Green
Buildings Standards Code, will result in interior noise levels below 45 dBA CNEL. Therefore,
the project will be consistent with the Noise Element at buildout.
K. Consistency with the Housing Element
The project is also consistent with the Housing Element and the Regional Housing Needs
Allocation (Table H-6, Housing Element) for demand for above moderate income or dwelling
units.
3.1.3 Recommended Project Land Use Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measure addresses multiple issues related to aesthetics.
LU-01: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall obtain approval for the
Landscape Plan (Phase 2) for Zone A. Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit, the applicant
shall implement the approved Landscape Plans (Phase 1, 2) for the project. The Landscape
Plan (Phase 1) shall identify any fuel modification areas outside of the graded area and the total
acreage subject to fuel modification. Fencing proposed for use during construction or during the
life of the project shall be constructed with materials that are not harmful to wildlife. The
Planning Division shall ensure compliance.
3.1.4 Project Level of Significance for Land Use Impacts
The project has a Less than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated on land use. The
project impact on aesthetics for the Conceptual Landscape Plan (Phase 1) is Unavoidably
Adverse in the short-term due to the differences between City policies and CEQA (See Section
4.0) and the time needed for the Phase 1 landscaping to mature and provide sufficient cover.
This situation is primarily an issue of timing, normal maturation of plants and trees, and not of
inadequacies of the Landscape Plans (Phase 1, 2). In the long-term, the project impact on
aesthetics for the long-term following buildout is Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated (See Section 4.0).
3.1.5 Cumulative Land Use Impacts
A cumulative impact is an impact that is created as a result of “two or more individual effects,
which when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other
environmental impacts,” (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15355). CEQA evaluation shall discuss
cumulative impacts of a project when the project’s incremental effect is cumulatively
considerable. (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15130 (a).) Cumulatively considerable means that
the incremental effects of the project are significant when viewed in connection with the effect of
58
past projects, current projects and the effects of probable future projects (CEQA Guidelines,
Section 15065 (a) (3).
Threshold of Significance for Cumulative Impacts
The thresholds of significance used in the land use section are whether the project: (1) Conflicts
with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect, (2) Create substantial adverse effects on a protected scenic
vista, or (3) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surrounding.
Cumulative Land Use Impacts
The geographic scope of the cumulative land use analysis is within two miles of the project site
within the City (e.g. from Orange Grove Avenue north to the City limits). This area includes the
majority of the designated Residential Estate lands within the City. There are no protected
scenic vistas or viewshed within the City. City policies adopted for avoiding or reducing an
environmental effect were discussed above.
Based on discussions with the Planning Division, there are no submitted applications for
additional residential development in the geographic area defined above. Therefore, the project
has no cumulative land use impacts.
The onsite acreage restricted by the Conservation Easement (Parcel 2) is similar to lands
designated for Open Space-Outdoor Resource Protection in the City. If a Conservation
Easement is approved, the total acreage would increase by 56 percent from 160.8 acres to
approximately 250 acres (Table LU-1: Buildout by Land Use Designation, Land Use and
Community Design Element).
3.1.6 Cumulative Projects Level of Significance
As stated above, there are no additional residential projects in the project area. Therefore, the
cumulative land use impacts are Less than Significant.
59
3.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
3.2.1 Existing Conditions for Biological Resources
Ryan Ecological Consulting completed a biological assessment for the 90-acre project site (APN
5765-002-012 and 5765-002-013) in December 2011 and updated the report in December
2012. The assessment describes the existing biological conditions of the project site, assesses
the potential for special for occurrence onsite of special status plant and wildlife species,
assesses the potential onsite for wildlife corridors and assesses the potential for supporting
jurisdictional habitats. (Jurisdictional habitats are area regulated by the California Department
of Fish and Wildlife and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service). The assessment also
identifies potential significant effects of the project on biological resources provides
recommendations for additional focused studies and mitigation measures. The 2012 biological
assessment is summarized below and the report is included as Appendix D.
Four onsite field investigations of the entire 90.5 acres (Exhibit 3.2.1), including Parcel 1, was
completed by Ryan Ecological Consulting on December 15, 18 and December 19, 21, 2011.
General categories for habitat types were used in this study and later refined in subsequent
focused studies. Therefore, there is a change in nomenclature for some habitat areas in the two
studies. The additional focused biological assessments of Parcel 1 were conducted onsite on
May 16, 2012 and May 1, 2014. Helix Environmental Planning staff also were onsite twice to
evaluate the westerly drainage in Parcel 2. All accessible, adjacent areas were also examined
to provide context. Based on the literature survey and site observation, the potential for
occurrence of each special-status species was classified as present, may occur, not likely to
occur or absent onsite.
The literature survey for the project included the United States Department of Agriculture (2010)
Soil Survey data layers, the Mount Wilson USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle topographical map, the
California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), the Consortium of California herbaria (CCH
2011) and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Rare Plan Inventory (CNPS 2011).
“Special-status” refers to species that are (1) listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing
as threatened or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), (2) Listed or
candidates for listing as threatened or endangered under California Endangered Species Act
(CESA), (3) Listed as rare under the Native Plant Protection Act, (4) a state species of special
concern or fully protected species and (5) on California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Lists 1A,
1B, 2, and 3, or on a Los Angeles Sensitive Bird Species List (CDFG 2011, LACSB Working
Group 2009).
The 90.5-acre project site is located within a natural area, surrounded by suburban development
to the south and east, and by natural areas to the north and west. The natural areas support
informal trails and contain power transmission poles and lines. The 90.5-acre site is located
within a side canyon near the mouth of Santa Anita Canyon, with low rolling hills and canyons
oriented north-south in the southern portion. The elevation ranges from 1,000 to 1,750 feet msl.
60
Numerous unnamed intermittent blue-line streams, tributary to Big Santa Anita Canyon Wash,
are located in the northern and northeastern portions of the 90.5-acre parcel (e.g. outside of
Parcel 1 of TPM 72681). One ephemeral stream occurs outside of Parcel 1 within the
southwest portion of TPM 72681.
The 90.5-acre project sire is within the Trigo soil family, granitic substratum with slopes up to 60
to 90 percent. The substrata observed within the project site are primarily loamy sand soils with
a thick organic layer below the vegetated areas.
All grading and construction activities for the project occur within the 1.34 acre graded area of
TPM 72681. The biological assessment focuses on Parcel 1 of TPM 72681 (approximately 12.0
acres), which included the 1.34-acre graded area (Exhibit 3.2.2).
Helix Environmental Inc. completed spring surveys for special status plants in May 16, 2012 and
May 12, 2014 for Parcel 1 of TPM 72681. Both surveys evaluated special status plants on 13.0
acres located within Parcel 1, including an area of potential impact surrounding the 1.34 acre
project grading area. Fifty-eight (58) plants were noted in the latter survey and sixteen (16)
percent of the total was non-native species. None of the plants identified are special status
plants.
In addition, Jan C. Scow Consulting Arborists, LLC completed arborist reports for the project site
in January 2012 and January 2014. The arborist study is based on several site visits between
December 14 and December 30, 2011. The study assessed the occurrence and health of all
oak trees onsite consistent with the Arcadia Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance, identifies
construction impacts and recommends required mitigation measures. The Arborist Report is
included as Appendix E. The Conceptual Landscape Plan for the project was completed by Ben
Lundgren & Associates in January 2014.
61
Exhibit 3.2.1: TPM 72681 Vegetation Map (2011)
62
A. Jurisdictional Habitats
Jurisdictional waters of the United States include jurisdictional wetlands as well as all other
waters of the United States, such as creeks, ponds and intermittent drainages. Wetlands are
defined as “those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a
frequency and duration sufficient to support and under normal circumstances do support, a
prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.” (Corps 1987).
The majority of jurisdictional wetlands in the United States must meet three wetland assessment
criteria: hydrophilic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology.
The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) is a trustee agency with jurisdiction under
Section 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code. Under Section 1602, a private
party must notify CDFG if a proposed project will “substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow
or substantially change the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake designated by the
department, or use any material from the streambeds, except when the department has been
notified pursuant to Section 1601.”
All intermittent blue-line streams onsite that are tributaries to Big Santa Anita Canyon Wash may
be subject to provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the California Fish and Game Code
1600 et. seq. These areas are outside of the graded area (Figure 3 in Appendix D).
The westerly ephemeral drainage area (Exhibit 3.2.5) may be subject to CDFG or Corp US
Army Corps of Engineers jurisdiction but does not support any riparian vegetation. However, a
jurisdictional delineation report was completed by Helix Environmental Planning in February
2012 and revised in December 2013. The ephemeral drainage is not regarded as Waters of the
United States (WUS) due to isolation from other WUS. No project grading or development
occurs in this area. The report is summarized in Section 3.2.2 (F) and the complete report is
included as Appendix J.
B. Vegetation
Four vegetative communities occur with the 90.5 acres of TPM 72681: Chaparral, Coastal Sage
Scrub/Chaparral, Oak Woodlands/Riparian and Mulefat Scrub (Exhibit 3.2.1). The first two
communities dominate the 90-acre project site.
Chaparral is the more common of the scrub vegetation types and covers most of the mesic (e.g.
containing a moderate amount of moisture) slopes on the property. Plants in this vegetation
type are generally drought-deciduous and fire-adapted. Common plant species include
chamise, scrub oak, ceanothus, mountain mahogany, and chaparral yucca.
Coastal sage scrub occurs on less mesic (i.e. drier) slopes within the property. Dominant
species include California sagebrush, sugar bush, California buckwheat, laurel sumac, deer
weed and black sage.
63
Oak woodlands within the parcel include Engelmann Oak and Coast Live Oak. Riparian areas
also support wild blackberry, California walnut, currant, toyon, poison oak, western sycamore,
Mexican elderberry and red willow. Mixed Chaparral and Oak Woodland habitats dominate
Parcel 1 of TPM 72681 (3.2.2).
Mulefat scrub is dominated by the nominate species Mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia). This
vegetation occurs in a small impoundment in the northeast portion of the parcel map off of
Santa Anita Canyon Road (within Parcel 2).
Roadsides and disturbed trails onsite support a host of native and non-native species. Common
native roadside plants onsite are Sawtooth Goldenbush, Telegraph Weed and Annual Bursage.
Non-native species commonly found along roadsides onsite include Slender Wild Oats, Red
Brome, Tree Tobacco and Mediterranean Mustard. Red-stemmed Filaree and Annual
Bluegrass were also found in various locations onsite. Castor Bean is a common non-native
invasive species found in wetter portions of the project site.
Table C-1 in Appendix D includes an extensive plant list compiled from the literature review for
Parcel 1. The taxonomic nomenclature follows Hickman (ed.) 1993. There are fourteen plants
listed on the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) that may occur onsite. Although not
observed onsite, there is suitable habitat for five rare and sensitive plants: (1) San Gabriel
Bedstraw, (2) California Muhly, (3) Parish’s Gooseberry, (4) Greata’s Aster and (5) Sonoran
Maidenfern. While not observed onsite, there is limited suitable habitat for five additional plant
species listed with the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) lists and four species with some
suitable habitat onsite. The species and there CNPS classification are listed below in Table
3.2.1. Only Plummer’s Mariposa Lily and Parish’s Gooseberry are listed as Federal species of
concern (FSC).
Two plant species are discussed herein because comments from the U. S. Fish and Widlife
Service in May 2013 outside maintained the species should be onsite. Astragalus bauntonii
(ASBR) was listed in the biologist report (Table C-1, Appendix D, Ryan) and evaluated as
“Unlikely to occur.” Marginally suitable habitat exists on the property. The recent records of its
occurrence have been in the San Gabriel Mountains above Monrovia. However, it was not
observed onsite. Helix Environmental Planning, Inc. also listed ASBR in Attachment A within
Appendix D) and listed it as potentially occurring. The “abandoned road” area noted as
potential habitat by outside agency comments was part of the survey completed by Helix in May
2012 and no ASBR were observed onsite. ASBR distribution favors calcareous outcrops. Soils
maps for the project (Figure 4, Appendix J) show that all of the soils onsite derive from granite
and not the sedimentary rocks necessary for calcareous soils. ASBR is a perennial herb. Even
with only 57 percent of average rainfall in 2012, this species would have likely sprouted a
significant portion of its population and would have been in evidence at the time of the rare plant
survey. However, no ASBR were observed during the onsite survey.
64
Galium grande (San Gabriel Bedstraw) is an endemic rare shrub in the region and was
identified by Ryan Ecological Consulting in Table C-1 in their December 2013 report in Table C-
1 (see Appendix D) ) as a CNPS listed 1B and listed as “May Occur: Suitable habitat exists for
this plant on the project site.” However, none of the plants were observed onsite during multiple
site visits. Helix staff observed a plant from the Genus Galium but did not identify it to species
due to a lack of flowers and/or fruits (Attachment B, Appendix D). The species observed onsite
by Helix staff had lance shaped leaves and Galium grande has elliptical shaped leaves.
Therefore, the species observed was not Galium grande.
65
Exhibit 3.2.2: Parcel 1 Vegetation Map (2012)
66
C. Wildlife
Wildlife species observed within Parcel 1 of TPM 72681 are typical of woodland, chaparral and
scrub habitats. No amphibians or reptiles were observed during the survey. However, an
abundance of burrows, woody material and leaf littler suggest the site supports several species
of amphibians and reptiles which may be identified in later focused surveys in warmer months of
the year. However, none of the amphibian and reptile species classified as may occur or
present are rare and endangered (Table 3.2.2).
Bird species typical of chaparral and scrub communities include the California Quail, Anna’s
Hummingbird, Bushtit, Bewick’s Wren, California Thrasher and California Towhee. Species with
affinities to oak woodland are Acorn Woodpeckers and the Oak Titmouse. Special status birds
observed onsite included the Rufous Crowned Sparrow and Cooper’s Hawk. Both are state
watch list species and may nest within the project site. A Peregrine Falcon was observed
onsite, but there are no suitable nesting habitats for this species onsite. An oak titmouse was
also present but has no federal or state status. The large trees onsite may support nesting
hawks and owls.
Mammals observed onsite include the desert cottontail and mule deer. Coyote scat and
burrows were also observed. Tracks of domestic dogs and house cats were also observed
throughout the site, which diminished the sites value to native wildlife.
Wildlife movement corridors are large patches of habitat connecting two or more areas of
habitat that would otherwise be isolated from one another. A functioning wildlife movement
corridor allows for ease of movement between habitat patches. Corridors promote gene flow,
allow re-colonization of areas following catastrophic fires, prevent the loss of large animals by
linking suitable habitat areas, and help to ensure the survival of native species that cannot
compete with more aggressive non-native species in fragmented habitat.
The project site has limited functionality as a wildlife corridor. The down-slope of the site meets
suburban development with city streets, concrete drainage structures, and landscaped
properties. The project site is at the southern limit of a large contiguous area of native habitat
(Angeles National Forest) and does not provide connectivity with other areas of native habitat.
D. Oak Trees
The Oak Tree Protection Ordinance is included in the Arcadia Municipal Code (AMC) in Chapter
7, Section 9700-9708. As stated in Chapter 7, the Ordinance recognizes oak trees as a
significant aesthetic and ecological resource and creates favorable conditions for the
preservation and propagation of an irreplaceable plant heritage for the benefit of current and
future residents of the City. The Ordinance is intended to maintain and enhance the public
health, safety and welfare through the mitigation of soil erosion and air pollution, preserve and
enhance property values through conserving and enhancing the distinctive and unique aesthetic
character of many areas of the City (Section 9700).
67
The Ordinance stipulates that no oak tress shall be removed, damaged or have its protected
zone encroached upon without compliance with the Ordinance. The Ordinance applies to all
oak trees on all public and private property whether vacant, undeveloped, in the process of
developed or developed (Section 9701). An application for an oak tree permit for the removal of
a healthy oak tree shall be made to the Community Development Division, and shall include an
evaluation from a certified arborist as to the condition of the tree (Section 9704).
An Oak Tree Permit shall be obtained prior to removal of any oak tree and obtained prior to any
encroachment into the protected zone of any oak tree. Conditions which may be imposed on the
issuance of an Oak Tree Permit include, but are not limited to the following: (1) Relocating of
oak trees on-site, or the planting of new oak trees, and (2) Planting of additional trees other than
oak, which may be more appropriate to the site (Section 9706).
Protected oak trees include: (1) Engelmann Oak, Coast Live Oak, California Live Oak with a
trunk diameter larger than four inches measured at the point four and on-half feet above the
crown root, or two or more trunks measuring three inches each or greater in diameter,
measured at a point four and one-half feet above the crown root and, (2) Any other living oak
tree with a trunk diameter larger than twelve inches measured at a point four and on-half feet
above the crown root, or two or more trunks measuring ten inches each or greater in diameter,
measured at a point four and one-half feet above the crown root (Section 9702).
An Oak Tree Permit for the removal of healthy oak trees shall be subject to the approval or
conditional approval of the Modification Committee or the Planning Commission (on appeal) or
City Council (on appeal) pursuant to the Modification regulations. The privileges granted an
applicant in this Section shall become null and void if not utilized within one year from the date
of approval or conditional approval (Section 9705).
Upon receipt of an application to remove a diseased or hazardous oak tree, or an application to
encroach into the protected zone of any oak tree, the Community Development Administrator or
his/her designee shall have five working days to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the
application (Section 9705). However, Section 9701(A) exempts an oak tree permit where tree
removal and/or encroachment has been specifically approved as part of a development permit,
also known as a combined permit. In this case, the oak tree removals and encroachments will
be considered as part of the development permit. Therefore, a separate oak tree permit
application is not necessary.
Existing Oak Trees Near Graded Areas in Parcel 1 – Jan C. Scow Consulting Arborists, LLC
completed an oak tree inventory in the area of potential impact in January 2012 and updated the
report for the new project in January 2014. There are 128 protected oaks near graded areas in
Parcel 1. Thirty-two (32) oaks would be removed during construction of the project and thirty-
three (33) would be protected in place (PIP). Sixty-three (63) of the 128 oaks (51 percent) in
Parcel 1 are not impacted by the project. The location of all oaks surveyed is shown in Exhibit
3.2.3. An inventory of the sixty-five (65) oaks (PIP and removals), including the species,
diameter, height, canopy, health and structure are listed in Table 3.2.3. The complete inventory
68
of all 128 oaks is included in the Oak Tree Inventory in Appendix E.
Trees 23-30 are not shown in Exhibit 3.2.3 and are located at the far southeast corner of Parcel
1. These eight trees would also not be impacted by the project.
69
Exhibit 3.2.3: Oak Tree Protection Plan
70
Exhibit 3.2.3: Oak Tree Protection PlanMost of the oaks trees onsite are Quercus Agrifolia
(Coast Live Oak) or Quercus Berberidifolia (California Scrub Oak). Coast Live Oaks are native
to California Coast Ranges and are a round-headed wide-spreading tree to 20-70 feet high,
often with greater spread. Smooth dark gray bark, dense foliage of rounded, holly-like, 1-3 inch
leaves, slightly glossy on the upper surface characterize this species. Eleven of the coast live-
and scrub oaks identified for removal of the total thirty-two (37 percent) are in Good or Very
Good health.
California Scrub Oaks are a small evergreen or semi-evergreen shrubby oak in the white oak
section Quercus sect. California Scrub Oaks are native to the scrubby hills of California and a
common member of chaparral ecosystems. California Scrub Oaks grow to 1-2 meters tall,
rarely to 4 meters, and have sharply toothed, dull green leaves 1.5-3 cm long and 1-2 cm broad,
leathery leaves on their top surfaces and somewhat hairy underneath. The solitary or paired
brown acorns mature in about 6-8 months after pollination. In cooler, more exposed areas,
scrub oaks are usually a small, compact shrub, but in warm or sheltered areas the plan may
spread out and grow several meters high.
Protected oak trees onsite have not been evaluated for safety. Trees are dynamic living
organisms subject to many influencing factors. All trees are potentially in danger, regardless of
their current health and vigor.
There are approximately 4.8 acres of oak habitat (i.e. oak woodland and oak/riparian
woodlands) located within Parcel 1 of TPM 72681. An additional five acres or more of oaks
occur in Parcel 2.
3.2.2 Project Biological Resource Impacts
Threshold of Significance for Biological Resources
The proposed project would have a significant impact on biological resources if it would have a
substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on: (1) Species
identified as a candidate, sensitive or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, (2) Any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community in local or regional plans,
policies or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, (3) Federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act, (4) Substantial interference with the movement of any native resident or migratory wildlife
species or with other established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impeding the
use of a native wildlife nursery site, or (5) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance (CEQA Initial
Study Checklist).
The thresholds of significance used for jurisdictional delineation (e.g. CDFG and Corps of
71
Engineers) are those stated in Appendix J.
The geographical area used for identification of project biological resource impacts is Parcel 1 of
TPM 72681 and its immediate surroundings (see Exhibit 3.2.2).
The CEQA Guidelines (Section 15380 (b)) afford species not listed under the Federal or
California Endangered Species Act special consideration if the species meets certain criteria.
This considerations facilities consideration of species not yet protected under state or federal
law and provides protection of the species until legal designation of the species occurs by the
federal or state agencies. Species listed by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) as List
1A: plants presumed extinct, List 1B: plants that are rare threatened, or endangered in
California but more numerous elsewhere, generally meet Section 15380 criteria. Project
impacts on plants onsite within the area of potential impact that are classified as List 1A, List 1B
and List 2 will be considered significant effects when some suitable habit or limited suitable
habitat onsite within the 3.9 acre graded area or 300-foot buffer area is considered a significant
project effect herein.
The California Endangered Species Act (ESA) follows the Federal Native Plant Protection Act
(NPPA) and includes both plants and animals that are determined to be endangered or
threatened with extinction.
The biological impact analysis herein is a “worse case” analysis, in that special status species
that may occur onsite are identified as special effects and the classification lists being used are
extensive. Focused biological surveys during the appropriate time of the year when species are
active, identifiable and expected to occur will be completed to confirm or deny the presence of a
specific species. Focused surveys are required herein for sensitive status birds/raptors,
woodrat nests, bats within areas of potential impact (see BIO-01 to BIO-06 in Table1.3.1.
The geographical area of project impact for biological resources is the 1.34-acre graded area
within Parcel 1 and a contiguous buffer area within 300 feet or more for some species. The
vegetation map of Parcel 1 was shown in Exhibit 3.2.2.
In summary, the biological surveys (Table 3.2.1) identified fourteen sensitive plants (Table
3.2.1), three amphibians and four mammals (Table 3.2.2) that may occur onsite. Four sensitive
species of birds were observed onsite: Cooper’s hawk, South California rufous-crowned
sparrow, oak titmouse and American peregrine falcon (non-nesting). No sensitive plants were
observed onsite.
A. Project Impacts on Birds
Grading and vegetation removal onsite within Parcel 1 may impact the nests of the Cooper’s
Hawk, the Southern California Rufous Crowned Sparrow and the Oak Titmouse. The first two
species are included on the Department of Fish and Game Watch List. The Oak titmouse is
designated by the American Bird Conservancy as a state special animal. All three birds were
observed onsite. Destruction of active nesting sites would be a significant effect. These
72
impacts may be avoided if grading does not occur in the prime nesting season and a pre-
construction survey confirms there are no active nesting sites in the graded area and the 300-
feet buffer area.
The Turkey Vulture (Los Angeles County Sensitive Bird Species List) was also observed onsite.
An American peregrine falcon was observed onsite but likely does not nest there. The project
site has little to offer falcons, other than an occasional perch and limited bird species like doves
and pigeons.
The Coastal California Gnatcatcher and the Least Bell’s Vireo (both federal listed species) are
unlikely to occur onsite based on their absence in the literature survey and the relatively poor
condition of their preferred habitat. The California Natural Diversity Data Base shows the
nearest gnatcatcher record 5.5 miles east of the site. The coastal sage scrub onsite occurs in
small disjunct patches along the chaparral. Gnatcatchers were not observed while completing
the five survey visits by the project biologists. Coastal Sage Scrub, the preferred habitat for the
Gnatcatcher, occurs onsite in only small, disjointed patches among the Chaparral.
Gnatcatchers prefer larger level habitat areas for protection and feeding. Suitable habitat for the
Least Bell’s Vireo is also not present onsite in or adjacent to the drainages. There are only a
few narrow patches of mule fat and scattered willows onsite, which is the preferred habitat for
the species. Therefore, the project has No Impact on the Coastal California Gnatcatcher and
Least Bell’s Vireo.
The destruction of the nests of the Cooper’s Hawk or of the Southern California Rufous-
Crowned Sparrow, both with State and Federal protection, would be a significant effect.
Surveying of nests between March 1 and August 15, the core nesting season, prior to
construction and safeguarding active nests until the young can survive before nest dismantling
will reduce the impact to Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated.
B. Project Impacts on Wood Rats
Grading and vegetation removal onsite may impact active woodrat nests (middens) of the San
Diego Desert Woodrat and the Dusky-footed Woodrat (Exhibit 3.2.4). Two woodrat middens
were observed in the project grading area. The species of woodrats constructing middens onsite
was not determined and cannot be determined without trapping. The habitat, location and
midden construction observed onsite are more typical of the Dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma
fuscipes). The Federal Species of Concern designation applies only to the Dusky-footed
woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes). Destruction of active nesting sites of this species would be a
significant effect. Any project impact on the Dusky-footed woodrat may be avoided if nests are
dismantled during the non-breeding season (October 1 to December 31) and moved outside of
the construction and buffer areas prior to construction. The project impact on woodrats would
be Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.
73
Exhibit 3.2.4: Locations of Sensitive Species
74
The Planned Disturbance Area shown in Exhibit 3.2.4 may not be totally consistent with the
area shown in the Conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan (Exhibit 2.3.1). The latter plan should
be consulted for its greater level of accuracy.
C.. Project Impacts on Amphibians and Reptiles
An amphibian, the Coast Range Newt, and two reptiles, the Coast Western Whiptail and the
Coast (San Diego) Horned Lizard were not observed onsite and there is a low potential for
occurrence. All three species are DFG and CA species of concern and their destruction could
be a significant effect. However, if these species occur onsite, it would be in such low numbers
that, if impacted development would not threaten the continued existence of the species.
Therefore, the potential loss of habitat for these species is Less than Significant.
D. Project Impacts on Bats
The Pallid Bat (CA Species of Special concern), the Hoary Bat (CA Special Animal) and the
California Mastiff Bat (CFG Species of Concern) were not observed onsite and there is a low
potential for the pallid bat and hoary bat to occur on the project site. If these species occur
onsite, it would be in such low numbers that, if impacted would not threaten the continued
existence of the species. Both the pallid bat and hoary bat are known to occur in the local
vicinity and may occur at the project site. The pallid bat is known to roost on cliff faces, such as
those created by the road cut for Santa Anita Canyon Road. However, these areas are not
impacted by the project. Therefore, this species is not likely to present a potential project
constraint. The hoary bat uses dense trees, such as the coast live oak trees present at the
project site. There is a low but reasonable potential for this species to occur within Parcel 1 in
low numbers.
The hoary bat has no federal or state status, and is not a State Species of Concern. Therefore,
any further evaluation should focus on the other two bat species mentioned above. The
potential loss of habitat for these species would be Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated.
E. Project Impacts on Plants
Grading and vegetation removal within Parcel 1 may impact two species that are Federal
species of concern: Plummer’s Mariposa Lily and Parish’s Gooseberry. The species were not
observed onsite but there is a low but reasonable potential that they may occur onsite because
some suitable habitat occurs onsite. The destruction of either of the two plant species would be
a significant effect. This impact may be avoided if individual plants are relocated, or the impact
would be Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated if additional plants are established
in other areas outside of the construction and buffer zone.
Some suitable habitat occur onsite for five plant species on the California Native Plant Society
75
(CNPS) lists. None of the five plants were observed onsite. These species and the listing
category are San Gabriel Bedstraw (1B), California Muhly (4), Parish’s Gooseberry (1A), Greta’s
Aster (1B) and the Sonoran Maidenfern (1B). Category 1A is plants presumed extinct, Category
1B is rare, threatened or endangered in California and elsewhere, and Category 4 is a Watch
List for limited distribution.
Limited suitable habitat occur onsite for five plant species in the CNPS lists. These species and
the listed category are the San Gabriel River Dudleya (1B2), San Gabriel Mountains Dudleya
(1B), the Many-stemmed Dudleya (1B), and the Mesa Horkelia (1B). None of the three plants
were observed onsite. Category 1B is rare, threatened or endangered in California and
elsewhere. Category 2 is rare, threatened or endangered in California but more common
elsewhere.
The destruction of any of the plant species on the California Native Plant Society List with a
Category 1B listing would be considered a significant effect. This impact may be avoided if
individual plants could be relocated outside of the construction and buffer zone prior to
construction, or the impact would be Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated if
additional plants are established in other offsite areas.
Helix Environmental completed the first spring plant survey on May 9, 2012 and no special
status plants were observed. Helix Environmental Inc. also completed a second spring plant
survey for special status plants in May 16, 2012 and May 12, 2014 for Parcel 1 of TPM 72681.
Fifty-eight (58) plants were noted in the latter survey and sixteen (16) percent of the total was
non-native species. None of the plants identified are special status plants.
The thinning for Fuel Modification Zone C of the Conceptual Landscape Plan (Exhibit 2.3.2) is
considered impact neutral by the resource agencies. The impact of irrigation in Zone B is a
significant effect only if rare or endangered plants were present. However, none have been
observed in the two spring plant surveys in Zone B. Clearing and thinning for fuel modification .
is regulated by the City. City Fire Department inspections to assure defensible space around
residences begin May 1 of each year. Clearing or thinning of existing vegetation has a Less
than Significant Effect on nesting birds because of the limited geographical area (e.g. 30 feet of
any structure) to achieve defensible space and the abundant populations of native birds in the
project area.
The following two tables summarize the special status plants and wildlife identified during the
literature search and field observation, which are present, or have the potential for occurrence
on the project site. The complete tables for all species identified in the literature (Including
Absent and Not Likely to Occur) are listed in Table C-1 in Appendix D. The 2014 spring plant
survey, completed on May 12, 2014 is also included in Appendix D.
76
Table 3.2.1: Special Status Plants (Present or May Occur/CNPS Lists 1A, 1B, 2)
Scientific Name Common Name Federal
Status
State
Status
CNPS
Status
General Habitat Micro Habitat Potential for Occurrence
PLANTS
Calochortus plummerae Plummer’sA
Mariposa Lily
FSC None 1B Coastal scrub,
chaparral, valley and
foothill grassland,
cismontane
woodland, lower
montane coniferous
forest.
Occurs on rocky and
sandy sites, usually of
granitic or alluvial
material. 90-1610m.
May occur. Habitat is less than
suitable but records are from
San Gabriel Mts. N. of Monrovia
and near W. Fork San Gabriel
River (CNDDB). Historic records
from Mt. Wilson, Rubio Cyn,
Pasadena, Verdugo Cyn,
Tujunga Cyn. also exist
(CNDDB).
Chorizanthe parryi var.
parryi
Parry’sA
Spineflower
None None 3.2 Coastal scrub,
chaparral.
Dry slopes and flats;
sometimes at interface of
two vegetation types,
such as chaparral and oak
woodland; dry, sandy
soils. 40-1705m.
May occur. Marginally suitable
habitat is present; however,
historic records are from Mt.
Lowe (1902) and Arroyo Seco
near Pasadena (1920)(CNDDB).
Cladium californicum California Saw-
grass
None None 2 Freshwater and alkali
marshes, seeps.
Freshwater or alkaline
moist habitats. 60-600m.
May occur. Marginally suitable
habitat is present; California
herbaria do not report records
from Los Angeles County.
Dudleya cymosa ssp.
crebrifolia
San Gabriel River
Dudleya
None None 1B.2 Chaparral, coastal
scrub.
On granite cliffs and
outcrops, surrounded by
scrub. 365m.
May occur. Limited suitable
habitat occurs on the project
site. Records suggest that the
plant is narrowly endemic and
restricted to areas near the San
Gabriel River in the San Gabriel
Foothills.
77
Scientific Name Common Name Federal
Status
State
Status
CNPS
Status
General Habitat Micro Habitat Potential for Occurrence
Dudleya densiflora San Gabriel
Mountains
Dudleya
None None 1B Chaparral, coastal
scrub, lower montane
coniferous forest.
Endemic to los
angeles county.
In crevices and on
decomposed granite on
cliffs and canyon walls.
300-520m
May occur. Limited suitable
habitat occurs on the project
site. None were observed
during the survey.
Dudleya multicaulis Many-stemmed
Dudleya
None None 1B Chaparral, coastal
scrub, valley and
foothill grassland.
Endemic to southern
California.
In heavy, often clay-type
soils or grassy slopes. 0-
790m.
May occur. Limited suitable
habitat occurs on the project
site. None were observed
during the survey.
Galium grande San Gabriel
Bedstraw
None None 1B Cismontane
woodland, chaparral,
broadleafed upland
forest, lower montane
coniferous forest.
Endemic to Los
Angeles County.
Open chaparral and low,
open oak forest; on rocky
slopes; probably
undercollected due to
inaccessible habitat. 425-
1200m.
May occur. Suitable habitat
exists for this plant on the
project site.
Horkelia cuneata ssp.
Puberula
Mesa Horkelia None None IB Chaparral,
Cismontane
woodland, Coastal
scrub.
Sandy or gravelly soils,
70-810 m. Blooms Feb-
Jul.
May occur. Limited suitable
habitat occurs on the project
site. Historic (1911) record
from Alhambra
Lepidium virginicum var.
robinsonii
Robinson’sA
Pepper-grass
None None 1B Chaparral, coastal
scrub.
Dry soils, shrubland. 1-
945m.
May occur. Marginally suitable
habitat exists for this plant on
the project site. Historic records
suggest that this species occurs
in suitable habitat near the site.
Muhlenbergia californica California Muhly None None 4 Endemic to the
Transverse Ranges
Canyons, along moist
ditches, and on sandy
slopes, at elevations of
100-2150 m
May occur. Suitable habitat
exists for this plant on the
project site.
78
Scientific Name Common Name Federal
Status
State
Status
CNPS
Status
General Habitat Micro Habitat Potential for Occurrence
Pseudognaphalium
leucocephalum
White Rabbit
Tobacco
None None 2 Sandy areas. Sandy or gravelly
benches, dry stream
bottoms, canyon
bottoms; < 500 m.
May occur. Marginally suitable
habitat exists for this plant on
the project site.
Ribes divaricatum var.
parishii
Parish’sA
Gooseberry
FSC None 1A Riparian woodland. Salix swales in riparian
habitats. 60-305m.
May occur. Some suitable
habitat exists for this plant on
the project site.
Symphyotrichum greatae Greata’sA ster None None 1B Broad-leafed upland
forest, chaparral,
cismontane
woodland, lower
montane coniferous
forest, and riparian
woodland habitats in
the San Gabriel
Mountains.
Damp places in canyons;
300–2000 m
May occur. Some suitable
habitat occurs on the project
site.
Thelypteris puberula var.
sonorensis
Sonoran
Maidenfern
None None 1B Meadows and seeps. Along streams, seepage
areas. 50-550m.
May occur. Some suitable
habitat occurs on the project
site. Other fern species with
somewhat similar requirements
occur on the project site and in.
Monrovia Canyon., Roberts
Canyon. Santa Anita Canyon.
79
Scientific Name Common Name Federal
Status
State
Status
CNPS
Status
General Habitat Micro Habitat Potential for Occurrence
Status Codes:
N = Nesting, Nesting Colony or Rookery
W = Winter
Federal State Other CNPS
FT = Federal Threatened ST = State Threatened FSS = Forest Service Sensitive 1A = Presumed Extinct in California
FE = Federal Endangered SE = State Endangered BLMS = Bureau of Land Management 1B = Rare, Threatened or Endangered in
FPE = Federal Proposed SR = State Rare Sensitive California and elsewhere
Endangered SC = State Species of Special Concern CDFS = California Dept. of Forestry 2 = Rare, Threatened or Endangered in
FPT = Federal Proposed FP = State Fully Protected Sensitive California but more common
Threatened RHCP=Western Riverside HCP elsewhere
FPD = Federal Proposed 3 = More information needed (usually
Delisting taxonomically problematic)
FC = Federal Candidate 4 = “Watch list.” Limited distribution
FD = Federal Delisted
Source: Ryan Environmental Consulting, Table C-1, Appendix D
80
Table 3.2.2: Special Status Wildlife (May Occur or Present)
Scientific Name Common Name Federal
Status
State
Status
Other
Status
General Habitat Microhabitat Potential for Occurrence
AMPHIBIANS
Taricha torosa
torosa
Coast Range newt None None DFG:SSC
Coastal drainages from
Mendocino County to
San Diego County.
Lives in terrestrial
habitats and will migrate
over 1 km to breed in
ponds, reservoirs and
slow moving streams.
May occur; suitable
habitat and potential
breeding areas within 1
km.
REPTILES
Aspidoscelis tigris
stejnegeri
Coastal western
whiptail
None None Deserts and semi-arid
areas with sparse
vegetation and open
areas. Also in woodland
and riparian areas.
Ground may be firm soil,
sandy, or rocky.
May occur; local records,
suitable habitat at the
Project Site.
Phrynosoma
coronatum
(blainvillii)
Coast (San Diego)
horned lizard
None None DFG:SSC
IUCN:LC
USFS:S
Inhabits coastal sage
scrub and chaparral in
arid and semi-arid
climate conditions.
Prefers friable, rocky or
shallow sandy soil.
May occur; local records
and suitable soils and
potential foraging
resources at the project
site.
BIRDS
Accipter cooperii Cooper’sAhawkA(N) None None
DFG:WL
IUCN:LC
Woodland, chiefly of
open, interrupted or
marginal type.
Nest sites mainly in
riparian growths of
deciduous trees, as in
canyon bottoms, on river
floodplains; also live in
oaks.
Present; observed during
the site visit. There are
several suitable nesting
trees within and adjacent
to the Project Site.
81
Aimophila ruficeps
canescens
Southern
California rufous-
crowned sparrow
None None DFG:WL Resident in southern
California coastal sage
scrub and sparse mixed
chaparral.
Frequents relatively
steep, often rocky
hillsides with grass and
forb patches.
Present; observed during
the site visit. There is
suitable nesting habitat
within the Project Site.
Baeolophus
inornatus
Oak titmouse None None ABC:WLB
CC
IUCN:LC
Occurs in chaparral, oak
woodlands and
coniferous forests.
Nests in tree cavities Present: observed at the
study area; abundant in
upland habitats.
Falco peregrinus
anatum
American
peregrine falcon
Delisted Endang
ered
CDF:S
DFG:FP
USFS:S
USFWS:B
CC
Habitat generalist. In
southern California
common in estuaries,
open fields, and urban
and suburban areas.
Tends to forage in areas
with large flocks of birds.
Nests on ledges on
natural cliffs and human
built structures.
Present, but not likely to
occur as a nesting
species. No suitable
nesting habitat at the
project site.
MAMMALS
Antrozous pallidus Pallid bat None None BLM: S
DFG:SSC
IUCN:LC
USFS:S
WBWG:H
Deserts, grasslands,
shrublands, woodlands,
and forests. Most
common in open, dry
habitats with rocky areas
for roosting.
Roosts must protect bats
from high temperatures.
Very sensitive to
disturbance of roosting
sites. Arid, low
elevations (<6,000 feet);
roost in deep crevices in
rock faces, buildings, or
bridges.
May occur, particularly in
the open rock face along
the road cut. Not likely to
roost within the area
proposed for
development. Local
records.
Eumops perotis
californicus
California mastiff
bat
None None BLM:S
DFG:SSC
WBWG:H
Many open, semi-arid to
arid habitats, including
conifer and deciduous
woodlands, coastal scrub,
grasslands, chaparral,
etc.
Roosts in crevices in cliff
faces, high buildings,
trees and tunnels.
May occur, local records
suitable roosting habitat
in large trees.
82
Lasiurus cinereus Hoary bat None None IUCN:LC
WBWG:M
Prefers open habitats or
habitat mosaics with
access to trees for cover
& open areas or habitat
edges for feeding.
Roosts in dense foliage of
medium to large trees.
Feeds primarily on
moths. Requires water.
May occur, local records
suitable roosting habitat
in large trees.
Neotoma lepida
intermedia
San Diego desert
woodrat
None None Coastal southern
California from San Diego
County to San Luis
Obispo County.
Moderate to dense
canopies preferred. They
are particularly abundant
in rock outcrops and
rocky cliffs and slopes.
May occur; unidentified
woodrat nests were
located during the site
visit. Unable to confirm
species without more
detailed study. The
habitat is more typical of
the dusky-footed
woodrat.
Status Codes:
N = Nesting, Nesting Colony or Rookery
W = Winter
Federal State Other CNPS
FT = Federal Threatened ST = State Threatened FSS = Forest Service Sensitive 1A = Presumed Extinct in California
FE = Federal Endangered SE = State Endangered BLMS = Bureau of Land Management 1B = Rare, Threatened or Endangered in
FPE = Federal Proposed SR = State Rare Sensitive California and elsewhere
Endangered SC = State Species of Special Concern CDFS = California Dept. of Forestry 2 = Rare, Threatened or Endangered in
FPT = Federal Proposed FP = State Fully Protected Sensitive California but more common
Threatened RHCP=Western Riverside HCP elsewhere
FPD = Federal Proposed 3 = More information needed (usually
Delisting taxonomically problematic)
FC = Federal Candidate 4 = “Watch list.” Limited distribution
FD = Federal Delisted
Source: Ryan Environmental Consulting, Table C-2, Appendix D
83
F. Project Impacts on Jurisdictional Habitat
A focused jurisdiction delineation completed by Helix Environmental Planning, Inc. (Appendix J)
identified and mapped areas onsite subject to the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and identified and mapped areas onsite
subject to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) jurisdiction pursuant to Section
1600 of the CDFW Code.
Focused surveys were completed for 13.0 acres within Parcel 2 on February 2, 2012. This
acreage is outside of Parcel 1 and is not impacted by the project. Corps wetland boundaries
were determined using three criteria (vegetation, hydrology and soils) established for wetland
delineations in the Wetlands Delineation Manual and Regional supplement to the Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region. The Corps assert jurisdiction over
traditional navigable waters (TNW) and tributaries to TNW that are relatively permanent water
body (RPW), which have year-round or continuous seasonal flow. For non-RPW, a significant
nexus evaluation must be conducted to determine whether the non-RPW is jurisdictional. Areas
are non-wetland Waters of United States (WUS) if there is no evidence of regular surface flow
and vegetation and soils criterion are not met.
Two drainages occur onsite along the western side of the small ridge bisecting the property.
Only the westernmost drainage has sufficient surface runoff to leave any evidence of surface
flows. All potential Corps jurisdictional features in the 13.0 acres surveyed qualify as isolated
based on the Rapanos and Carabell court decisions (see Appendix J) and are not regarded as
WUS. No wetlands were observed onsite.
CDFW jurisdictional delineation is determined based on the presence of riparian vegetation or
regular surface flow. Streambeds within CDFW jurisdiction are delineated based on the
definition of a streambed as “a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently
through a bed or channel having banks and supporting fish or aquatic life.” A variety of habitat
types may be jurisdictional, including some that do not include wetland species (e.g. oak
woodland and alluvial fan sage scrub).
Tract 51941 (Exhibit 3.2.5) supports a single drainage that conveys surface water. This is an
ephemeral drainage and does not support any riparian vegetation. In an intermittent drainage
some wetland plant species would be expected and none were observed onsite. The westerly
drainage is not regarded as WUS due to isolation from other WUS. This drainage is regulated
by the CDFW as a streambed. CDFW jurisdictional area onsite includes 393 linear feet of
streambed for a total of 0.04 acres (Exhibit 3.2.5). The streambed widths were measured to the
nearest foot at various locations along the channel and are included in Exhibit 3.2.5.
84
Exhibit 3.2.5: CDFW Jurisdictional Areas
85
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife regulates alterations or impacts to streambeds
under CDFG Code 1602. A Streambed/Lake Alteration Agreement (SAA) is a contract between
the applicant and CDFW stating what can be done in a riparian zone and stream course. Any
impacts to CDFW habitat is regulated under CDFW Code 1602 and requires an SAA. However,
the project proposes no grading or changes to the ephemeral drainage area.
Ryan Ecological Consulting classified a small area within Parcel 1 coinciding with the proposed
project street access as Sycamore/Willow Riparian in Exhibit 3.2.2. This area supports western
sycamore, red willow, arroyo willow and black elderberry at the bottom of the canyon adjacent to
Canyon Road. The habitat is primarily willows. However, this area is also not considered Corps
jurisdictional habitat (Helix, e-mail of 1/7/2014) due to isolation from other WUS. The area is
isolated and not in a stream landscape position. SAA do not apply to isolated features. Lakes
or streambeds are part of a hydrological system that extends to other jurisdictional areas. There
is no streambed onsite above or below the area cited, and it is not in drainage. Given the lack
of connectivity and landscape position this isolated patch of riparian habitat is not jurisdictional.
Therefore, the project has No Impact on these two potential jurisdiction areas of the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife and the U. S. Corps of Engineers. No federal or state permits
are required.
G. Project Impacts on Onsite Oak Trees
Construction
Jan C. Scow Consulting Arborists, LLC updated the initial 2012 oak tree inventory for the
current project in January 2014. The grading plan will remove 32 oaks and 33 oaks are
recommended to be protected-in-place. Sixty-three (63) oaks in the study area are not
impacted by the grading plan. The locations of all oaks near Parcel 1 are shown in Exhibit
3.2.3.
An inventory of the protected oak trees recommended for removal, the species, diameter,
height, canopy, health and structure is listed in Table 3.2.3. The complete inventory of all 128
oaks is included in the Oak Tree Inventory in Appendix E.
The proposed open space areas within TPM 72681 include approximately 4.8 acres of oak
habitat (i.e. oak woodland and oak/riparian woodlands). The proposed project grading will
impact 32 oaks in Parcel 1. The number of living oaks located outside of the oak study area
(Parcel 2), which has not been surveyed, may range from 40 to 60 oaks. The project has no
impact on living oaks in Parcel 2. No fuel modification will occur within Parcel 2.
86
Table 3.2.3
Oaks in Parcel 1 (Removals and Protect-in-Place and Removals)
Tree # Quercus
Species
Diameter
DBH
Estimated
Height
Canopy
N/E/S/W
Health Structure Disposition
PROTECT-IN-PLACE (PIP)
4 Quercus X 10 12 22SE Fair Fair PIP
5 Quercus X 14 20 30E Fair Good PIP
6 Q
Berberidifolia 16 25 15’ r Good Good PIP
13 Q
Berberidifolia 8 12 12’ r Good Good PIP
21 Q Agrifolia 26 35 15/40/30/20 Good Good PIP
60 Quercus X 8,7,7,6+ 22 18’ r Fair Good PIP
61 Quercus X 14,12,11,10+ 33 30’ r Fair Very
Good PIP
62 Quercus X 8,7 25 16NE Fair Fair PIP
63 Quercus X 8,8 26 17W Fair Fair PIP
64 Quercus X 8,6 20 21SSW Fair Poor PIP
68 Quercus X 7,4,3 22 14NS Poor Fair PIP
69 Quercus X 6,5 22 12SW Poor Fair PIP
70 Quercus X 10,10 26 14’ r Fair Good PIP
72 Quercus X 8,8,6,5 24 22’ r Fair-
Poor Good PIP
74 Quercus X 10,7.7 18 20’ r Fair Very
Good PIP
75 Quercus X 9,9 18 15’ r Fair Fair PIP
76 Quercus X 7,6 13 6’ r Fair Fair PIP
79 Q
Berberidifolia 6,5,4,4+ 14 9’ r Fair Fair PIP
84 Q
Berberidifolia 5,5,5,4+ 9 12’ r Good Good PIP
92 Quercus X 7,10 24 10/10/10/22 Fair Fair-
Poor PIP
96 Quercus X 7 8 20W Good Poor PIP
101 Quercus X 7,7 24 10/10/10/22 Fair Fair-Poor PIP
102 Quercus X 11,10 24 18/16/17/25 Fair Fair PIP
104 Q
Berberidifolia 6,6 13 14S Fair Fair PIP
119 Q
Berberidifolia 6,2,2,1 9 12W Fair Fair PIP
120 Quercus X 8 11 15W Fair Fair PIP
121 Q
Berberidifolia 3,2,2,1+ 8 11W Fair Fair PIP
122 Quercus X 4,2 6 10W Fair Fair PIP
87
REMOVALS
7 Q
Berberidifolia 9 12 8/10/8/- Fair Good Remove
8 Q
Berberidifolia 8 12 - Fair Good Remove
15 Agrifolia 15,14 25 20’ r Good Good Remove
16 Agrifolia 6 10 12E Fair Fair Remove
20 Agrifolia 14 17 15’ r Good Good Remove
22 Q Agrifolia 25 35 10/35/10/10 Good Good PIP
50 Quercus X 7 11 14’ r Fair Good Remove
51 Q
Berberidifolia 6,6,5 22 10/-/15/20 Fair Poor Remove
52 Quercus X 11 28 16’ r Fair Fair Remove
53 Quercus X 6 14 10’ r Fair Fair Remove
54 Quercus X 6,5,5,4,4+ 14 14SE Fair Fair Remove
55 Quercus X 6 26 18SW Fair Fair Remove
56 Quercus X 7,6 11 12SSW Fair Fair Remove
57 Quercus X 8,7,7,5,3 17 20/10/20/12 Fair Fair Remove
58 Quercus X 27,7,7,5+ 15 15’ r Fair Fair Remove
59 Quercus X 6,3 9 10NW Fair Good Remove
66 Quercus X 8,8,7,7,4 15 18’ r Fair Fair Remove
71 Quercus X 8,5,4,4,4 15 20S Fair Fair Remove
73 Quercus X 12,10,8 13 23S Good Fair Remove
89 Quercus X 10,9 23 16’ r Good Good Remove
90 Quercus X 9,9,9,9,8,8+ 27 23’ r Good Very
Good Remove
91 Quercus X 10,9 21 8/14/18/14 Fair Fair Remove
95 Q
Berberidifolia 6,3 16 12WNW Fair Fair PIP
97 Quercus X Remove
98 Quercus X 6,6,6,5,4 11 14’ r Good Fair Remove
99 Quercus X 9,6 22 18SW Fair Fair Remove
100 Berberidifolia 5,5,3,2,2,1 12 9’ r Good Very
Good Remove
116 Quercus X 13 25 17’ r Good Good Remove
117 Quercus X 5,4,4,4,3+ 11 13’ r Fair Good Remove
118 Berberidifolia 5,5,2+ 9 11’ r Very
Good Good Remove
123 Berberidifolia 6,5,5,4,4 13 20SW Fair Fair Remove
Source: Arborist Study, Oak Tree Inventory, Jan C. Scow Consulting Arborists, LLC, January 30, 2014,
Appendix E. Tree 22 is removed because of the emergency vehicle parking area and Tree 95 because of the
SUSMP infiltration basin.
The majority of the oak seedlings to be planted within Parcel 1 is considered functional oak
88
woodland and will be irrigated as necessary only during the maintenance period. However,
some oak seedlings located along the perimeter road and along the perimeter for the northern
residence (e.g. north and east of the garage) may be irrigated for a longer period. The
replacement oaks in Parcel 2 will not have the same functionality as any oaks remaining in the
open space areas of Parcels 1, 2 but are not required by any outside agency to have the same
functionality.
Irrigation and Thinning in Fuel Modification Zones
The City of Arcadia Fire Department has issued Fire Safety Guidelines for areas within 100 feet
of a structure. These standards are not listed herein but are included in Appendix I. Since the
Guidelines include pruning branches on trees, oak trees could be included. The Fire Safety
Guidelines do not address areas more than 100 feet from a structure. If required, the Fire
Department will modify these standards for Zone A of the project.
The arborist report has recommended the following mitigation measures for Zone A-C.
Arborist Recommended Mitigation Measures
The project is required to implement mitigation measures for the general project impacts on
oaks recommended by the arborist (see pages 6 and 7 of the arborist report in Appendix E).
These measures are typical of any project located in oak woodland areas and are not listed
below.
In addition, the arborist has recommended the following specific mitigation measures for the
project that will reduce project impacts on protected oaks to Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated:
1. If feasible, a Conservation Easement shall be established in perpetuity for oak woodland
in Parcel 2.
2. Thirty (30) seedling oaks grown from acorns harvested within one mile of Parcel 1 of the
same species as the oaks removed shall be successfully established on a 1:1
replacement basis in Parcel 2, and certified as successfully established after ten (10)
years of monitoring.
3. Twenty-four oaks, including the species and sizes identified in the Conceptual
Landscape Plan, shall be successfully established in Parcel 1 and certified as
successfully established after three (3) years of monitoring.
4. To the extent the Fire Department will allow changes in irrigation requirements, no
irrigation should be allowed in Fuel Modification Zones B, C, expect that which is
required to establish mitigation oak plants and landscape plantings as described below
(i.e. individual “spot” irrigation).
89
5. Landscape planting in Fuel Modification Zones B or C, if any, should be limited to “fire-
safe” native vegetation types that can be established with minimal “spot” drip irrigation.
Such planting should be well outside the oak trees’ drip lines.
6. Fuel modification and clearance, as described in the Fire Safety Checklist, cited on page
3-4 of the arborist report, should not be implemented in Fuel Modification Zones B or C
beyond a distance of 100 feet from structures. Beyond 100 feet, limited brush clearance
to shredding of dead and dry material, and leaving the debris in place on the ground, will
limit impacts to oak woodland.
A Fuel Modification Plan will incorporate the above recommendations, with others from the Fire
Department. These requirements are stated in Section 3.5.3 as FIRE-04.
Oaks in Conservation Easement Area
The applicant or future owners will replace thirty (30) oaks in Parcel 2 of TPM 72681. Parcel 2
will be subject to a future Conservation Easement. The replacement oaks will be started from
seed and their planting monitored for up to ten years. The replacement oaks will mature in the
long-term and add to the protected healthy oaks not impacted by the project. The mitigations
proposed for impacts to oak woodland are consistent with, and go beyond the requirements of
the City’s Oak Tree Protection Ordinance.
No specifics on the contents of the Conservation Easement (CE) are available to date. Since
the Easement will be executed with the future owners of the developed residential lot, the
specific conditions are unknown. However, as discussed previously, the agreement will prohibit
development in perpetuity in the CE, but may include some replacement oak habitat when the
soil conditions, etc. are inappropriate. The CE area may also include one or more habitat
mitigation area or mitigation banks. Mitigation Measure OAK-04 restricts access to the CE for
mountain bikes and all-terrain vehicles. Any future easement must fully comply with the
relevant governmental codes and be executed between the City and the property owner. An
EIR can not speculate on the legal and administrative aspects of a future CE in Parcel 2 of TPM
72681, only that the applicant has offered to execute a CE with the City.
Most of the potential Conservation Easement area (Parcel 2) is chaparral and coastal sage
scrub/chaparral (Figure 3, Appendix D). There are three existing oak woodland areas in Parcel
2 totaling approximately five acres: (1) South of Santa Anita Canyon Road and northwest of the
most northern water tank, (2) Northeast of the TPM boundary west of Canyon Road and Cielo
Place and, (3) north, west and southeast of the graded 1.34 acres. The project has no direct or
indirect impact on the oak woodlands in these three subareas within TPM 72681.
H. Project Impacts on Wildlife of Low Mobility
The only low-mobility wildlife onsite that may occur are the Coastal western whiptail, San Diego
90
horned lizard and Coast range newt. However, none of the three species were observed onsite.
And none of the three are rare or endangered.
After Buildout
The project will have minimal impact on onsite oak trees outside of the graded area following
completion of construction. However, restriction of use of off-road bicycles and all terrain
vehicles in the Conservation Easement area onsite is appropriate. The open space area
subject to a Conservation Easement would prohibit development in perpetuity. Maintenance
and fire hazard prevention in the open space area is the responsibility of the property owner(s).
3.2.3 Mitigation Measures for Project Biological Resource Impacts
A. Project Impacts on Onsite Plants and Animals
BIO-01: If grading occurs during bird nesting season (March 1 to August 31 for most bird
species and as early as January 1 for some raptors), nesting bird surveys conforming to the
guidelines in the biological resource report shall be completed by a professional biologist within
72 hours of removal of trees or vegetation within the grading area and an adjacent area of 300
feet (within 500 feet for raptors). If active nests of migratory or rare and endangered birds are
found, the biologist shall define the geographical area to be avoiding and the length of time the
area is off-limits for construction activities. The applicant shall implement all recommendations
of the approved nesting bird/raptor surveys. Fencing proposed for use during construction or
during the life of the project shall be constructed with materials that are not harmful to wildlife.
The Planning Division shall ensure compliance.
BIO-2: A pre-construction survey conforming to the guidelines in the project biological resource
report shall be completed by a qualified biologist to identify active woodrat nests onsite that may
be impacted by grading and vegetation removal, or active wood-rat nests which are located in a
25-foot buffer zone from the graded area. The applicant shall implement all recommendation of
the biological study (Appendix D), the California Fish and Wildlife recommendations (pp. 5-6 of
April 2, 2013 correspondence) and of the approved focused woodrat nesting report. The
Planning Division shall ensure compliance.
BIO-03: Prior to and within 1 year of construction, a Spring Special-Status Plant Survey of
special-status plants shall be completed by a qualified biologist to identify special-status plans
that may occur onsite and be impacted by grading and vegetation removal during construction.
The applicant shall implement all recommendations of the Spring Special-Status Plant Survey
and provide Construction Monitoring to assure special-status plants in the open space area
adjacent to the graded area are not impacted by construction activities. The Planning Division
shall ensure compliance.
BIO-04: If active nests of migratory or special-status birds are found, the biologist shall define
the geographical area to be avoided and the length of time the area is off limits for construction
91
activities (generally until the young have fledged). If avoidance of the avian breeding season is
not feasible, a qualified biologist with experience in conducting breeding bird surveys shall
conduct weekly bird surveys in suitable nesting habitat that will be disturbed by construction
activities. The surveys shall conform to the recommendation of the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife (Item 4.c., April 2, 2013). The Planning Division shall ensure compliance.
BIO-05: A qualified biological monitor should be present on site during all grubbing and clearing
of vegetation to ensure that these activities remain within the project footprint (i.e. outside the
demarcated buffer), that the flagging/stakes/fencing is maintained, and to minimize the
likelihood that active nests are abandoned or fail due to project activities. The biological monitor
shall send weekly monitoring reports to Planning Division during the grubbing and clearing of
vegetation, and shall notify the Planning Division immediately by phone or e-mail if project
activities damage active avian nests. The Planning Division shall ensure compliance.
BIO-06: If grading occurs during the bat maternity season (March 1 to September 30) a pre-
construction survey shall be completed by a professional biologist to identify trees and/or
structures proposed for disturbance that could provide hiebernacular or nursery colony roosting
habitat for bats. Each tree and/or structure identified as potentially supporting an active
maternity roost shall be closely inspected by the bat specialist no greater than 7 days prior to
tree disturbance to more precisely determine the presence or absence of roosting bats. If bats
are not detected, but the bat specialist determines that roosting bats may be present at any time
of year, trees shall be pushed down by initial gentle shaking using heavy machinery, as
recommended in Item 4. B. of Department of Fish and Wildlife correspondence (April 2, 2013),
rather than felling with a chainsaw, to ensure giving the optimum warning for roosting bats. A
summary report shall be submitted to the Planning Division. The Planning Division shall ensure
compliance.
B. Project Impacts on Onsite – Oak Trees
OAK-01: Prior to issuance of a grading permit and throughout grading and construction, the
project applicant shall comply with the recommended general impact mitigation measures for
tree protection listed on pages 4-7 in the certified arborist report dated January 30, 2014
(Appendix E) or as amended by an updated arborist report to be submitted prior to the issuance
of a grading permit. The Building Services Division shall ensure compliance.
OAK-02: Protective fencing shall be installed prior to any grading activity or construction onsite
for all trees listed as protect-in-place (PIP) in the Oak Tree Inventory in Appendix E. Fencing
shall be installed between the edge of grading and the tree canopy, as far from the tree as
construction will allow. When a protected oak is not near grading, the fencing shall extend at
least to the drip line of the tree. Fencing shall also be installed along the project boundary. All
fencing shall be chain-link, at least 5 feet high, and held securely in place by steel stakes driven
directly into the ground. There shall be no gate, opening, or easy access into the fenced
protection zone. All protective fencing shall remain intact until construction is completed. No
workers or equipment shall enter the fenced area. No storage, waste disposal, equipment
92
clean-out, outhouse, or vehicle parking shall be allowed within the fenced area. Fencing
proposed for use during construction or during the life of the project shall be constructed with
materials that are not harmful to wildlife. Building Services shall ensure compliance.
OAK-03: Before any construction work is conducted in the vicinity of Tree Number 19, the
project arborist shall be called to discuss the required steps to ensure safety and maximum tree
viability. Any pruning of this tree shall be carried out with the project arborist in attendance to
oversee pruning and judge the effect on the health and safety of the tree. When grading or
excavation takes place within 30 feet of this oak in any direction, the project arborist shall be
onsite and examine the extent of root damage and judge the viability and safety of the tree. The
Building and Construction Division shall ensure compliance.
OAK-04: The property shall be signed as Private Property: No Access and restrict mountain
bikes and all-terrain vehicles. The Police Department shall ensure compliance based on
observation or by responding to citizen complaints. The Building and Construction Division shall
ensure compliance.
OAK-05: The project applicant shall plant young oak seedlings started in pots in the open
space area in Parcel 2 and screen them if deer are prevalent in the area of planting. A certified
horticulturist shall supervise the planting and confirm that a minimum of thirty-two (32) oaks
trees are established after ten years. The horticulturalist shall submit an annual report to the
City by July 1 on the health of the seedlings. The Planning Division and Building Services shall
ensure compliance.
LU-01: Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit, the applicant shall implement an approved
Landscape Plan (Phase 2) for the project. The Landscape Plan shall identify any fuel
modification areas outside of the graded area and the total acreage subject to fuel modification.
Fencing proposed for use during construction or during the life of the project shall be
constructed with materials that are not harmful to wildlife. The applicant shall also implement all
conditions of any required CDFW Section 1600 Permits, or U. S. Corps of Engineers Section
404 Permits (CWA). Development Services shall ensure compliance.
3.2.4 Project Level of Significance for Biological Resource Impacts
The project impact on protected oaks is Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated.
The project impacts on candidate, sensitive or special status species of plants and wildlife are
Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated.
The project impact on riparian habitat as defined by CDFG and USFWS and on wetlands as
defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act is Less than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated.
93
3.2.5 Cumulative Impacts on Biological Resources
Threshold of Significance for Biological Cumulative Impacts
Any potential project impact is a significant biological resource impact that has a substantial
adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on: (1) Species identified as a
candidate, sensitive or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations,
or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, (2) Any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community in local or regional plans, policies or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, (3) Federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, (4)
Substantial interference with the movement of any native resident or migratory wildlife species
or with other established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impeding the use of a
native wildlife nursery site, and (5) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.
The geographical area for consideration of cumulative biological resource impacts is TPM
72681 and its surroundings (Exhibit 2.1.1).
Cumulative Impacts on Biological Resources
A. Cumulative Impacts on Onsite Plants and Animals
There are no other future projects identified in the project area. Therefore, the cumulative impacts
on plants and animals are Less than Significant.
B. Cumulative Impacts on Oak Trees
There are no other future projects identified in the project area. Therefore, the cumulative impacts
on oak trees are Less than Significant.
C. Cumulative Impacts on Riparian Habitats and Wetlands
There are no other future projects identified in the project area. Therefore, the cumulative impacts
on riparian habitats and wetlands are Less than Significant.
3.2.6 Level of Significance for Biological Resource Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative impacts on biological resources are Less than Significant.
94
3.3 SOILS AND GEOLOGY
3.3.1 Existing Soils and Geology Conditions
A geology report was prepared for the project site by Environmental Geotechnology Laboratory,
Inc. (EGL) in January 2011. The report is included as Appendix F. The soils information was
obtained from the Report of Geotechnical Engineering and Geological Investigation (PM 69775),
Environmental Geotechnology Laboratory, Inc., September 20, 2007.
A. Soils
Available soil and geologic data for the project area was reviewed by EGL in 2007. Three hand-
dug test pits and two backhoe trenches to a maximum depth of 18 feet below the existing
ground surface (bgs) were completed, representative soil samples taken and laboratory testing
completed.
Earth materials encountered at the project site included man-made fills, Residual Soil (Qres)
/Slopewash (Qsw), alluvium and bedrock. Nearly all natural slopes on the project site are
blanketed with a mantle of residual soils/slopewash that consists of yellowish, medium to dark
brown, silty fine to medium grained sand that is typically slightly moist to moist and loose to
medium dense. This material was observed at a maximum of one foot thick in the exploration
trenches. However, thickness of less than four feet was typical. The bedrock (qd) materials
underlying the project site are massive and hard quartz diorite which locally grades to
granodiote and quartz monozonite. The bedrock is generally orange brown to brown in color
and slightly to moderately weathered.
B. Groundwater
Perched water was encountered in one trench (Test Pit LogT-2 adjacent to Canyon Road) at a
depth of seventeen (17) feet.
C. Geology
Existing Slope Conditions
The initial geotechnical reports for the project site were prepared by EGL in 2001, 2007 and
2009. The 2011 report updates the prior reports. The prior reports are identified in the
References section (page 9) in Appendix F and are available for public review at the Planning
Division.
The updated report evaluates pre- and post-grading conditions for three slopes on the property.
Cross Sections A-A, B-B and C-C are shown below. The stability of existing and graded slopes
has been analyzed using standard geotechnical procedures and standards (Slope Stability
Analysis). Slope stability is the potential of soil covered slopes to withstand and undergo
95
movement. The slope stability analysis assumed the residential structure onsite would be one-
to two-story wood-framed structures with concrete slab-on-grade.
96
Exhibit 3.3.1: Topography Cross Sections A-A to C-C
97
Shear strength parameters were derived using in-place residual shear strengths of siltstone
bedrock materials obtained from this and past investigations and evaluation in light of past
experience in similar soil and bedrock conditions.
Lowest ultimate bedrock shear values were assumed for massive conditions and simulated for
both static and seismic conditions. These assumptions were used in the slope stability analysis
of existing and proposed slope conditions. Stability calculations are included in Appendix F.
Table 3.3.1
Slope Analysis Assumptions
Earth Materials Unit Weight
(pcf)
Friction Angle
Static/Seismic
Cohesion
Static/Seismic
(psf)
Natural Soils and Slopewash,
Undifferentiated (Qs) 120 34 124
Compacted Fill (CAf) 130 35 110
Bedrock, Ultimate (qd) 125 37
Concrete 150 0 387
Source: Update Report of Geotechnical Investigation, pp. 1,2, EGL, January 7, 2011 (Appendix F)
Ascending and descending existing slopes onsite have an average slope ratio of 6.3:1 to 0.44:1
(H =Horizontal: V = Vertical) with assumed relief of 140 to 430 feet. Deep-seated failure were
not encountered or observed during prior EGL field investigations in 2001 to 2008 on existing
slopes.
If the forces available to resist movement are greater than the forces driving movement, a slope
is considered stable. A Factor of Safety (FS) is the ratio of the forces resisting movement to the
forces driving movement. Static conditions are with slope exposure to the “natural” driving
forces due to gravity, soil characteristics, slope height, moisture etc. with no movement from
seismic activity. Seismic conditions are additional driving forces when an seismic event occurs
in the area. A structure with a FS=1.0 will support only the design load and no more.
Therefore, factors of safety above 1.0 provide a margin of safety for slope stability.
Simplified Bishop’s Method of slope stability analysis was first completed by EGL Associates for
existing slope conditions within the project site. The cross-sections were identified in Exhibit
3.3.1.
98
Table 3.3.2
Existing Slope Stability
Cross
Sections
Calculated Conditions
Factor of Safety
Static/Seismic
Geotechnical
Recommendation
A-A Entire slope at total height of 200 ft. 1.85/1.23 Stable as Existed 2.03/1.31
B-B Entire slope at total height of 430 ft. 2.18/1.38 Stable as Existed 2.12/1.35
C-C Entire slope at total height of 140 ft. 1.70/1.17 Stable as Existed
Source: Update Report of Geotechnical Investigation, p. 2, EGL, January 7, 2011 (Appendix F)
Based on EGL’s field observations, the existing descending slopes and proposed residential
development are considered geologically and geo-technically stable for current conditions. No
deep-seated failures were observed during the field investigations. EGL concluded the existing
slopes are considered satisfactory and possess adequate factors of safety against instabilities
provide they are properly maintained.
Surficial Slope Stability
Existing natural soils and slopewash located on existing ascending slopes are thin but porous
and subjected to sloughing under saturated conditions. Surficial slope stability of existing
slopes at slope gradient of 6.3:1 to 2.3:1 (H: V) possess a factor of safety of FS=3.7 to FS=1.5
and is greater than and equal to the minimum required factor of safety for an assumed depth of
four feet (see Figure 1 in Appendix F). Surficial slope stability of the existing slope possesses
greater than or equal to the minimum required of FS=1.5. Thickness of natural soils and
slopewash decrease with increase slope gradient and is absent on steeper slops at slope ratio
of 1:3:1 to 0.44:1 (H: V).
D. Seismic Safety
There are no known active faults crossing the project site (Report of Geotechnical Engineering
and Geological Investigation, EGL Associates, see Section 5.1 in Appendix F). However, like
most of Southern California, the project site is located in a tectonically active area. The
following California Building Code 2013 ( (Chapter 16: USGS 2008) seismic related values are
listed for the project site: Site Classification: C, Spectral Response Accelerations (g): 2.709
(0.2-Second Ss) and (1-Second S1) 1.025, Site Coefficients: Fa = 1.0, Fv = 1.5.)
The project site is located in the mapped potential Earthquake-Induced Landslide area in the
“Seismic Hazard Zones, Mt. Wilson Quadrangles,” published by the California Department of
Conservation, Division of Geology. This is consistent with Figure S-3: Liquefaction and
Landslide Hazards (Safety Element) which includes the project site in an area of Earthquake-
Induced Landslides and not in a liquefaction zone.
99
The proposed residential structures onsite should be designed to accommodate up to a
maximum site horizontal acceleration of 0.647g with a 10% probability of being exceeded in 50
years. However, additional seismic information should be examined to determine if any
additional structural strengthening is warranted.
3.3.2 Project Impacts Due to Soils and Geology
Thresholds of Significance
The thresholds of significance for soils and geology are those listed in Section 6 of the CEQA
Initial Study: Would the project: (a) Expose people or structures to 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, and, (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, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially
result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
(d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? (e) Have soils incapable of
adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
The threshold for future graded final (e.g. not temporary slopes) slope stability analysis
(Simplified Bishop’s Method) is a Factor of Safety (Static/Seismic) of a minimum of FS=1.5 and
FS=1.1 respectively (EGL Update Report, Appendix F, p. 2). An FS=1.25 is the minimum
factor of safety for temporary slope conditions. The FS factor varies by the type of structure
(slopes, retaining walls, etc.) and the other minimum factor of safety not listed here are listed in
the text below and in the EGL Update report.
The geographical area used for identification of project soils and geology impacts is the 1.34
graded acres in Parcel 1 of TPM 72681 and its immediate surroundings.
Safety Element
The Safety Element of the General Plan includes goals and policies for seismic and geologic
hazards:
100
Goal S-1: Minimized potential for loss of life, physical injury, and property damage resulting
from earthquakes and geologic hazards.
Policies S-1.1 to S-1.6
1. Explore the creation of a fault hazard management zone for the Sierra Madre fault.
2. Emphasize carefully planned development with seismic and geologic hazard areas to
minimize potential hazards risk as the City’s preferred hazardous management strategy.
3. Require detailed geologic investigations to accompany development proposals for sites
that lie within known or suspected seismic and geologic hazard areas. Require that
such investigations and reports conform to accepted professional standards and any
applicable State and City requirements.
4. Monitor activities of the California Geological Survey and other relevant agencies and
organizations to stay informed regarding new mapping and reports that advance the
state of knowledge of seismic and geologic hazards affecting Arcadia.
5. Continue enforcing the most rigorous building and grading codes which govern seismic
safety.
6. Require the removal or retrofit, as appropriate of any hazardous or substandard
structures that may collapse in the event of an earthquake.
Policy S-1 calls for exploring the creation of a fault hazard management zone for the Sierra
Madre Fault. (The Sierra Madre Fault is not part of an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone). Exhibit 4.6-3
in the General Plan EIR identifies a potential fault hazard management zone, which includes
almost all of the lands in the City north of Grandview Avenue, including the project site.
Currently, this zone has no official status with either the City or state agencies.
Project Impacts
A. Soil Impacts
The project site is not in a Liquefaction Zone (Figure S-3: Liquefaction and Landslide Hazards,
Safety Element). EGL Associates has indicated the site is not exposed to liquefaction because
of the bedrock onsite. Based on EGL subsurface investigations, excavation of the subsurface
materials should be able to be accomplished with conventional earthwork equipment. However,
due to the hard bedrock, the proposed excavation may become difficult. The project impact due
to soils is Less than Significant.
101
B. Groundwater Impacts
Groundwater is not expected to be a significant constraint during construction (Geotechnical
Investigation, EGL Associates, September 20, 2007, Appendix F.
However, groundwater may be a significant constraint if grading is completed during the rainy
season when perched water is more likely to occur. Sub-drains should be placed around the
basement foundations. Waterproofing of basements should be properly designed by
waterproofing specialists. Since grading is being restricted to the non-rainy season, the project
impact on groundwater is Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated (Ibid, 6.0).
C. Geology Impacts
The slope stability analysis summarized below is based on EGL Associates January 7, 2011
Update Report (see Appendix F).
Temporary Slope Conditions
Temporary slope conditions occur during rough grading prior to slope being re-compacted.
Based on the analytical conditions listed in Table 3.3.1 and under static condition, proposed
temporary cut slopes for driveways, upslope area (Cross Section C-C) has a factor of safety of
FS=1.45. The minimum factor of safety required is 1.25. Therefore, the proposed temporary
cut slopes are stable.
The proposed slope with cut and fill slope at 2:1 slope gradient and retaining walls, under static
and seismic conditions are considered stable. All proposed retaining walls onsite are six feet or
less in height. Both buildout conditions (static and seismic) are greater than or equal to the
minimum required Factor of Safety of FS=0.4 (Static) and FS=1.1 (Seismic).
The results of the slope stability analysis (Tables 3.3.2, Table 3.3.3) indicate the temporary and
permanent slopes onsite will be stable with a factor of safety exceeding the minimum. .
Therefore, the project impact due to geology is Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated when grading and compaction complies with the geotechnical report.
102
Table 3.3.3
Slope Stability at Buildout
Cross
Sections Calculated Conditions Factor of Safety
Static/Seismic
Geotechnical
Recommendation
A-A Proposed fill slope at
maximum height of 98 feet
2.01/1.35 Stable as Proposed 2.33/1.39
B-B
Proposed fill slope at
maximum height of 11 to 16 feet 2.51/1.59
Stable as Proposed Proposed fill slope at
maximum height of 5 to 30 feet 3.54/1.87
C-C
Proposed fill slope at
maximum height of 25.5 feet
1.53/1.11 Stable as Proposed Proposed cut slope at
maximum height of 26 feet reinforced
with retaining walls
Source: Update Report of Geotechnical Investigation, p. 2, EGL, January 7, 2011 (Appendix F)
Temporary Excavations
Based on the materials encountered during field investigations, EGL concluded that sloped
excavations have the following earth materials and slope ratios (Table 3.3.4).
Table 3.3.4
Slope Excavation Characteristics
Earth Materials Slope Ratio (Maximum)
Artificial Fill (Af/CAf)
Natural Soil and Slopewash (Qs + Qsw) 3’ vertical with a.5:1 layback
Granitic Bedrock (qd) 5’ vertical with 1:1 layback
Source: Update Report of Geotechnical Investigation, p. 3, EGL, January 7, 2011 (Appendix F)
Temporary excavations are anticipated to be only temporarily stable. Any existing adjacent
structures should be protected during construction so no damage is done at the structure.
Neither heavy equipment loading nor additional surcharge loading should be permitted at the
top of the descending slope. EGL personnel should inspect temporary excavations to make any
necessary modifications. These observations apply to the top of the descending slope and do
not apply at lower elevations adjacent to offsite properties. Therefore, the temporary
excavations do not impact offsite adjacent residential structures.
Surficial Slope Stability
103
EGL recommends that an additional two (2) feet high freeboard of proposed upper ascending
slope retaining wall should be designed for an impact load of 125 pcf. (The freeboard is the
location above the wall portion that is in contact with retained soil or rock).
All slopes are subject to surficial erosion. Therefore, slopes should be protected from surface
runoff by means of top-of-toe compacted earth berms or concrete interceptor drains. All slopes
should be landscaped with suitable plants requiring minimal cultivation and irrigation water in
order to thrive. All retaining walls are six or less feet in height. Irrigation systems should be
installed and properly maintained. Over-watering and subsequent saturation of slope surface
should be avoided. The implementation of EGL Associates recommendations, the project
impact from surficial slope stability is Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.
Additional Recommendations
The EGL report includes numerous recommendations for grading operations, surficial soil
removals, backfill materials, fill keys, benching, cut and fill slopes, structural sub-drains, wall
backfill and foundation design. These recommendations are typical for construction activities in
hillside areas of California and not listed or summarized in their entirety below. Only selected
issues have been included below and all EGL recommendations are included in the EGL
Associates Update Report (January 7, 2011) and Geotechnical Investigation (September 20,
2007 in Appendix F. Mitigation Measure GEO-01 requires these recommendations be
implemented during construction to assure the permanent slopes and structures provide the
stability needed for future development and avoid any significant effect due to onsite soil and
geologic conditions.
Site Preparation. Prior to initiating grading operations, all existing vegetation, trash, debris,
over-sized materials greater than six inches, and other deleterious materials within construction
areas should be removed from the project site.
Surficial Soil Removals. Building and pool foundations shall be founded into underlying bedrock
with proper hillside horizontal foundation setback, H/3 or H/6, to the slope face (H:total height of
slope; building or pool) respectively. Existing slope wash and natural soil cannot be used for
foundation or slab support, approximately one to seven feet combined thickness. Existing slope
wash and natural soil, approximately one to seven feet combined thickness, cannot be used for
foundation support and should be removed and re-compacted. Existing slope wash and natural
soil located within immediate retaining wall backfill areas shall be removed and replaced with
new compacted fill soil. Existing slope wash, natural oil and/or bedrock materials may be used
for proposed retaining wall backfill. Fill materials should be placed, keyed and benched. All
over-sized materials greater than four inches should be removed from engineered fill prior to fill
placement and compaction. Oversized materials may be used in nonstructural areas such as
drainage and landscaping areas.
Backfill Materials. Imported clayey soil mixed with the onsite sandy soils may be used as
compacted fill on slopes surface to maintain surficial slope stability, provided they are free of
104
organic materials, construction and trash debris. Soils imported from off-site sources should be
clayey and approved by the Soil Engineer prior to site transportation.
To reduce differential settlement of backfill materials that is more than ten feet below proposed
finished grade shall be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95%. The upper ten
feet of compacted backfill should be compacted to a minimum elative compaction of 90%. To
reduce surficial slope failure potential the outer ten fete of slope faces requiring compaction
shall be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95% and shall have specified higher
cohesions and friction angle.
Fill Keys. Fill keys shall be a minimum of eight feet wide and extend a minimum of three feet,
measured from the down slope direction into competent bedrock. Wider fill keys, 1.5-times
equipment width, may be required to accommodate wider grading equipment. Fill key bottoms
shall have a minimum inclined slope of 2% dipping upslope. Sub-drains consisting of perforated
pipe shall be installed in the hell of the key or bench and sloped to discharge to a suitable
collection facility.
Benching. Fills placed on slopes steeper than 5:1 shall be keyed and benched into competent
bedrock materials as the compacted fill is placed.
Cut and Fill Slopes. All proposed cut slopes shall have a slope ratio of no steeper than 2:1 (H:
V). Cut slopes excavated into bedrock are expected to have a factor of safety of at least 1.5
against deep-seated bedrock failure. Permanent fill sloped shall be constructed no steeper than
2:1 (H: V) and keyed and benched into approved competent bedrock materials. Structural
backfill, when required, shall have fill key of eight feet wide and should extend a minimum of
three feet, measured from the down slope direction, into the competent bedrock. Wider fill key
may be required for wider grading equipment. Fill slope shall be overbuilt horizontally
approximately five feet from finished grade then trimmed to competent core upon completion of
fill slope. Sub-drains consisting of perforated pipe shall be installed in the hell of the key or
bench and sloped to discharge to a suitable collection facility.
Treatment of Removal Bottoms. Soils exposed within approved areas approved for fill
placement shall be scarified to a depth of six inches, conditioned to near optimum moisture
content, and properly compacted in-place to minimum project standard.
Structural Backfill. Onsite soils and bedrock may be reused as compacted fill, provided they are
free of organic materials, construction and trash debris. Soils imported from off-site sources
shall be clayey, non-expansive and approved by the project soil engineer prior to transport. Fills
shall be placed in relatively thin lifts, brought to near optimum moisture content, then compacted
to obtain at least 90% relative compaction based on ASTM D-1557-05 standards.
Canyon Sub-drains. All canyon sub-drains shall be placed at lowest portion of ravine to
dissipate and removed elevated groundwater within proposed compacted fill slope and fill key
during annual wetter periods.
105
Wall Backfill. Backfill of proposed retaining walls and any other structures shall be compacted
to a minimum relative compaction of 90% of ASTM D-1557-04 standards. No flooding and/or
jetting are allowed for onsite soils.
Testing and Reporting. Fill soils shall be tested at time of placement to ascertain that necessary
moisture and compaction is achieved. The results of observation and testing services shall be
presented in the compaction report once rough grading is complete.
D. Seismic Safety Impacts
All construction onsite is required to conform to standard engineering practices and all building
construction is required to conform to Uniform Building Codes. No adverse impacts of seismic
events on buildings are expected to occur. The stability of manufactured slopes during seismic
events was previously addressed in Section 3.3.2, Table 3.3.3 and the project impact from
future potential seismic events is Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.
Conclusions
Based on EGL investigations and laboratory testing results, the proposed grading and
structures will be safe against hazards from landslides, settlement, or slippage and the
proposed construction will have no adverse effect on the geologic stability of adjacent properties
providing the EGL recommendations are implemented. The project impact on Soils and
Geology is Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated.
The applicant must provide both Rough- and Final Grading Verification to the City and file a Soil
and Compaction Report with the Building Division.
The impact of project construction (grading, slope preparation, retaining walls) due to soils and
geology conditions is significant, but is reduced to Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated by the recommended mitigation measures because grading and construction
improvements results in permanent slope stability and safety for all structures and
improvements (entrance road, retaining walls, residence) proposed onsite.
3.3.3 Mitigation Measures for Soils and Geology
GEO-01: Project contractor documents shall specify that all contractors shall follow all
recommendations listed in the EGL Report, dated January 7, 2011 and in prior referenced
reports from 2001, 2007, 2009. The Building and Construction Division shall ensure
compliance.
106
GEO-02: Neither heavy equipment loading nor additional surcharge loading shall be permitted
at the top of the descending slope. A professional geologist shall inspect temporary
excavations to make any necessary modifications. These observations apply to the top of the
descending slope and do not occur or apply at lower elevations adjacent to offsite properties.
The Building and Construction Division shall ensure compliance.
GEO-03: An additional two (2) feet of high freeboard of proposed upper ascending slope
retaining wall shall be designed for an impact load of 125 pcf. The Building and Construction
Division shall ensure compliance.
GEO-04: All cut slopes onsite shall be at a slope ratio of no steeper than 2:1 (H:V). All
permanent fill slopes onsite shall be at a slope ratio of no steeper than 2:1 (H:V) and keyed and
benched into approved competent bedrock materials. The Building and Construction Division
shall ensure compliance.
GE0-05: All project contractors shall comply fully with an approved staging plan for rough
grading, including the placement of waste containment and stockpile areas and the proposed
truck haul route. The applicant shall submit both plans for approval prior to issuance of a
grading permit. The Building and Construction Division shall ensure compliance.
SOILS-01: Since groundwater may be a significant constraint if grading is completed during the
rainy season when perched water is more likely to occur, grading is limited to the non-rainy
season (WQ-01 below). Sub-drains shall be placed around the basement foundation for the
residence and waterproofing of the basement shall be properly designed by waterproofing
specialists. The Building and Construction Division shall ensure compliance.
3.3.4 Level of Significance for Soils and Geology Project Impacts
The project level of significance for soils and geology is Less than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated.
The project impact of grading is Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The grading
will result in slope stability and pose no safety hazards following project completion.
3.3.5 Cumulative Impacts for Soils and Geology
Thresholds of Significance for Cumulative Impacts on Soils and Geology
The thresholds of significant for soils and geology are those listed in Section 6 of the CEQA
Initial Study in the Notice of Preparation in Appendix A. The geographical area used for
identification of project land use impacts is Parcel 1 of TPM 72681 and its immediate
surroundings (Exhibit 2.1.1).
107
Cumulative Impacts for Soils and Geology
The cumulative impacts of past projects on soils and geology has been evaluated and mitigated
when feasible in other environmental documents. There are no other future projects identified in
the project area. Therefore, the cumulative impacts on soils and geology are Less than
Significant.
3.3.6 Level of Significance for Soils and Geology Cumulative Impacts
The level of significance on soils and geology cumulative impacts is Less than Significant.
3.4 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
3.4.1 Existing Hydrology and Water Quality
A. Hydrology
A Hydrology Study for the project was prepared by EGL Associates in December 2013. The
complete report is included as Appendix C. The study projects the pre-developed and post-
developed drainage flows for the 50-year flood event consistent with the methodology of the
County of Los Angeles Public Works Department. Appendix C includes the time of concentrations
and discharge calculations, supporting data, maps, and drawings.
The proposed grading area for the project comprises approximately 1.34 acres. The area
analyzed in the hydrology study is 3.0 acres and includes upstream lands and downstream lands
that convey the runoff from the project site to the out-letting street (i.e. Canyon Road). The highest
point of the existing drainage (1,167.7 feet msl) area flows eastwards to Canyon Road. Some
offsite drainage of Parcel 1 of TPM 72681 (Area A) uphill of the proposed graded area also drains
to Canyon Road.
The project site is located in the Santa Anita Canyon area, with Santa Anita Canyon Wash located
0.75 miles to the east. The drainage course from Lannan Canyon continues on to the concrete-
lined Lannan Channel to meet the Santa Anita Canyon Wash at Elkins Avenue southeast of the
project site.
The existing drainage areas for the project are shown in Exhibits 3.4.1. The Q50b flow for existing
conditions (pre-development) for the entire drainage area of 38.2 acres is 178.0 cfs.
The Lannan Channel is located immediately east of Canyon Drive.
108
Exhibit 3.4.1: Existing Drainage Areas
109
There are five small drainage areas (Exhibit 3.4.2) of 0.60 acres or less that comprise the 3.0 acre
drainage area for Parcel 1 of TPM 72681.
All hydrological calculations are consistent with the Los Angeles County Department of Public
Works Hydrology Manual. The appropriate Hydrologic Map is 1-H1.30, the Soil Classification Area
is 088 and the 50-Year 24-Hour Isohyets’ is 9.6 inches. The assumptions for the Q50-runoff
analysis for each drainage subarea are included in the Hydrology Analysis.
Since the project site is near the Los Angeles National Forest, Bulk and Burn calculations are also
addressed in the parkway drain calculation section as an extra factor of safety. The methodology
used to determine the adjusted peak flow rate is described in Section 6.3 of the 2006 Los Angeles
County Hydrology Manual. The Los Angeles River Watershed Fire Factor used is 0.71. The City
will adopt SUSMP requirements consistent with the Low Impact Development (LID) and
implementing procedures in the future.
Water Quality
The existing water quality from stormwater flows are not treated and flow south from the property to
the existing offsite settlement basin north of Vista Avenue and flow east to the existing trapezoidal
Lannan Channel east of Canyon Road.
110
Exhibit 3.4.2: Future Drainage Area
111
3.4.2 Project Impacts on Hydrology and Water Quality
A. Hydrology
Thresholds of Significance for Hydrology
The project has a significant impact on hydrology if it increases drainage flows offsite in the post-
developed condition for the 50-year flood event for either the bulked, or bulked and burn
methodology and has a significant effect on downstream facilities.
The geographical area used for identification of project hydrology and water quality impacts is
the area drainage area (Exhibit 3.4.2).
City of Arcadia Flooding Hazard Policies
he Safety Element of the General Plan includes goals and policies to mitigate hazards from
flooding.
Goal S-2: Superior storm drainage and flood control facilities that minimize the risk of flooding.
Policies S-2.1 to S-2.4
1. Prioritize improvements to Arcadia’s storm drain system in areas that are prone to localized
ponding and flooding.
2. Continue rigorous maintenance of storm drainage and flood control facilities within the
City’s jurisdiction.
3. Require that new development projects retain as much runoff as possible on the
development site to reduce flow volumes into the storm drain system, allow for recharge of
the groundwater basins, and comply with the City’s storm water permitting requirements
(consistent with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems program, or NPES)
and employ Best Management Practices (BMPs).
4. Support efforts of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works and other agencies
responsible for the maintenance of dams and reservoirs above Arcadia to improve
conditions of the facilities and reduce the risk of inundation resulting from dam or reservoir
failure.
Project Impacts for Hydrology
The grading of 1.34 acres site alters the drainage areas and increases the existing drainage flows
by 0.41 cfs for Q50 post-development conditions. The post-developed drainage flows for each
drainage area are shown below.
112
Table 3.4.1
Post-Development Q50 Runoff
Drainage
Area
Total Area Impervious
Area
Impervious (%) Flow Rate) Fire
Factor)
Adjusted Fire
Peak Flow Rate
A 0.47 0.02 0.05 2.24
0.71 2.38
1 0.56 0.40 0.71 2.82
0.71 2.94
2 0.59 0.00 0.00 2.81
0.71 2.98
3 0.60 0.05 0.08 2.89
0.71 3.06
4 0.35 0.00 0.00 1.70
0.71 1.79
5 0.43 0.43 1.00 2.22
0.71 2.29
Total Future 3.00 0.90 0.30 14.68
15.44
Increase from
Existing (14.27)
0.41
1.17
Source: Hydrology Analysis, EGL Associates, December 10, 2013
With implementation of the proposed drainage and BMP improvements, the project impact on area
hydrology is Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed improvements
include parkway drains at three different locations that will limit runoff before it reached Canyon
Road. Underground infiltration units will be installed to treat runoff in non-self-treated impervious
areas. One retaining wall will collect the drainage from the uphill area and concentrate it into catch
basins by connecting swales. A second retaining wall will college drainage between and the first
and second part of the retaining wall and prevent runoff to downstream areas. These
improvements are included in Exhibit 2.3.1 or included in the Standard Urban Stormwater
Management Plan (SUSMP) included in Appendix C.
Based on the project hydrology study, and implementation of the SUSMP Plan, the project will
have No Impact on any downstream drainage system.
B. Water Quality Impacts
Thresholds of Significance for Water Quality
Although the CEQA Initial Study Checklist includes ten issues, the project site has the potential to
impact only four issues. The project has No Impact on groundwater supplies or recharge, alter an
existing drainage pattern by alteration of a stream or river, place housing in a 100-year hazard or
expose persons to injury or death through a dam failure.
113
The thresholds of significance for water quality are the following items from the CEQA Initial Study
Checklist: (1) Violation of any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, or (2)
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, (2)
Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or offsite, (3) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff, and (4) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality..
The geographical area used for identification of project land use impacts is the area drainage
study area (Exhibit 3.4.2).
City of Arcadia Water Quality Policies/Regulations
A Storm water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must comply with California’s General Permit
for Storm water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (General
Permit) Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ), as amended by Order No. 2010-0014-DWQ (NPDES No.
CAS 000002), which is issued by the State Water Resources Control Board.
The project must submit a SWPPP to the Engineering Division and comply with all
recommendations of the approved report. The preliminary SWPPP is submitted with the
preliminary drainage and grading plan and the final SWPPP must be approved prior to issuance of
a grading permit. (A Water Quality Management Plan and a Standard Urban Storm Water
Management Plan are different names for the same submittal requirement (AMC, Chapter 8)).
The Hydrology/Water Quality report for the project (Appendix C) includes a SWPPP/SUSMP.
Essentially, a SWPPP is a water quality management plan which identifies the measures,
structures and “technologies” used to reduce the construction and operational impacts of the
project on soil erosion, sediment transport and water quality of storm water runoff.
Project Impacts on Water Quality
A construction risk assessment for the project was completed by SEC Engineers and is included in
the Hydrology/Water Quality Report in Appendix C. The projected risk level is Risk Level 1. The
risk level is based on project duration, location, proximity to impaired receiving waters and soil
conditions. The SWPPP was prepared consistent with the SWPPP Template included in the
California Storm Water Quality Association Storm water Best Management Practice Handbook
Portal: Construction (CASQA, 2010). In accordance with the General Permit, Section XIV, the
project SWPPP addresses the following:
1). Pollutants and their sources, including sources of sediment associated with construction,
construction site erosion and other activities association with construction.
2). All identified non-storm water discharges are either eliminated, controlled or treated.
114
3) Effective site Best Management Practices (BMPs) are identified to reduce or eliminate the
pollutants in storm water discharges, and authorized non-storm water discharges from
construction activity, to Best Available Technology/Best Control Technology (BAT/BCT)
standards.
Tables 1.1 to 1.4 in Appendix C list the temporary Erosion Control BMP Measures proposed to
control erosion, sediment, non-storm water and temporary material management on the
construction site. Fact Sheets for temporary BMPs are included in the CASQA Handbook.
Sufficient erosion control materials (e.g. hydraulic mulch, hydro-seeds, soil binders, straw mulch,
geo-textiles and mats, wood mulching, bio-filter bags, etc) shall be maintained onsite to allow
implementation in conformance with the approved SWPPP.
Especially during the rainy season, runoff with soil sediments may impair water quality. However,
project grading is being restricted to the non-rainy season from May to October. During this period,
the average precipitation in Arcadia is less than 0.60 inch per month (U. S. Weather Bureau,
Record Averages).
As discussed previously, the project proposes three parkway drains, retaining walls and
underground infiltration units to control project runoff flows and improve water quality. The parkway
drain designs include one 3 foot 6 inch box for Area 1 and Area 5, one 4 foot box for Area 2 and
Area 3 and one 3 foot box for Area A and Area 4. Each of the box sizes listed has a capacity
exceeding the required flow capacity.
For erosion control and improved water quality, the first 3/4 –inch of the rainfall must be filtered.
Onsite drainage will be treated by the filtration system before it drains to the street. Area A, and
Areas 2-4 are considered self-treated areas due to the dense vegetation. (The volume of runoff
from these areas is already taken into account in the hydrology calculation for parkway drains.
No BMP (underground tanks) are required in these four subareas , and other BMPs such as
slope protection (soil berms) are included for these four subareas in the SUSMP).
Underground infiltration sizing is based on drainage acreages for Area 1 (0.56 acres) and Area 5
(0.43 acres). The filters proposed in the SUSMP are a Cultec Recharge 900HD system with a
combined volume capacity of 2,077.27 cfs. As requested by Development Services, the infiltration
basin is located along Canyon Road outside of the grading fill areas. A Flogard Plus Catch Basin
Filter with a design treatment capacity of 0.4 cfs will be installed near the project entrance. The
exact sizing and locations of these BMPs will be determined in the precise grading plan.
The bio-filters use five processes to improve water quality of storm runoff: (1) Polluted runoff
first encounters a screening device to remove larger pollutants, (2) Flows enter a hydro-dynamic
separation chamber which settles out sediments and larger suspended solids, (3) Runoff is
treated by a filter, which removes fines and associated pollutants, including bacteria, (4) Runoff
enters a bio-retention filter in the form of a subsurface flow vegetated gravel wetland. Physical,
chemical and biological mechanisms remove the remaining particulates and dissolved pollutants
and, (5) Purified runoff leaves the system via the discharge chamber at a desired flow rate.
115
The City of Arcadia also requires minimum Best Management Practices for all construction sites
(Form OC1), a General Project Certification (Form P1) and Storm Water Treatment Certification
(Form P2).
If the City’s LID Ordinance includes LID Standards similar to the County of Los Angeles, the project
may comply with the Standards by disconnecting impervious surfaces and planting two 15-gallon
trees near impervious surfaces to intercept precipitation in its leaves. The two Fern Pine trees
required by the Public Services Department may meet this standard.
Without improvements, the project impact on drainage and water quality would be significant. With
the proposed improvements, the project impact is Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated.
roject Impacts on Groundwater Supply
The grading of 1.34 acres onsite for the project and construction of impervious areas (e.g.
slope benches, entrance road, driveway) will reduce groundwater recharge on site, but the
small acreage involved results in No Impact on area groundwater supply.
3.4.3 Mitigation Measures for Hydrology and Water Quality Project Impacts
Hydrology
HYDRO-01: Prior to issuance of a building permit, all recommendation of the final
Hydrology/Water Quality Report shall be implemented. These improvements include, but are not
limited to the onsite retaining walls, filtration basin, parkway drainage units and all associated
improvements. The Building and Construction Division shall monitor compliance.
Water Quality
WQ-01: Grading activities shall occur between April and October to avoid the rainy season. The
Building and Construction Division shall monitor compliance.
WQ-02: Project contractors shall apply chemical stabilizers according to manufacturer’s
specifications to all previously graded construction areas which remain inactive for 96 hours or
more. The Building and Construction Division shall monitor compliance.
WQ-03: Project contractors shall reestablish ground cover within the construction site through
seeding and watering on portions of the site that will not be disturbed for a period of two months or
more. The Building and Construction Division shall monitor compliance.
WQ-04: Project contractors shall sweep streets twice per week or more to prevent silt and other
debris from being carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares. The Building and Construction
Division shall monitor compliance.
116
WQ-05: The proposed project meets the criteria for a Standard Urban Stormwater Management
Plan (SUSMP) report as a hillside development and must have an approved report prior to the
issuance of a grading permit. All construction activities onsite and plans shall conform to the
approved SUSMP for the project. The Building and Construction Division and the Engineering
Division shall monitor compliance.
WQ-06: The proposed project requires obtaining a permit from the Regional Water Quality Control
Board under the General Construction Permit. The applicant shall provide evidence that the permit
has been obtained prior to issuance of a grading permit. The Building and Construction Division
and the Engineering Division shall monitor compliance.
3.4.4 Level of Significance for Hydrology and Water Quality Project Impacts
The project impact on hydrology and water quality is Less than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated.
3.4.5 Hydrology and Water Quality Cumulative Impacts
Threshold of Significance for Hydrology and Water Quality Cumulative Impacts
All projects have a significant cumulative impact on hydrology if they increase area drainage flows
offsite in the post-developed condition for the 50-year flood event for either the bulked, or bulked
and burn methodology.
The cumulative thresholds of significance for water quality are the following items from the CEQA
Initial Study Checklist: (1) Violation of any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements, or (2) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge.
The cumulative threshold of significance for drainage is no increase in area drainage flows (cfs).
The geographical scope of analysis for cumulative hydrology and water quality are the existing and
future drainage areas for the project site, as delineated in the Hydrology Study.
Hydrology and Water Quality Cumulative Impacts
There are no other projects filed with the City in the cumulative project area. Therefore, there are
not cumulative project hydrology and water quality impacts.
3.4.6 Level of Significance for Hydrology and Water Quality Cumulative Impacts
Less than Significant
117
3.5 WILDLAND FIRE HAZARDS
While the CEQA Environmental Checklist includes criteria for hazardous materials, safety
hazards from airport operations, emergency access and wildlife hazards, the project has a
potential impact on wildlife fires only. Therefore, Section 3.5 focuses on Wildlife hazards only.
The Station Fire, which occured in late August and early September 2009 did not impact the
Project Study Area in the City of Arcadia. The fire’s southern flank was generally between Mt.
Wilson and Cogswell Reservoir north of the City limits. The Kinneola Fire in October 1993 also
did not impact the Project Study Area in the City of Arcadia.
3.5.1 Existing Wildfire Hazards Conditions
Wildland fire hazard zones are identified by the California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection (CAL Fire), which publishes maps of significant fire hazards based on fuels, terrain,
weather and other relevant factors.
Figure S-6: Very High Fire Hazard Zone in the City’s Safety Element of the General Plan
identifies the entire northern area of the City bounded by Sierra Madre Avenue, Santa Anita
Avenue and E. Woodland Avenue (extended east-west) as a very high fire hazard zone. The
project site is located within the designated very high fire hazard zone. The northern areas of
the cities of Sierra Madre and Monrovia are also in the very high fire hazard zone.
Fire dangers are most prevalent during summer and fall when high temperatures have resulted
in dry natural vegetation in areas surrounding residential developments. The lack of or reduced
amount of rainfall may heighten the lack of moisture in plants and trees. However, abundant
rainfall in the early spring may also foster higher fire hazard conditions because of the abundant
of vegetation growth, which lacks moisture later in the year. In Arcadia, average summer
temperatures exceed 80 Degrees Fahrenheit from June through October, with average
precipitation less than 1 inch from May to October. The recorded high temperature is 112
degrees in August and September (1983, 1988).
If global warming continues to increase summer temperatures, or reduce rainfall, fire hazards
may increase. The California Climate Change Center (2006) predicted that California could
witness the following events:
§ Temperature rises between 3 and 10.5 degrees Fahrenheit
§ 2 to 4 times as many heat-wave days in major urban centers
§ 2 to 6 times as many heat-related deaths in major urban centers
§ 1 to 1.5 times more critically dry years
§ 10 to 55% increase in the risk of wildfires
The City’s goal is to provide a high level of protection from the dangers of wild land and urban
fires. City policies focus on requiring and enforcing strict adherence to City, County and State
codes that address building materials and approaches, defensible spaces, brush clearance,
118
required fire flows, on-site or nearby fire-fighting equipment, and adequate emergency vehicle
access to accommodate the weight and size of vehicles (Goal S-3, Policies S-3.4, 5: Safety
Element).
Special building code requirements for high-fire hazard areas require defensible space
measures, ignition-resistant construction materials for roofs, eaves, vents, exterior walls,
exterior window, doors and decks.
California State Fire Marshall’s (SFM) Office
The California State Fire Marshall prepares the Fire Hazard Safety Zone Maps (FHSZ) for all
areas in California where the state has fiscal responsibility for wildland fire protection, known as
State Responsibility Areas (SRA) and provides recommendations for Very High Fire Hazard
Severity Zones in areas where local government agencies have Local Responsibility Areas
(LRA). The LRA are included in Government Code Sections 51175-51189. Section 51178.5
and 51179 define the local agencies responsibility to designate, by ordinance, very high fire
hazard severity zones in its jurisdiction.
All new building permit applications located in the Very High Fire Severity Hazard or a Wildland-
Urban Interface Fire Area designated by a local agency must comply with the applicable
sections of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24, Part 2, known as the California
Building Code (CBC) Zone. The 2010 CBC, Title 24, Part 2 was published on January 1, 2011.
Specific standards for materials and construction methods for exterior wildfire exposure are
included in Chapter 7A (State Fire Marshall) of the CBC.
Applications for a building permit for the project will not be submitted in the near future. All
building permits must comply with Chapter 7A.
City of Arcadia Fire Department
According to the 2009 General Plan (Tble 4.13-1), the Arcadia Fire Department has 58
firefighters and support personnel and a number of reserve firefighters and volunteers who staff
the Department in three shifts, with seventeen personnel on duty at any one time. The
Department fleet includes twenty-two vehicles, including six fire pumpers, one State of
California Office of Emergency Services fire pumper, and one 1926 American La France
restored antique fire pumper.
The Department provides fire service to the project area from Fire Station 107 (79 West Orange
Avenue). The station was remodeled in 2003 and has four fire personnel per 24-hour shift and
has one fire engine and the restored antique fire pumper. Fire response times to the project site
are approximately 4 minutes.
119
The Fire Department has the equipment and personnel to effectively provide fire suppression
services to the project area.. In addition, mutual aid agreements with other departments provide
additional personnel and equipment to ensure adequate fire safety for the project area..
The City of Arcadia Fire Department regulates the maintenance of defensible space near
residences in the Wildland-Urban Interface Area. The Fire Safety Checklist requires removal of
all hazardous native brush, trees, grasses and weeds within 100 feet of any building. A cursory
review of the Conceptual Landscape Plan (Exhibit 2.3.2: Conceptual Landscape Plan (Phase
1)) suggests the fuel modification thinning zone will extend 500 feet beyond the residence to the
northwest.
3.5.2 Project Impacts on Wildland Fire Hazards
Thresholds of Significance
A project would have a significant impact if it would expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. The geographical scope of analysis for
project wildland fire hazards is primarily Parcel 1 of TPM 72681 and the immediate adjacent
areas within the City of Arcadia included in the Very High Fire Hazard zone. However, the
project fire impacts within Parcel 2 of TPM 2681 are also considered.
A. Safety Element of the General Plan
The Safety Element of the General Plan includes goals and policies for protection from wildland
and urban fires.
Goal S-3: Minimized potential for loss of life, physical injury, and property damage resulting
from earthquakes and geologic hazards.
Policies S-3.1 to S-3.7:
1. Practice fire prevention, engineering, enforcement, and education as the primary means
to reduce incidents of wildland and urban fires.
2. Continue to adopt and implement the most current fire prevention technology, as
recognized by national standards, in the development of Building and Fire Codes.
3. Continue to develop public education programs that will provide Arcadia residents and
businesses with information regarding proper and effective fire prevention and fire
safety.
4. Limit new development in designated high-fire hazard areas. Where prior entitlements
have been given, require and enforce strict adherence to City, County, and State codes
that address building materials and approaches, defensible spaces, brush clearance,
120
required fire flows, on-site or nearby fire-fighting equipment, and adequate emergency
vehicle access to accommodate the weight and size of vehicles.
5. Prohibit new development in areas which do not have adequate water pressure or fire
flows until sufficient pressure and fire flows can reliably be provided and maintained.
6. Define and maintain effective evacuation routes for neighborhoods within high-fire
hazard areas.
7. Perform regular life safety inspections of all commercial, multifamily, and brush area
occupancies to ensure compliance with City and State fire codes, standards and
regulations.
B. Regulations for Construction in the Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area
Buildings or structures hereafter erected, constructed, remodeled, repaired, altered or added to
in the Wildland-Urban Interface Area shall be constructed in accordance with the Arcadia
Municipal Code (Article VIII, Section 8130.26, Chapter 36 Article III, Part 3) and the California
Building Code Chapter 7A. Said buildings and structures shall comply with the Class 1 ignition
resistant construction requirements specified in the code and the fire hazard severity of all
properties within the Wildland-Urban Interface Area shall be considered extreme. The
boundaries of the Wildland-Urban Interface Area shall be based on the Very High Fire Hazard
Severity Zone Map adopted by the City and developed by the California Department of Forestry.
Selected requirements include: (1) Protecting the exposed underside of eves and soffits with
materials approved for a minimum of one-hour rated fire resistive construction. (2) Protecting
facias on the backside by materials approved for a minimum of one-hour fire resistive
construction or be of 2-inch nominal dimensioned lumber, (3) Attic ventilation openings,
foundation or under-floor vents, or other ventilation opens in vertical exterior walls and vents
through roofs shall not exceed 144 square inches each. Such vents shall be covered with
noncombustible corrosion resistant mesh with openings not to exceed ¼ inch and, (4) Roof
coverings on any building or structure located in the Wildland-Urban Interface Area shall have a
minimum Class A rating or be of noncombustible materials. However, pressure-treated or
untreated wood shake or shingles shall not be used. The space at the eves shall be fire-
stopped to preclude the entry of flames or embers for roof coverings where the profile allows a
space between the roof covering and the roof deck.
C. Abatement of Hazardous Vegetation
The Arcadia Fire Department assists property owners in creating an adequate fire break
(defensible space) for their properties. An inspection of the vegetation, ground cover, bushes
and trees around residences is made annually beginning May 1 to ensure compliance with City
requirements. A Fire Safety Checklist with recommendations for creating defensible space for
landscaping, yards and roofs in included on the City’s website. The Fire Safety Checklist
121
includes but is not limited to the following requirements: (1) Remove all flammable vegetation or
other combustible growth within 30 feet of any structure, (2) Remove all hazardous native brush,
trees, grasses and weeds within 100 feet of any building, (3) Prune lower branches within six
feet of the ground for trees taller than 18 feet and, (4) Prune lower branches to one-third of their
height for trees and shrubs less than 18 feet.
As stated previously, the Conceptual Landscape Plan (Exhibit 2.3.2) includes three Fuel
Modification Zones: Zone A: Setback Zone (0.3 acres), Zone B: Irrigation Zone (not in oak tree
drip line) includes 2.2 acres and Zone C: Thinning (Zone 6.4 acres). Zone A is the area within
100 feet of the proposed structure in Parcel 1. Zone B includes the area adjacent to Zone A,
the area extending to the entrance road, and an additional area northwest of the building pad.
Zone C the area beyond Zone B, includes all of the intervening area of Parcel 1 to the offsite
residential lots to the south and southwest, and addition areas beyond Zone B to the north and
northwest. The three fuel modification zones total 8.9 acres.
Prior to approval of a grading plan the applicant must l submit a final Fuel Modification Plan (see
Mitigation Measure FIRE-04) for City review and approval.. The Plan’s objective is to promote
fire safety and ensure long-term longevity of the oaks in Parcel 1 and the replacement oaks in
Parcel 2.
D. New Construction Fire Sprinkler Requirements
All new occupancies within the City of Arcadia are required to conform to the Arcadia Municipal
Code (AMC), California Fire Code (CFC) and the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)
Standards. An automatic fire sprinkler system is required in all new buildings regardless of the
type of construction.
E. Other Construction Requirements
The Fire Department also requires adherence to fire prevention measures during construction.
Examples of such ministerial requirements include fire hydrants being operative during
construction and fire vehicle access during construction. The Water Department must perform a
fire flow test at the project site to confirm what pressure and water supply may be provided for
construction and future residential buildings. The applicant is proposing a private booster
system to provide the required fire flow of 750 gpm for one hour duration. The access road will
be capable of supporting a 75,000 lb load and an emergency vehicle parking area is provided
north of the lot driveway. The proposed street gradient has been approved by the Fire
Department. Correspondence concerning project fire issues from Mark Krikorian, Fire Marshall,
Arcadia Fire Department, (February 11, 2014), is included in Appendix H.
F. Project Impacts on Wildland Fire Hazards
122
The project must comply with Goal S-3 and Policies S-3.1 to S-3.7 of the Safety Element of the
General Plan, the Regulations for Construction in the Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area, the
Abatement of Hazardous Vegetation, and the New Construction Fire Sprinkler Requirements.
The project complies with Policy S-4 because there are implied and/or inherent project
entitlements granted to the property when the land use designation in the General Plan is
Residential Estates. These “rights” are subject to the discretionary review and approval of the
City. The project will also comply with all applicable City, County, and State codes that address
building materials and approaches, defensible spaces, brush clearance, required fire flows, on-
site or nearby fire-fighting equipment, and adequate emergency vehicle access to
accommodate the weight and size of emergency vehicles.
The project will comply with Policy S-5 because the project site and the proposed building pads
must meet the required water pressure specified by the Public Works Services Department and
the fire flow criteria specified by the Fire Department.
The project will also comply with Policy S-6 requiring an effective evacuation rute from the
project site. The Fire Department has indicated that the driveway slope and width, and onsite
parking area near the pad driveway meet their criteria.
Potential wildland fire hazards may occur onsite during construction or following buildout of the
residential structures. Compliance with all applicable fire prevention codes and regulations of
the City will reduce the fire hazard to a Less than Significant level following buildout. The
project must comply with all requirements of a building permit(s) for the proposed residential
structure.
The project shall comply with all Fire Department requirements during construction including
operative fire hydrants and fire vehicle access to the project site.
Construction-related fires may occur when grading equipment creates sparks on onsite rocks,
engine mufflers or other heated equipment sparks fires in grassland or fuel or other combustible
materials ignite. All construction sites should have some capacity and equipment to suppress
accidental small fires caused during construction. The potential danger of construction-related
fires onsite during grading, especially during the higher temperatures of summer, is regarded as
significant.
3.5.3 Mitigation Measures for Wildland Fire Hazards
FIRE-01: The project shall comply with all 2013 California Fire Code regulations adopted by the
City, 2013 California Building Code (Chapter 33), Arcadia Brush and Structure Pre-Fire Plan,
and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) policies. The Fire Department shall
ensure compliance.
123
FIRE-02: The applicant or subsequent property owners shall comply with all City fire
regulations to ensure defensible spaces and brush clearances onsite. The property owner shall
implement the Fuel Modification Zones included in the Conceptual Landscape Plan and the
City’s Fire Hazard Reduction and Safety Guidelines. Access to the site for fire equipment shall
be available during and following construction completion. The Fire Department shall ensure
compliance.
FIRE-03: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Water Division shall complete a fire flow test
confirming what pressure and water supply can be provided to the project site. An approved
water supply providing a fire flow of 750 gpm for one hour duration located within 600 feet of the
structure measured along an approved access route is required. The Building and Construction
Division shall monitor compliance.
FIRE-04: Prior to approval of a grading plan, the applicant shall submit a Fuel Modification Plan
acceptable to the City that defines management practices for thinning and irrigation in Zones B
(i.e. beyond 100 feet from the structure) and Zone C. The Plan shall be prepared by a certified
arborist, a landscape architect, a project biologist and a fire safety specialist. The preparers
shall consult with the City of Arcadia Fire Department during the plan preparation. The plan shall
specify when and where irrigation in Zone B is permitted (e.g. during extreme drought conditions
and during extreme fire danger episodes as specified by the Fire Department or other agencies)
and what thinning practices may be used within Zones B, C. The Fuel Modification Plan shall
include measures that promote the long-term viability of the existing and new oak trees in Parcel
1 and the replacement oak trees in Parcel 2. The Planning Division shall ensure compliance.
3.5.4 Level of Significance for Wildland Fire Hazards Project Impacts
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.
3.5.5 Cumulative Impacts on Wildland Fire Hazards
Threshold of Significance for Wildland Fire Hazards Cumulative Impacts
Without adequate fire protection area projects may expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. The geographical scope of analysis for
cumulative fire hazards is TPM 72681 and all adjacent areas within the City of Arcadia included
in the Very High Fire Hazard zone.
Wildland Fire Hazards Cumulative Impacts
Without mitigation or proper implementation of fire regulations (e.g. standard conditions of
approval), past, present and future development project in very high fire hazards constitute a
significant cumulative fire hazard. However, alleviation of these hazards is a joint responsibility
of CAL Fire, the County of Los Angeles Fire Department, the Arcadia Fire Department, the
Building and Construction Division and brush clearance by individual property owners. Existing
124
regulations and agency fire equipment are regarded as adequate to provide protection in all but
the most extreme events.
There are no additional new projects in the project area
3.5.6 Level of Significance for Cumulative Wildland Fire Hazards Impacts
The cumulative impact of wildland fire hazards for the project site and immediate project
surrounding area is Less than Significant.
125
3.6 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
3.6.1 Existing Air Quality Conditions
Existing air quality conditions for the City were evaluated in the 2010 General Plan Update Final
EIR (SCH 2009.81034), Bonterra Consulting, September 2010, see Chapter 4.3: Air Quality) in
the Arcadia General Plan Final Program EIR. Chapter 4.3 includes a comprehensive discussion
of air quality methodology, state and regional plans, SCAQMD regulations, and Arcadia
Municipal Code performance standards.
The air quality analysis in Chapter 4.3 projects citywide emissions and air contaminants,
discussed the General Plan Air Quality Goals, Policies and Implementing Actions, and projects
long-term emissions due to the General Plan Update for mobile and operational emissions. The
2010 General Plan Update Final EIR is available on the City of Arcadia’s website within the
Planning Department (General Plan DEIR) subsection or available at the Planning Division
offices.
Tables 3.6.1 – Tables 3.6.4 herein update the existing conditions, criteria pollutants for the
South Coast Air Basin and for the Source Receptor Area data in the prior documents applicable
to the project.
The 2013.2 California Emission Estimator Model (CalEEMod) is used herein to project
construction and buildout operational air quality impacts,. The model data outputs are included
as Appendix G.
CalEEMod calculates air emissions from land sources using California Air Resources Board’s
(CARB) EMFACAC2007 model for on-road vehicle emissions and the OFFROAD2007 model
for off-road vehicle emissions. Project construction emissions may occur for building phases,
such as grading. The CalEEMod emission calculations assume the use of standard
construction practices, including compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) to
minimize fugitive dust emissions. Rule 403 is mandatory for all construction projects. The
model assumes watering of exposed surfaces and unpaved roads three times daily, which can
reduce particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) dust emissions by 61 percent. The state and
federal emission standards are listed in Table 3.6.1.1.
A. Monitored Air Quality
Air quality at any site is dependent on the regional air quality and local pollutant sources.
Regional air quality is determined by the release of pollutants throughout the air basin. The
SCAQMD has divided the SCAB into 38 air-monitoring areas with a designated ambient air
monitoring station in most areas. The closest air quality monitoring station for the City is the
East San Gabriel Valley station in Pasadena (Station 60)
126
The data collected at the East San Gabriel Valley station is considered representative of the air
quality experienced in the vicinity of the project. Table 3.6.1 lists the air quality levels at the
station for the past three years. The air quality data in Tables 3.6.1 – 3.6.4 was obtained from
the CARB air quality data website (www.arb.ca.gov/adam/) and from the SCAQMD website
(www.aqmd.org).
127
Table 3.6.1
Air Quality Levels in SRA 9 (East San Gabriel Valley 1 – Station 60)
Pollutant
California
Standard5
National
Standard5 Year Days.1 Max. Level
Days State
Standard
Exceeded2
Days National
Standard
Exceeded2
Ozone >0.09 ppm
>0.124
Old standard
2012 366 0.134 18 1
1 Hour 2011 365 0.111 13 0
Average 2010 356 0.104 5 0
Ozone >0.070 ppm >0.075 ppm 2012 366 0.095 18 10
8 Hour 2011 365 0.092 12 13
Average 2010 356 0.081 10 18
CO 20 ppm 35 ppm 2012 366 nr 0 0
1 Hour 2011 365 nr 0 0
Average 2010 355 nr 0 0
CO >9.0 ppm >9.0 ppm 2012 366 1.2 0 0
8 Hour 2011 365 1.4 0 0
Average 2010 355 1.3 0 0
NO2 180 ppb 100 ppb 2012 365 71.8 0 0
1 Hour 2011 366 79.5 0 0
Average 2010 365 77.2 0 0
NO2 30 ppb >534 ppb 2012 352 17.2 0 0
Annual 2011 356 19.0 0 0
Average3 2010 364 18.5 0 0
No. of Samples
Exceeding
Standard
Annual Arithmetic
Mean (AAM)
Suspended >50 µg/m3 >150 µg/m3 2012 61 78 6 30.3
Particulates 2011 61 65 9 32.7
PM10 24-Hour Average 2010 55 70 5 29.8
No. of Samples
Exceeding
Standard
Annual Arithmetic
Mean (AAM)3
Fine
>12.0 ug/m3
AAM >35 µg/m3 2012 118 39.6 1 11.0
Particulates 2011 118 49.5 1 11.4
PM2.5 24-Hour Average 2010 93 44.4 1 10.9
128
The East San Gabriel Valley monitoring data presented in Table 3.6.1 shows that the state 1-
hour and state/federal 8-hour Ozone standard was exceeded in 2012. The state/federal
standards were not exceeded for Carbon Monoxide or Nitrogen Oxides in 2012. The PM10
Suspended Particulates state standard was exceeded and the federal 24-hour PM2.5 Fine
Particulates standards were also exceeded in 2012.
The local air quality conditions near the project site are likely much better than that monitored at
the East San Gabriel Station since the project site is not exposed to high pollutants from area
roadways with high vehicle volumes. The project site is located more than 1.8 miles north of
Interstate 210. Some analysts use the data from the Pasadena monitoring station (SRA 8) as
representative of the local area, but SCAQMD methodology assigns Arcadia to SRA 9 and that
area is used herein to be consistent with SCAQMD and CalEEMod guidelines.
Santa Anita Avenue (Primary), Highland Oak Drive (Local Travel Corridor) and Canyon Road
have the higher traffic volumes in the greater project area. The traffic volumes on Canyon Road
near the project site are estimated at less than 600 ADT.
The current criteria pollutants for the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) are shown in Table 3.6.2.
1. Number of days of data obtained at this air quality monitoring station annually.
2. Number and percentage of samples exceeded stated standard
3. State Annual Arithmetic Mean (AAM) PM2.5 standard is > 12.0 ug/m3 and State AAM standard is >20 ug/m3
4. PM10 samples are collected every 6 days..
5. Only the most recent standard is listed except for the old federal Ozone standard of > 0.124 per hour.
-- Data Not Reported (dnr)
n/a – no applicable standard
Source: CARB Air Quality Data Statistics web site www.arb.ca.gov/smog/historicaldta.htm accessed 12/06/13
129
Table 3.6.2
Criteria Pollutants for the South Coast Air Basin
Pollutant Federal State
Ozone(03)
Extreme
Nonattainment
(2024)
Nonattainment
Suspended Particulate Matter (PM10)
Serious
Nonattainment
(2006)
Nonattainment
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Nonattainment
(2015) Nonattainment
Ozone (O3 ) Nonattainment
(2015) Nonattainment
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Attainment/Maintenance
(2000) Attainment
Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2)
Attainment/Maintenance
(1995) Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2) Attainment Attainment
Lead (Pb) Attainment Attainment
Visibility Reducing Particles n/a Unclassified
Sulfates n/a Attainment
Hydrogen Sulfide n/a Unclassified
Vinyl Chloride n/a Attainment
Source: California Air Resources Board, Area Designations: CCR, title 17, Sections 60200-60210,
November 2011.The federal attainment date is shown in parenthesis.
Table 3.6.2 indicates the SCAB is in attainment for state standards for Carbon Monoxide,
Nitrogen Dioxide and Sulfur Dioxide only.
3.6.2 Project Construction and Operational Air Quality Impacts
Thresholds of Significance for Air Quality
A project would have a significant impact if it:
1) Conflicts with or obstructs implementation of the applicable air quality plan,
130
2) Violates any air quality standard or contributes substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation,
3) Results in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors),
4) Exposes sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations,
5) Creates objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
The SCAQMD ambient air quality standards are listed in Table 3.6.3.
The geographical area used for identification of project air quality impacts is Parcel 1 of TPM
72681 and its immediate surroundings.
131
Table 3.6.3
Ambient Air Quality Standards
Averaging Time State Standards1,3
Federal Standards2
Pollutant Primary3,5 Secondary3,6
Ozone (O3)9
1 Hour >0.09 ppm
(180 µg/m3) -- --
8 Hour >0.070 ppm
(137 µg/m3)
>0.075 ppm
(147 µg/m3) Same as Primary
Suspended
Particulate Matter
(PM10)8
24 Hour 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3 Same as Primary
AAM6 20 µg/m3 -- Same as Primary
Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)8
24 Hour -- 35 µg/m3 Same as Primary
AAM6 12 µg/m3 15 µg/m3 Same as Primary
Carbon Monoxide
(CO)
1 Hour 20 ppm
(23 mg/m3)
35 ppm
(40 mg/m3) None
8 Hour 9.0 ppm
(10 mg/m3)
9 ppm
(10 mg/m3) None
8 Hour
(Lake Tahoe)
6 ppm
(7 mg/m3) -- --
Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2)
AAM6 0.030 ppm
(56 µg/m3)
0.053 ppm
(100 µg/m3) Same as Primary
1 Hour 0.18 ppm
(438 µg/m3) -- --
Sulfur
Dioxide
(SO2)
AAM6 -- 0.030 ppm
(80 µg/m3) --
24 Hour 0.04 ppm
(105 µg/m3)
0.14 ppm
(365 µg/m3) --
3 Hour -- -- 0.5 ppm
(1,300 µg/m3)
1 Hour 0.25 ppm
(655 µg/m3) -- --
Lead7 30 day Avg. 1.5 µg/m3 -- --
Calendar Quarter -- 1.5 µg/m3 Same as Primary
Visibility
Reducing
Particles
8 hour
Extinction coefficient of 0.23 per km
-- visibility ≥ 10 miles
( 0.07 per km -- ≥30 miles for Lake
Tahoe) No
Federal
Standards
Sulfates 24 Hour 25 µg/m3
Hydrogen Sulfide 1 Hour 0.03 ppm
(42 µg/m3)
Vinyl Chloride7 24 Hour 0.01 ppm
(26 µg/m3)
1. California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1 and 24 hour), nitrogen dioxide, PM10, PM2.5, and
visibility reducing particles, are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded.
2. National standards (other than ozone, PM10, PM2.5,, and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded
more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest eight hour concentration in a year, averaged over three years,
is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24 hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a
24-hour average concentration above 150 µg/m3 is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5, the 24 hour standard is attained when 98 percent of
the daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the standard. Contact U.S. EPA for further clarification and
current federal policies.
3. Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based upon a reference
temperature of 25˚ C and a reference pressure of 760 torr. Most measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature of
132
25˚ C and a reference pressure of 760 torr; ppm in this table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas.
4. National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health.
5. National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects
of a pollutant.
6. Annual Arithmetic Mean
7. The ARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as 'toxic air contaminants' with no threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects
determined. These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these
pollutants.
8. On September 21, 2006 EPA revoked the annual 50 µg/m3 PM10 standard and lowed the 24-hour PM2.5 standard from 65 µg/m3. Attainment
designations are to be issued by November, 2009 with attainment plans due April, 2013.
9. On March 12, 2008 EPA lowered the 8-hour Ozone standard to 0.075 ppm from 0.08 ppm. Attainment designations are to be issued by
March 2010 with attainment plans due by March, 2013
-- No Standard
133
A. SCAG Regional Thresholds of Significance
Thresholds of Significance
SCAQMD has established significance thresholds to assess the impact of project related air
pollutant emissions. Table 3.6.4 lists the significance thresholds. There are separate
thresholds for short-term construction and long-term operational emissions. A project with daily
emission rates below these thresholds are considered to have a less than significant effect on
air quality.
Table 3.6.4
SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance
Phase Pollutant Emissions Thresholds (lbs/day)
CO VOC NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx
Construction 550 75 100 150 55 150
Operation 550 55 55 150 55 150
Source: SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance, March 2011.
Reactive organic gases (ROG) are also known as reactive organic compounds (ROCs) and
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), consist of non-methane hydrocarbons and oxygenated
hydrocarbons. Hydrocarbons are organic compounds that contain only hydrogen and carbon
atoms. Non-methane hydrocarbons are hydrocarbons that do not contain methane. ROG and
VOC are used as equals in the project air quality analysis. (SCAG states a VOC standard and
CalEEMod projects ROG emissions).
Since the project is proposing only one dwelling unit, the project does not impact area or
regional air quality. The CalEEMod data is included in Appendix G.
B. City of Arcadia Resource Sustainability Element: Improving Air Quality
The Resource Sustainability Element of the General Plan includes goals and polices for
improving air quality in the City.
Goal RS-1: Continued improvement in local and regional air quality.
Goal RS-2: Reducing Arcadia’s carbon footprint in accordance with SB 375 and AB 32.
Goal RS-3: Promoting and utilizing clean forms of transportation to reduce Arcadia’s carbon
footprint.
134
C. Section 1: Project Short Term Air Quality Impacts
Air quality impacts are usually divided into short term and long term. Short-term impacts are
usually the result of construction or grading operations. Air pollutants will be emitted by
construction equipment and fugitive dust will be generated during clearing, grubbing and tree
removal onsite, as well as during grading. Long-term impacts are associated with project
buildout.
D. Construction Emission Estimator Model Program (CalEEMod)
Emissions during the primary phases of construction were calculated using the 2013.2
California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), a computer program issued by the South
Coast Air Quality Management.
Features of the 2013.2 CalEEMod Program
CalEEMod is a computer model used to estimate both the construction emissions and the
operational emissions from a land use project. It calculates the daily max and annual average
for criteria pollutants as well as total or annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that may be
used in CEQA documents. In addition, default values for water and energy use can be
quantified.
Specifically the model provides the following calculations:
(1) Short term construction emissions associated with site preparation, grading, building,
coating, and paving from the following sources:
a. Off-road construction equipment
b. On-road mobile equipment associated with workers, vendors, and hauling
c. Fugitive dust associated with grading, truck loading, and roads (Fugitive dust
from windblown sources such as storage piles are not quantified in CalEEMod
which is consistent with approaches taken in other comprehensive models.)
d. Volatile emissions of reactive organic gasses (ROG) from architectural coating
and paving
e. Operational emissions associated with the fully built out land use development
f. On-road mobile vehicle traffic generated by the land uses
g. Fugitive dust associated with roads
h. Volatile emissions of ROG from architectural coating
i. Off-road emissions from landscaping equipment
j. Volatile emissions of ROG from consumer products and cleaning supplies
135
k. Wood stoves and hearth usage
l. Natural gas usage in the buildings
m. Electricity usage in the buildings (GHG only)
n. Water usage by the land uses (GHG only)
o. Solid waste disposal by the land uses (GHG only)
p. One-time vegetation sequestration changes
q. Permanent vegetation land use changes
r. New tree plantings
s. Mitigation measures for both short-term construction and operational emissions.
Several of the mitigation measures listed in California Air Pollution Control Officers Association
(CAPCOA) Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures are included in the CalEEMod
program.
E. Preliminary Construction Schedule
The 90.5 acre project site is proposed for open space and residential development. The
proposed graded residential and street acreage totals 1.34 acres. The project may be
completed by March 2016. (The preliminary project schedule is used in the CalEEMod program
and is not a precise construction schedule. If the stated schedule is delayed, the projected
emissions would be lower than indicated than the EMFAC factors used in the model decline in
the future). All assumptions used in the CalEEMod program that are not default values are
identified in the program summary printouts included in Appendix G.
Table 3.6.5
Preliminary Project Schedule
Activity Items Schedule
Pre-Construction
Spring Rare Plant Surveys Completed May 2012, 2014
Clearing/Grubbing
Tree/Shrub Clearance
Oak Tree Protection
Debris Export
May 30 – June 30, 2015
Grading/Paving Grading
Street Construction
Utilities
Drainage Facilities
July 1 – Sept 30, 2015
Slope Stability Groundcover
Oak Replacement
October 1 – October 30, 2015
Building Construction Residence Construction
Final Landscaping
October 1, 2015 – Feb 30, 2016
Occupancy Permit
March 2016
Nevis Capital, December 17, 2014
136
The crucial component of the construction schedule is avoiding grading during the
winter rainy season and not overlapping tasks using heavy construction equipment that
generates the most air quality emissions.
F. Air Quality Impacts from Construction and Operational Emissions
Tables 3.6.6 and 3.6.7 presents the results of the CalEEMod emissions projections from project
construction activities from May 30, 2014 to April 1, 2015. Occupancy of the single residence
onsite on January 1, 2016 was assumed. .
Since SCAQMD air quality thresholds are daily emissions, if the graded acreage is constant and
grading is delayed a year from 2014 to 2015, CalEEMod overestimates project daily emissions
for 2015. (EMFAC emission generation factors also decline year by year). In addition, grading
on 1.50 acres was used in the CalEEMod analysis, not 1.34 acres for the current project. Both
construction schedules (CalEEMod and Table 3.6.5) assume 79 days of grading onsite.
All four factors cited above result in CalEEMod projecting higher construction emissions for the
current project schedule than what will occur during project construction based on the current
construction schedule (Table 3.6.5). Therefore, the CalEEMod D emission projections based on
the 2014 construction schedule remain valid because the analysis represents a “worse case”
scenario for a similar construction schedule in 2015.
It is common practice in air quality analysis to use a worse case analysis and overestimate
project emissions. However, as shown in Table 3.6.6 and 3.6.7, project emissions would have
to increase six-fold or more before daily SCAQMD thresholds are exceeded by the project.
The projected project construction daily emissions for summer and winter are compared to the
SCAQMD Significance Thresholds below.
137
Table 3.6.6
Project Construction Peak Daily Emissions (Summer)
Activity Pollutant Emissions (lbs/day)
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM 2.5
Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emissions (Unmitigated)
Demolition 2014 3.91 37.42 25.10 0.03 6.90 4.51
2015 4.19 24.13 16.91 0.02 1.71 1.66
Maximum lbs per day 4.19 37.42 25.10 0.03 6.90 4.51
SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? NO NO NO NO NO NO
Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emissions (Mitigated)
2014 1.13 16.76 20.53 0.03 1.79 1.10
2015 1.13 13.72 15.26 0.02 0.41 0.41
Maximum lbs per day 1.13 16.76 20.53 0.03 1.79 1.10
SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? NO NO NO NO NO NO
Source: California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2013.2, SCAQMD, July 2013.
Construction schedule provided by the applicant in December 2013. CalEEMod emission reports are
included in Appendix G.
The project Summer construction emissions do not exceed the SCAQMD daily thresholds listed
in Table 3.6.6. However, since PM10 and PM2.5 emissions exceed California 24-hour emission
standards (Tables 3.6.1, 3.6.2.), the project is required to implement mitigation measures to
reduce PM10 and PM2.5 emissions from grading activities. The recommended mitigation
measures are listed in Section 3.6.3 below.
138
Table 3.6.7
Project Construction Peak Daily Emissions (Winter)
Activity Pollutant Emissions (lbs/day)
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM 2.5
Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emissions (Unmitigated)
Demolition 2014 3.91 37.43 25.00 0.03 6.90 4.51
2015 4.19 24.13 16.91 0.02 1.71 1.66
Maximum lbs per day 4.19 37.43 25.00 0.03 6.90 4.51
SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? NO NO NO NO NO NO
Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emissions (Mitigated)
2014 1.13 16.78 20.42 0.03 1.79 1.10
2015 1.13 13.72 15.26 0.02 0.41 0.41
Maximum lbs per day 1.13 16.78 20.42 0.03 1.79 1.10
SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? NO NO NO NO NO NO
Source: California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2013.2, SCAQMD, July 2013.
Construction schedule provided by the applicant in December 2013. CalEEMod emission reports are
included in Appendix G.
The Winter project emissions do not exceed the SCAQMD daily thresholds listed in Table 3.6.4.
The emissions are almost identical to Summer, except for small differences in NOx and CO
emissions, largely due to oxygenated gasoline requirements in the SCAB during the winter
months.
139
Table 3.6.8
Project Operational Emissions (Summer)
Category Pollutant Emissions (lbs/day)
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM 2.5
Overall Operational Emissions (Unmitigated)
Demolition Area 0.30 0.00 0.59 8.00e004 0.77 0.08
Energy 8.80e004 0.02 3.20e003 5.00e005 6.10e004 6.10e004
Mobile 0.04 0.28 0.04 1.11e003 0.75 0.02
Total 0.34 0.13 1.06 1.96e003 0.15 0.10
SCAQMD Threshold 55 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? NO NO NO NO NO NO
Overall Operational Emissions (Mitigated)
Area 0.30 7.63e003 0.59 8.00e004 0.77 0.77
Energy 8.80e004 7.52e003 3.20e003 5.00e05 6.11e004 6.10e004
Mobile 0.04 0.12 0.47 1.10e003 1.70e003 0.02
Total 0.34 0.13 1.06 1.96e003 0.15 0.10
SCAQMD Threshold 55 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? NO NO NO NO NO NO
Source: California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2013.2, SCAQMD, July 2013.
Construction schedule provided by the applicant in December 2013. CalEEMod emission estimates are
included in Appendix G.
The Summer project operational emissions do not exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance.
140
Table 3.6.9
Operational Emissions (Winter)
Category Pollutant Emissions (lbs/day)
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM 2.5
Overall Operational Emissions (Unmitigated)
Demolition Area 0.30 7.63e003 0.59 8.00e004 0.08 0.09
Energy 8.80e004 7.52e003 3.20e003 5.00e005 6.10e004 6.10e004
Mobile 0.04 0.13 0.47 1.06e003 0.07 0.02
Total 0.35 0.14 1.07 1.91e003 0.15 0.10
SCAQMD Threshold 55 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? NO NO NO NO NO NO
Overall Operational Emissions (Mitigated)
Area 0.30 4.63e003 0.59 8.00e004 0.08 0.08
Energy 8.80e004 7.53e003 3.20e003 5.00e005 1.61e004 6.10e004
Mobile 0.35 0.12 0.47 1.06e003 0.07 0.02
Total 0.22 0.14 1.06 1.91e003 0.15 0.10
SCAQMD Threshold 55 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? NO NO NO NO NO NO
Source: California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2013.2, SCAQMD, July 2013.
Construction schedule provided by the applicant in December 2013. CalEEMod emission estimates are
included in Appendix G.
The Winter project operational emissions do not exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance.
G. Localized Construction and Operational Emissions – LST Analysis
The South Coast Air Quality Management District recommends that the Localized Significance
Threshold Methodology be used only for projects of less than or equal to five acres (Final
Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, SCAQMD, June 2003, revised July 2008). The
use of LSTs by local governments is voluntary and not required by law.
SCAQMD recommends that lead agencies perform project-specific modeling for larger projects
in determining localized air quality impacts. The LST methodology was developed to be used as
a tool to assist lead agencies to analyze localized impacts associated with project-specific level
proposed projects. The LST methodology and associated mass rates are not designed to
evaluate localized impacts from mobile sources traveling over the roadways. Further, LSTs are
applicable to projects at the project-specific level and are not applicable regional projects such
as General Plans.
141
LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that will not cause or substantially
contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard, and are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each
source receptor area.
The closest existing residences to the project site are the six adjacent dwelling units south of the
project and the two units adjacent to the site along Canyon Road. The units along Canyon
Road are exposed to minimal grading activity for the entrance road and the 23,000 sq. ft. pad is
located a minimum of 35 meters from the two parcels. The closest offsite units from the onsite
grading are 43 meters (Parcel 1 near the street entrance) and Lot 18 (off Vista Avenue cul-de-
sac) is 46 meters from the onsite grading. Lot 17 (off Vista Avenue cul-de-sac) is 87 meters
from the onsite grading. Lots 14-18 along Carolwood and Canyon Road are more than 90
meters from the grading area onsite. Meters are used instead of feet because 25 meters is
used in the LST methodology. The maximum mitigated daily construction emissions for each
particulate are listed below, regardless of whether they occurred in 2012, 2013, 2014, or
occurred in winter or summer.
Table 3.6.10
Localized Significance Screening Thresholds (Pounds per Day)
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Construction (Winter or Summer)
Maximum Onsite Emissions 1.13 16.78 1.79 1.10
LST Construction Screening
Threshold
128 953 14 2
Exceed Threshold? NO NO NO NO
Operational (Summer or Winter)
Maximum Total Onsite Emissions 0.14 1.06 0.15 0.10
LST Operational Screening
Threshold
128 953 4 2
Exceed Threshold? NO NO NO NO
Source: SCAQMD 2006-2008 Thresholds for Construction and Operation, Table C-1 to C-6 (2.0 acres and 25
meters), Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, SCAQMD, June 2003, revised July 2008,
CalEEMod July 2013 mitigated emission data in Appendix G. See Tables 3.6.6 to 3.6.9 above. LST Thresholds for
SRA 9.
The project has no significant construction or operational impacts in relationship to LST
Thresholds for SRA 9 for a two acre parcel. The project impact in the LST analysis is Less than
Significant.
I. Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions During Construction
142
In 1998, the California Air Resources Board (ARB) identified particulate matter from diesel-
fueled engines (Diesel Particulate Matter or DPM) as a Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC). It is
assumed that the majority of the heavy construction equipment utilized during construction
would be diesel fueled and emit DPM. Impacts from toxic substances are related to cumulative
exposure and are assessed over a 70-year period. Cancer risk is expressed as the maximum
number of new cases of cancer projected to occur in a population of one million people due to
exposure to the cancer-causing substance over a 70-year lifetime (California Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Guide to Health Risk
Assessment.) Grading for the project, when the peak diesel exhaust emissions would occur, is
expected to take approximately three months with all construction, expected to be completed in)
eight months. Because of the relatively short duration of construction compared to a 70-year
lifespan, diesel emissions resulting from the construction of the project are Less than
Significant. Mitigation Measure AQ-4, listed below, required use of ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel,
which also lowers DPM emissions. Therefore, a health risk assessment is not required.
Diesel haul trucks used to export materials from the project site to area landfills prior to site
grading are estimated below. Diesel haul truck engines are regulated by CARB and EPA and
must meet current diesel engine NOx emission standards. The estimate excludes daily
construction worker vehicles and occasional equipment and materials deliveries.
Table 3.6.11
Truck Export Hauling
Item Type Graded Area
(Acres)
Cover (%) Factor (cubic
yards/acre)
Cubic
Yards
1 Oak Trees 1.5 25.0 1,000.0 375.0
2 Chaparral 1.5 15.0 800.0 180.0
3 Other Brush 1.5 40.0 800.0 180.0
4 Cover/Other 1.5 16.0 500.0 120.0
5 Large Rocks 1.5 4.0 2,000.0 120.0
6 Fire Hazard
Clearance1
0.6 20.0 400.0 48.0
Total 1,023.0
Truck Loads (12 cubic yards/load) 85
Days of Hauling (8 per day) 11
1 Initial brush clearance for optional fire hazard mitigation in area of impact outside of graded area. City
Fire hazard standard mitigation requires only a 300 foot buffer from a building structure.
Source: Nevis Capital and EGL Associates, January 3, 2013
The truck export hauling activities project impact on local streets and freeways is Less than
Significant.
The project does not has a Less than Significant Impact on creation of objectionable odors
during construction and operation. The use of construction equipment results in some diesel
143
engine related odors but these odors violate no emission standards and dissipate quickly with
distance from the source.
H. Consistency with the Air Quality Management Plan
A project of one dwelling unit has no impact on area or regional air quality. The CalEEMod
analysis completed for the project confirms this general assumption. Two criteria are used to
assess if a project is consistent with the AQMP: (1) Does it increase the frequency or severity of
violations and, (2) Does the project exceed assumptions used in the AQMP?
The CalEEMod emission projections for the project herein demonstrate that the project does not
exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance. Therefore, the project (Tables 3.6.6 – 3.6.10,
3.6.12, 3.6.13) does not increase the frequency or severity of violations compared to the
ambient air quality standards (Tables 3.6.2) and monitored air quality levels in the project area
(Table 3.6.1).
The land use proposed onsite is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning designations for
the project site. Therefore, these land uses were included in the General Plan Update EIR and
the air quality analysis completed by Urban Crossroads for the General Plan. Therefore, the
project does not exceed land use assumptions or area emissions used in the AQMP.
I. Air Quality Impact Conclusions
The project impact on local air quality is Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
because, with mitigation, the analysis estimates project emissions will not exceed SCAQMD
daily and LST thresholds. The project’s net contribution to local and regional air quality
emissions, which do exceed State and Federal standards, is less than considerable.
The CalEEMod model incorporates some mitigation measures and demonstrates that mitigation
measures are effective in reducing particulate emissions. The project is required to implement
air quality mitigation measures to comply with the goals of the City’s Resource Sustainability
Element (RS-1, RS-2). Implementation of the mitigation measures below will contribute toward
continued improvement in local air quality and reducing the City’s carbon footprint in the future.
3.6.3 Project Construction and Operational Air Quality Mitigation Measures
AQ-01: The applicant and their contractors shall comply with SCAQMD Rule 403, including
implementing all feasible Best Available Control Measures (BACM) included in Rule 403 Table
1: Best Available Control Measures Applicable to All Construction Activity Sources. In addition,
the project shall comply with at least one of the following Track-Out Control Options: (a) Install
a pad consisting of washed gravel (minimum-size: one inch) maintained in a clean condition to a
depth of at least six inches and extending at least 20 feet wide and 50 feet long, (b) Pave the
surface extending at least 100 feet and a width of at least 20 feet wide, (c) Utilize a wheel
shaker/wheel spreading device consisting of raised dividers (rails, pipe, or grates) at least 24
feet long and 10 feet wide to remove bulk material from tires and vehicle under carriages before
vehicles exit the site, (d) Install and utilize a wheel washing system to remove bulk material from
tires and vehicle undercarriages before vehicles exit the site, (e) Any other control measures
144
approved by the Executive Officer and the U.S. EPA as equivalent to the methods specified
items (a) through (d) above. Individual BACM in Table 1 that are not applicable to the project or
infeasible, based on additional new project information, may be omitted only if the Planning
Division specifies in a written agreement with the applicant that specific BACM measures may
be omitted. Any clarifications, additions, selections of alternative measures, or specificity
required to implement the required BACM for the project shall be included in the written
agreement. The written agreement shall be completed prior to issuance of a demolition and/or
grading permit for the project. The Planning Division shall include the written agreement within
the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project and the Building and Construction Division
shall ensure compliance.
AQ-02: Project construction contracts shall prohibit vehicle and engine idling in excess of five
(5) minutes and ensure that all off-road equipment is compliant with the CARB’s in-use off-road
diesel vehicle regulations and SCAQMD Rule 1186 and 1186.1 certified street sweepers or
roadway washing trucks, and all internal combustion engines/construction equipment operating
on the project site shall meet EPA-Certified Tier 2 emissions standards, or higher according to
the adopted project start date requirements. A copy of each unit’s certified tier specification,
BACT documentation and CARB or SCAQMD operating permit shall be provided to the
construction manager at the time of mobilization of each applicable unit of equipment.
Engineering Services shall ensure compliance.
AQ-03: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall obtain approval for a Truck
Route Plan for all construction equipment transport and truck hauling to the project site. Hauling
of earth materials shall only occur between 9:00 am and 2:00 pm Monday through Friday and
between 8:00 am to 5:00 pm on Saturdays to void school and rush hour traffic. Light duty trucks
with a weight of no more than 8,500 pounds are exempted from this restriction. The
Transportation Division shall ensure compliance.
AQ-04: All diesel construction equipment used onsite shall use ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel. The
Building and Construction Division shall ensure compliance.
AQ-05: During grading and construction, fugitive dust from construction operations shall be
reduced by watering at least twice daily using reclaimed water or chemical soil binder, where
feasible, or water whenever substantial dust generation is evident. The project shall comply
with Rule 403: Fugitive Dust (South Coast Air Quality Management District). Project contractors
shall suspend grading operations, apply soil binders, and water the grading site when wind
speeds (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour. Traffic speeds on all unpaved
graded surfaces shall not exceed 15 miles per hour. All grading operations shall be suspended
during first and second stage smog alerts. All project contracts shall require project contractors
to keep construction equipment engines tuned to ensure that air quality impacts generated by
construction activities are minimized. Upon request, equipment tuning logs shall be made
available to the Building and Construction Division. The Building and Construction Division shall
ensure compliance.
145
AQ-06: To reduce VOC emissions, the applicant shall use paint with low VOC emissions (ROG
emission rate of less than 0.80 pounds per gallon), limit painting to eight hours per day, use
paint thickness of 0.75 millimeters or less, use water-based and low-VOC coatings with
ROG/VOC emissions of less than 8.0 pounds per 1,000 square feet of painted surface, and use
high-volume, low pressure sprayers. The Building and Construction Division shall ensure
compliance.
3.6.4 Level of Significance for Construction and Operational Air Quality Project
Impacts
The project impact on operational and construction air quality emissions, and on goals in the
City’s Resource Sustainability Element for improving air quality, is Less than Significant With
Mitigation Incorporated.
3.6.5 Cumulative Air Quality Impacts
Threshold of Significance for Air Quality Cumulative Impacts
A threshold of significance is an identifiable quantitative, qualitative, or performance level of a
particular environmental effect, non-compliance with which means the effect will normally be
determined to be significant by the Lead Agency and compliance with which means the effect
normally will be determined to be Less than Significant (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7).
The SCAQMD ambient air quality standards were listed in Table 3.6.2.
The geographical area used for identification of cumulative project air quality impacts is the
northern portion of the City north of Orange Grove Avenue extended.
Construction Cumulative Air Quality Cumulative Impacts
Since air quality in the region continues to violate state and federal standards for some
particulates, the cumulative impacts of past, present and future projects in the SCAQMD is
cumulatively adverse. The South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) is in attainment for state standards for
Carbon Monoxide, Nitrogen Dioxide and Sulfur Dioxide. But, the SCAB is not in attainment for
state standards for Ozone, Suspended Particulate Matter (PM10) and Fine Particulate Matter
(PM2.5).
Although the project will comply with all SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) regulations, Best
Management Practices and the recommended mitigation measures for reduction of PM10 and
PM2.5 emissions, project construction activities will contribute to cumulatively adverse air quality
impacts. However, the project’s net contribution to area and regional emission is less than
considerable, as it is less that the SCAQMD’s significance thresholds. The project long-term air
quality impacts, or operational emissions, are primarily from motor vehicles. The project
generates less than 10 ADT. Therefore, the project cumulative impact for construction and
operational cumulative air quality impacts is Less than Significant
146
Cumulative air quality emissions in cities are mitigated through the adoption of General Plans
(e.g. land use and circulation elements), through adoption of Air Quality Elements, and are
being addressed by state and regional actions (Assembly Bill 32: 2006 Global Warming
Solutions Act, SB 375: 2008 Sustainable Communities and Climate Protect Act, the California
Green Building Code, CARB Scoping Plan and SCAQMD policies).
The cumulative air quality impacts of construction for the project area (e.g. the northern portion
of the City north of Orange Grove Avenue extended) is Less than Significant because of the
area is generally built out and no additional development projects in the project area have been
identified. The project’s net contribution to regional emissions is less than considerable.
3.6.6 Level of Significance for Air Quality Cumulative Impacts
Less than Significant
3.6.7 Project Construction and Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions
A. Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change
The Earth’s climate has always been changing due to diverse natural factors. These factors
include changes in the Earth’s orbit, volcanic eruptions, and energy released by the sun. These
differences cause climate temperature fluctuations ranging from ice ages to long periods of
warmth. However, since the Industrial Revolution in the 18th Century, mankind has increasingly
influenced the rate of climate change.
The term climate change refers to the global warming and cooling, increased temperatures and
other environmental effects. Some effects include changes to rainfall, wind, weather patterns,
differences in the snow and ice pack, and changes in the sea level.
Depending on which GHG emissions scenario is used, climate models predict that the Earth’s
average temperature could rise anywhere between 2.5 to 10.4 ºF from 1990 to the end of this
century. The degree of change is influenced by the assumed amount of GHG emissions, and
how quickly atmospheric GHG levels are stabilized.
Global GHG emissions are measured in million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
(“MMT CO2EQ”) units. A metric ton is approximately 2,205 lbs. Some GHGs emitted into the
atmosphere are naturally occurring, while others are caused solely by human activities. The
principal GHGs that enter the atmosphere because of human activities are:
Carbon dioxide (CO2) enters the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels
(oil, natural gas, and coal), agriculture, irrigation, and deforestation, as well as
the manufacturing of cement.
147
Methane (CH4) is emitted through the production and transportation of coal,
natural gas, and oil, as well as from livestock. Other agricultural activities
influence methane emissions as well as the decay of waste in landfills.
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) is released most often during the burning of fuel at high
temperatures. This greenhouse gas is caused mostly by motor vehicles, which
also include non-road vehicles, such as those used for agriculture.
Fluorinated Gases are emitted primarily from industrial sources, which often include hydro-
fluorocarbons (HRC), per-fluorocarbons (PFC), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Though they are
often released in smaller quantities, they are referred to as High Global Warming Potential
Gases because of their ability to cause global warming. These gases have different potentials
for trapping heat in the atmosphere, called global warming Potential (“GWP”). One pound of
methane has 21 times more heat capturing potential than one pound of carbon dioxide. When
dealing with an array of emissions, the gases are converted to carbon dioxide equivalents for
comparison purposes.
Consumption of fossil fuels in the transportation sector was the single largest source of
California’s GHG emissions in 2004 accounting for 40.7 percent of total GHG emissions in the
state. This category was followed by the electric power sector (including both in-state and out-
of-state sources, 22.2 percent and the industrial sector, 20.5 percent (California Energy
Commission 2006). A byproduct of fossil fuel combustion is CO2. Methane, a highly potent
GHG, results from emissions associated with agricultural practices and municipal solid waste
landfills.
B. Impact of Climate Change on California and Human Health
Locally, global warming could cause changing weather patterns with increased storm and
drought severity in California. Changes to local and regional ecosystems including the potential
loss of species, and a significant reduction in winter snow may occur. Current data suggest
California could experience unprecedented heat, longer and more extreme heat waves, greater
intensity and frequency of heat waves, and longer dry periods. The California Climate Change
Center (2006) predicted that California could witness the following events:
§ Temperature rises between 3 and 10.5 degrees Fahrenheit
§ 6 to 20 inches or more increase in sea level
§ 2 to 4 times as many heat-wave days in major urban centers
§ 2 to 6 times as many heat-related deaths in major urban centers
§ 1 to 1.5 times more critically dry years
§ 10 to 55% increase in the risk of wildfires
Global warming has a profound impact on water resources. Climate change can alter the
weather patterns and water supply in California leading to increased water shortages (i.e., a
dwindling snowpack, bigger flood flows, rising sea levels, longer and harsher droughts). Water
148
supplies are also at risk from rising sea levels. Risks may include degrading California’s
estuaries, wetlands and groundwater aquifers, which would threaten the quality and reliability of
the California fresh water supply.
Higher temperatures may require buildings consume more electricity for cooling and consume
more water for landscaping.
Global CO2 emissions totaled about 33,326 MMT CO2EQ (million metric tons of Carbon Dioxide
Equivalents) in 2006. The United States released 7,017 MMT CO2EQ in 2006, which is
approximately 21% of the earth’s total emissions. The burning of fossil fuels produced over
81% of total GHG emissions in the United States. In relation to other states, California is the
second highest producer of CO2 by fossil fuels and has .the second highest level of GHG
production in 2001 after Texas.
C. Sources of Greenhouse Gases in California
The California Energy Commission (CEC) categorizes GHG generation by source into five
broad categories. The categories are:
(1) Transportation includes the combustion of gasoline and diesel in automobiles and
trucks. Transportation also includes jet fuel consumption and bunker fuel for ships.
(2) Agriculture and forestry GHG emissions are composed mostly of nitrous oxide from
agricultural soil management, CO2 from forestry practice changes, methane from enteric
fermentation, and methane and nitrous oxide from manure management.
(3) Commercial and residential uses generate GHG emissions primarily from the
combustion of natural gas for space and water heating.
(4) Industrial GHG emissions are produced from many industrial activities. Major
contributors include oil and natural gas extraction; crude oil refining; food processing;
stone, clay, glass, and cement manufacturing; chemical manufacturing; and cement
production. Wastewater treatment plants are also significant contributors to this
category.
(5) Electric generation includes both emissions from power plants in California as well as
power plants located outside of the state that supply electricity to the state.
The transportation sector contributed approximately 40% of the California GHG. The electric
generation and industrial sectors are the second largest GHG contributors in the state,
accounted for 18 to 20%, per sector. The smallest GHG contributors are the commercial and
residential sector, as well as the agricultural and forestry sector, accounted for about 10% and
8%, respectively.
149
While California has the second highest rate of GHG production in the nation, it should also be
noted that California has one of the lowest per capita rates of GHG emissions.
The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) issued a Technical Advisory on CEQA
and Climate Change in June 2008. The Advisory provides an outline of what should be
included in a GHG analysis under CEQA. January 2009, OPR issued amendments to the
CEQA Guidelines that address GHGs. Among the amendments are the following:
(1) Determining the Significance of Impacts from Greenhouse Gas Emissions
(Section 15064.4;
(2) Thresholds of Significance (Section 15064.7(c))
(3) Discussion of Cumulative Impacts (Section 15130 (a) (1) (B) and Section 15130
(f))
(4) Tiering and Streamlining the Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Section
15183.5);
In September 2006, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Assembly Bill 32, the California
Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Health and Safety Code Section 38500 et seq.). AB 32
directs the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) to recommend policies and regulations to
reduce global warming in all aspects of the California economy.
Executive Order S-3-05 (June 1, 2005) calls for a reduction in GHG emissions to 2000 levels by
2010; 1990 levels by 2020; and for an 80 percent reduction in GHG emissions below 1990
levels by 2050. It also directs the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) to
prepare biennial science reports on the potential impact of continued global warming on sectors
of the California economy.
The California Air Resources Board is the lead agency for implementing AB 32. CARB has
adopted a Scoping Plan, in coordination with the Climate Action Team (CAT), to establish a
comprehensive set of actions designed to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions in
California. The measures in the Scoping plan approved by the Board will be in place by 2020.
California Executive Order S-3-05 requires an 80 percent reduction of greenhouse gases from
1990 levels by 2050. On a per-capita basis, that means reducing our annual emissions of 14
tons of CO2 equivalent for every man, woman and child in California down to about 10 tons per
person by 2020.
D. SCAQMD GHG Standards
The GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group is continuing work begun
in 2008 which recommends GHG methodologies and GHG thresholds of significance.
Recommendations are categorized into Tiers 1-5: (1) Tier 1: Projects with Applicable CEQA
Exemptions (e.g. SB 97, categorical and statutory exemptions), (2) Tier 2: Projects Consistent
with GHG Reduction Plans (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064 (h) (3), 15125 (d), and 15152
150
(a)), Tier 3: Screening Values by Land Use Category, (4) Tier 4: Performance Standards and
(5) Tier 5: Mitigation Offsets.
The screening value recommended for residential projects is 3,500 MT/Year CO2EQ, 1,400
MT/Year CO2EQ for commercial land uses and 3,000 MT/Year CO2EQ for mixed-use projects
(SCAQMD, 9/28/2010).
Since the project site is vacant, it does not generate GHG emissions today. However,
construction activities will generate GHG emissions.
E. Project Greenhouse Gas Construction and Operational Emissions
The project will result in short-term construction GHG emissions. These emissions, primarily
CO2, CH4, and N2O result from fuel combustion from construction equipment used onsite and
construction motor vehicles. These emissions are estimated by the CalEEMod model. The
same construction schedule and phasing assumed for the air quality emission analysis is used
for the GHG emissions analysis. The SCAQMD methodology annualizes the construction-
related GHG mitigated emissions over a 30-year period.
Table 3.6.12
Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Metric Tons of CO2 Equivalent/Year)
GHG Emissions Source Emissions
2014 1.44
2015 1.07
Total Construction Emissions 2.51
Annualized Over 30-Years 0.08
Threshold 3,500
Exceed Threshold? NO
Source: California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2013.2, SCAQMD, July 2013. Construction
schedule provided by the applicant in December 2013. CalEEMod mitigated Summer emission estimates are
included in Appendix G.
The project will not generate GHG construction emissions beyond SCAQMD thresholds for
annualized CO2Equivalents/Year.
151
Table 3.6.13
Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Metric Tons of CO2 Equivalent/Year)
GHG Emissions Source Total
Construction (Amortized) 0.08
Area (Landscaping and Hearths) 28.30
Energy (Electricity and Natural Gas) 9.66
Mobile 98.07
Solid Waste and Wastewater --
Water --
Total (lbs/day) 136.11
Total (MT/Year) 22.53
SCAQMD Threshold 3,500
Exceed Threshold? NO
Source: California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2013.2, SCAQMD, July 2013. Construction
schedule provided by the applicant in November 2011. CalEEMod emission Summer estimates are included in
Appendix G.
The project will not generate GHG operational emissions beyond SCAQMD thresholds. The
project impact on greenhouse gas emissions is Less than Significant.
3.6.8 Greenhouse Gas Project Emissions Mitigation Measures
None are required.
3.6.9 Level of Significance for Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Less than Significant
3.6.10 Cumulative Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The geographical area used for identification of cumulative greenhouse gas emissions is the
South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). Projections of greenhouse gas emissions in the SCAB project
are published by SCAQMD and CARB.
GHG emissions in the SCAQMD are cumulatively significant and the project contributes toward
the total GHG emissions in the South Coast Air Quality Basin. SCAQMD has adopted a goal of
reducing GHG emissions by 8 percent by 2020 and 15 percent by 2025. Since the project’s
contribution is less than considerable, there are no cumulative project impacts. However, the
following migration measure is recommended to reduce energy use onsite, and therefore,
reduce cumulative GHG emissions within the SCAB. Reducing local and area energy needs is
152
also consistent with the goals of the City’s Resource Sustainability Element (RS-1, RS-2) listed
in Section 3.6.2. (C).
3.6.11 Mitigation Measures for Cumulative Greenhouse Gas Emissions
GHG-01: If the applicant is building the residences onsite for sale, all appliances shall be
Energy Star rated. If the applicant sells the improved lots to others, the requirement shall be
placed on the building permit. The Building and Construction Division shall ensure compliance.
GHG-02: Roof coverings shall have a minimum three-year aged solar reflectance and thermal
emittance, or a minimum reflectance index (SRI) greater than or equal to the values specified in
Table A4.106.5 in Appendix A4 for Residential Uses in the 2010 California Green Building
Standards Code (CalGreen). The Building and Construction Division shall ensure compliance.
3.6.12 Level of Significance for Cumulative Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Less than Significant.
153
3.7 NOISE AND VIBRATION
Some construction activities impacts were already discussed in earlier sections of this report
(e.g. biological resources, water quality, soils and geology, wildland fires and air quality).
However, it is helpful to evaluate construction noise and vibration project impacts in a distinct
section. Section 3.7 serves that purpose. Discussion of the City of Arcadia’s Noise Element
related to land use changes was included in Section 3.1 and is not repeated in this section.
3.7.1 Existing Conditions for Construction Noise and Vibration
Since there is no construction occurring under existing conditions, the existing noise
environment onsite is quite low, with minimal exposure to traffic noise from Canyon Drive and
some high altitude aircraft flights.
Although interior portions of the project site may be quieter, the typical noise environment in
suburban daytime locations is 50 – 55 dBA (Noise Element, Table N-1, p. 9-4). Existing
residential areas conform to the City’s noise standards, which are 55 dBA during the day (7 am
– 10 pm) and 50 dBA during the nighttime (10 pm to 7 am) for amplified noise sources (Table
4.9-8, Santa Anita Park Specific Plan EIR).
A. Construction Noise Regulations
Construction activities are regulated by the Arcadia Municipal Code (Section 4261, 4262-4263).
Section 4261 restricts the hours of construction, Section 4262 limits construction activities
without a permit, and Section 4263 defines permit requirements for special circumstances to
allow construction during prohibited hours.
“The term ‘prohibited hours’ as used in this Part shall mean any time after the hour of 6:00 p.m.
of any weekday; any time before the hour of 7:00 a.m. of any weekday; any time after the hour
of 5:00 p.m. of any Saturday; any time before the hour of 8:00 a.m. of any Saturday; any time on
any Sunday; and any time on any of the following holidays: New Year's Day; Memorial Day;
Independence Day; Labor Day; Veteran's Day; Thanksgiving Day; and Christmas Day, provided
that if in any calendar year any such holiday falls on a Sunday, the following Monday shall
constitute the holiday.” (Ord. No. 2316, • 2, 5-6-14)
Section 4262: Unless a permit to do shall first have been obtained as provided in Section 4263,
no person shall during prohibited hours engage in any earth excavation, land fill or earth moving
operation or in the construction of any portion of a building or structure, nor shall any person
during prohibited hours use or operate any truck, tractor, crane, rig or any mechanical
equipment of any kind in connection with, in the performance of or in furtherance of any of the
foregoing.
Section 4263: Any person desiring a permit to do any act described in Section 4262 during
prohibited hours may make application to the Superintendent of Building and Safety for a permit
therefore. No such permit shall be granted unless the applicant therefore submits proof of
154
special circumstances establishing that the performance of any such act during prohibited hours
is by its very nature necessary, or that the public welfare of the City or of the community will be
better served by the performance of such activities during prohibited hours, or that the location
for which a permit is requested is so far removed from occupied buildings that the public welfare
and convenience will not be adversely affected by the performance of any such work during
prohibited hours. Mere financial hardship or loss shall not of itself constitute sufficient proof of
necessity to warrant the issuance of a permit under this Section.
The City exempts noise associated with construction as long as it occurs between the hours of
7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday (Letter to EIP Associates regarding the
exemption of construction activity per City Code Section 4261, Don Penman, Assistant City
Manager/Development Services Director, City of Arcadia, December 14, 2005).
However, grading and construction activities onsite for the proposed project shall be limited to
7:00 am to 5:00 pm Monday through Friday, and 8:00 am to 5:00 pm on Saturdays (e.g. a more
restricted standard than the City’s Noise Ordinance). The applicant has agreed to this
restriction and it is included as Mitigation Measure NO-01.
B. Construction Equipment Noise
Construction-related equipment noise ranges widely from up to 70 to 100 dBA at 50 feet from
the equipment. Often equipment operates at full power for short periods of time, with noise
levels fluctuating over a range. Typical construction equipment noise levels from equipment
powered by internal combustion engines are shown graphically below. No pile driving is
proposed onsite and the use of jack hammers and rock drills is unlikely, thus most construction
equipment related noise onsite should be between 80-90 dBA at 50 feet from the source.
Table 3.7.1
Typical Outdoor Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
Construction Phase
Noise Level
at 50 feet with
Mufflers
Noise Level
at 60 feet with
Mufflers
Noise Level
at 100 feet with
Mufflers
Noise Level
at 200 feet with
Mufflers
Ground Clearing 82 80 76 70
Excavation/Grading 86 84 80 74
Foundations 77 75 71 65
Structural 83 81 77 71
External Finishing 86 84 80 74
Source: U. S. EPA 1971
155
Exhibit 3.7.1: Typical Construction Noise Levels
The types of equipment onsite will differ during various construction stages. The type of
equipment will be identified prior to submittal of the staging plan.
156
C. Vibration Offsite from Construction Equipment Use Onsite
The City exempts vibration associated with construction as long as it occurs between the hours
of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday (Letter to EIP Associates regarding the
exemption of construction activity per City Code Section 4261, Don Penman, Assistant City
Manager/Development Services Director, City of Arcadia, December 14, 2005). However,
grading and construction activities onsite for the proposed project shall be limited to 7:00 am to
5:00 pm Monday through Friday, and 8:00 am to 5:00 pm on Saturdays (e.g. a more restricted
standard than the City’s Noise Ordinance).
The City has vibration standards for uses that cause a steady state or impact vibration on or
beyond a property line (Section 9266.9) for businesses and occupations conducted within the
M-1 Planned Industrial District. These standards do not apply to construction activities.
A construction-related vibration plan is a required mitigation measure when pile drivers, rock
drills and pavement breakers are used and impact offsite uses (SC 4.11-4, MM4.11-4: 2010
General Plan Update MMRP). None of these construction activities are planned for the project.
However, some public agencies recommend guidelines when ground-borne vibration or ground-
borne noise is considered excessive. Usually these agencies are involved in freeway
construction rail freight or passenger operations or transit operations. The Federal
Transportation Agency recommends guidelines of below 80 Vdb (Vibration Velocity Level or Lv)
for general assessment of Residences where people normally sleep, or 83 VdB for institutional
land uses with primarily daytime use, to minimize human annoyance. Since grading is limited to
the daytime hours stated above, the institutional land use category is appropriate for the project
site. The FTA Guidelines recommend vibrations below 94 Lv for non-engineered timber and
masonry buildings to avoid potential damage. Pile driving, which produces the highest vibration
levels (e.g. up to 112 Lv at 25 feet) is not proposed onsite. The FTA methodology is listed in
Tables 8-1, 12-2, 12-3, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Office of Planning and
Environment, Federal Transit Administration, May 2008).
3.7.2 Construction Noise and Vibration Project Impacts
Thresholds of Significance for Noise and Vibration
The City’s Noise Ordinance specifies the threshold of significance for noise exposure for
developed properties and focuses on noise exposure from one land use parcel to another. The
General Plan guidelines include acceptable noise levels for residential development. These
standards apply to land use entitlement changes and noise exposure following buildout
respectively and not to construction-related noise.
As stated, the City exempts construction from the City’s Noise Ordinance during non-prohibited
hours (e.g., 7:00 am to 7:00 pm Monday to Saturdays and federal holidays). This exemption is
confirmed by correspondence from the City (Appendix H).
157
The City does not have specific vibration standards for construction activities. The evaluation
below uses the guidelines used by the Federal Transit Administration. The threshold of
significance for minimizing human annoyance from vibration during the daytime is 83 VdB
(Vibration Velocity Level or Lv). A guideline below 94 Lv for non-engineered timber and
masonry buildings is the threshold for building damage from vibration. The discussion below
includes additional FTA guidelines used for specific construction equipment. However, the
equipment used (e.g. vibration roller or large bulldozer) is not specified.
The geographical area used for identification of project construction noise and vibration impacts
is Parcel 1 of TPM 72681 and its immediate surroundings. The primary focus of the vibfration
impact analysis is adjacent residential lots in the adjacent lot north along Canyon Road and the
lots located adjacent to the southern boundary of Parcel 1. .
A. Construction Noise Impacts
Special limited construction hours are recommended for the project to minimize disruption of
offsite residents desiring solitude and quiet during their early morning and evening hours, and to
limit traffic congestion during peak hours from hauling activities. Grading and construction
activities onsite shall be limited to 7:00 am to 5:00 pm Monday through Friday, and 8:00 am to
5:00 pm on Saturdays. Construction and grading shall be prohibited on Sundays and federal
holidays.
Only two adjacent residential structures along Canyon Road (Parcels 1, 2) of the nine adjacent
offsite lots are located within 100 feet of the graded area onsite. The remaining seven adjacent
units will experience maximum noise levels of less than 70 to 80 dBA Leq (Table 3.2.2.1) from
construction at the pad perimeters (see Exhibit 2.1.2).
The residence in Lot 18 on the Vista Avenue cul-de-sac is 150 feet from the entrance road
onsite and the residence in Lot 17 on the Vista Avenue cul-de-sac is 225 feet from the easterly
graded pad area. The residences within Lots 14-17 adjacent to Carolwood Drive and Canyon
Road are approximately 375 to 395 feet from grading for the access road onsite. The residence
for Lot 18 is approximately 290 feet from the access road grading.
Construction noise levels decline with distance, but not in direct proportion to the distance
increase. For example, construction equipment peak noise levels of 70 to 95 dBA at 50 feet
from the noise source decline to 58 to 83 dBA at 200 feet from the noise source. In addition,
average noise levels for construction equipment are usually 5 to 15 percent lower than the peak
noise levels. This implies a peak noise level of 70.5 dBA at 200 feet results in an average noise
level of approximately 63.5 dBA at 200 feet.
While blasting onsite is not contemplated for the project, structures located beyond 115 feet
from a rock blasting area typically are not subject to vibration levels exceeding Caltrans
thresholds for damage prevention (Noise, Draft General Plan EIR, p. 4.11.4).
158
No additional mitigation measures for construction noise impacts, beyond those required for
proper mufflers for construction equipment in Section 3.6, and the additional restriction on
construction hours stated above are recommended. The construction noise impact is Less than
Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.
The total noise produced from combining noisy operations in the same time period is not
significantly greater than the level produced if the operations are performed separately (Section
1.2.1.4, FTA, Ibid, p. 12-8). Therefore, it is often less annoying to combine construction
activities near sensitive uses and compress the schedule to complete the work as soon as
possible. When feasible, construction equipment noise should be limited to 80 (8-hour Leq
(dBA)) to be less annoying to offsite residents during daytime grading hours (Section 12.1.3,
FTA, Ibid, p. 12-8).
Construction noise will undoubtedly have an adverse impact on animals and birds, and is
especially stressful for nesting birds. However, the dominant response for all animals and birds
is to flee the areas adjacent to grading areas when noise levels are accelerated. This often
occurs during pre-construction activities prior to grading. Some species may be displaced
temporarily and others may leave permanently. Some species may reoccupy a noise impacted
area once the construction ceases.
Construction noise impacts on offsite residents will be annoying, particularly for residents at
home during the City’s construction hours. However, grading and construction activities onsite
for the proposed project shall be limited to 7:00 am to 5:00 pm Monday through Friday, and 8:00
am to 5:00 pm on Saturdays (e.g. a more restricted standard than in AMC Section 4261. Noise
Impacts after Buildout
Following construction of all facilities onsite, including the proposed single dwelling unit, the
primary noise levels onsite will be related to use of lawn equipment, vehicle use, other power
tools and human activities. The noise levels generated onsite would be similar to those
generated by adjacent residences and would be similar to noise generated by others in the
residential neighborhood. Given the source and type of noise generated by project operation,
and the minimum distance of 160 feet of the proposed residential pad from the property lines,
the noise impacts after project buildout are Less than Significant.
B. Offsite Vibration Impacts
Offsite residents of the adjacent residential parcels, or their building structures, will not be
exposed to high levels of vibration from construction activities onsite. The distances between
offsite residences and onsite grading will preclude vibration levels considered significant.
Construction grading onsite will not exceed the stated guidelines because of the separation of
the graded area from offsite parcels. A 78 Lv vibration is barely “feelable” vibration for
residences during the day (Table 8-3, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Office of
Planning and Environment, Federal Transit Administration, May 2008).
159
Based on the FTA methodology, a vibration roller (Lv at 25 ft = 94 Lv) would generate a vibration
of only 0.020 in/sec at 120 feet or 43 meters (Parcel 1 offsite near the project entrance). A large
bulldozer (Lv at 25 ft = 87 Lv) would generate a vibration of only 0.008 in/sec at the referenced
distance. The FTA threshold for non-engineered timber and masonry buildings is 0.20 in/sec.
Therefore, construction equipment onsite will cause no damage to offsite residences. All other
residences adjacent to the project site are located more than 225 feet (69 meters) from the
grading areas onsite. The project construction equipment vibration impact is Less than
Significant.
While blasting onsite is not contemplated for the prject, structures beyond 115 feet from a rock
blasting are typically are not subject to vibration levels exceeding Caltrans thresholds for
damage prevention (Noise Element, Draft General Plan EIR, p. 4.11.4).
Given the above discussion, the project impact on property damage and offsite residents is Less
than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.
3.7.3 Mitigation Measures for Construction Noise and Vibration Project Impacts
NOI-1: Grading and construction activities onsite shall be limited to 7:00 am to 5:00 pm Monday
through Friday, and 8:00 am to 5:00 pm on Saturdays. Construction and grading shall be
prohibited on Sundays and holidays specified in Ordinance 2316. The Building and
Construction Division shall ensure compliance.
VIB-01: Demolition, earth-moving and ground-impacting operations shall be phased so as not
to occur in the same period whenever feasible. Unlike noise impacts, the total vibration level
produced could be significantly less when each vibration source operates separately. The
Building and Construction Division shall ensure compliance.
3.7.4 Level of Significance of Construction Noise and Vibration Project Impacts
The Level of Significance for construction noise and vibration project impacts is Less than
Significant With Mitigation Incorporated.
3.7.5 Construction Noise and Vibration Cumulative Impacts
The geographical area used for identification of cumulative project air quality impacts is TPM
72681 and its immediate surroundings (Exhibit 2.1.1).
There are no other projects proposed or approved within the general area of the project site.
The traffic noise level along Canyon Drive is not anticipated to increase substantially and is not
a significant cumulative effect. Therefore, the construction and vibration cumulative impact is
No Impact.
160
3.7.6 Level of Significance of Cumulative Construction Noise and Vibration
Impacts
No Impact.
161
3.8 OTHER EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
An evaluation of the topical environmental issues included in the CEQA Initial Study Checklist
concluded the project would not have a significant effect on the environmental topics discussed
below. The project impacts related to these topics, which were not addressed in Section 3.1-
3.7, are either Less than Significant or non-existent.
The geographical scope of the project analysis for the issues listed below is generally within 300
feet of the graded area onsite (Exhibit 2.3.1). However, when a service provider is involved (i.e.
water, sewer, drainage) the geographical scope is expanded to either include the service area
of the provider, or the analysis subarea (e.g. local drainage subarea) of a relevant technical
study.
The baseline timeframe for the issues discussed below for existing conditions is February 2014,
the date of the first screencheck submittal of the Draft EIR to the City, unless stated specifically
in the text below.
3.8.1 Agricultural Resources
The project site is designated for Residential Estate uses and there are no agricultural
resources onsite. Therefore, the project will have No Impact on agricultural resources.
3.8.2 Cultural Resources
The project site has no known historical, archaeological or paleontological resources. No
resources have been encountered in development of prior projects in the project area. The
project site is not included in the thirty-one studies identified by the City of Arcadia in November
2009 (Table 4.5-1: Cultural Resources Studies within Arcadia, Section 4.5: Cultural Resources,
Arcadia General Plan Update DEIR, SCH 2009091034 or in the list of 70 historic resources
(Table 4.5.2: Built Environmental Historic Resources, Arcadia General Plan Update DEIR, SCH
2009091034) within the City. Selected polices of historical resources of hillsides and physical
characteristics that are important to the “special character, historic identity, or aesthetic setting
of the community” were discussed in Section 3.1: Land Use.
ASM Affiliates, Inc. completed an archaeological survey of the 90.5 acre project site in March
2012 and revised its report for the current grading plan in December 2013. The complete report
is included as Appendix K. Figure 5 in Appendix K shows the project area surveyed and the
proposed driveway and proposed building pad.
A records search was completed for areas within a ½ mile radius of the project area and a
directed cultural resource was conducted onsite. Please note that the area of potential impact
for cultural resources is the entire 90.5 acre property. Fifteen archaeological reports were
identified within the search radius (Table 1, Appendix K). Of the fifteen reports only one
occurred within the project area and one occurred directly adjacent to the project area. No
162
cultural resources have been identified within the project area of potential impact. The directed
pedestrian survey of the project area, which focused on areas with the greatest maneuverability
and visibility, were closely examined. Steep slopes were generally avoided as artifact
distributions are unlikely to persist intact along these gradients. No cultural resources were
identified during the directed survey. The survey report concluded that no further cultural
resource work or construction monitoring is recommended.
The Native American Heritage Commission completed a search of their Sacred Land Files to
identify any traditional cultural properties or sacred sites within ½ mile of the project area. No
sites were identified.
If no archaeological resources are recorded on the project site based on past surveys
completed, then no further action is required (Table 2-1, MM 4.5-2: 2010 General Plan Update
Final EIR (SCH 2009081034).
The following Standard Condition of Approval is recommended to ensure unknown
archaeological resources are not uncovered during grading and excavation activities:
1. If potential archaeological materials are uncovered during grading, the contractor shall
be required to halt work in the immediate area of the find, and to retain a professional
archaeologist to examine the material to determine whether it is a “unique archaeological
resource” as defined in Section 21083.2 (g) of the State CEQA Statues. If this determination is
positive, the scientifically, consequential information shall be fully recovered by the
archaeologist. Work may continue outside the area of the find. However, no further work shall
occur in the immediate location of the find until all information recovery has been completed and
a report concerning same filed with the Planning Division.
There is always the remote possibility of subsurface resources or human remains being
accidentally and unexpectedly uncovered during excavation. The project is subject to California
Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Pubic Resource Code Section 5097.98, which
requires halting work and consulting with the County Coroner upon unforeseen discovery of
human remains. The recommended Condition of Approval listed above requires halting of work,
further investigation and recovery of any human remains or unique archaeological resources is
recommended.
If potential archaeological materials are uncovered during grading, the contractor shall halt work
in the immediate area of the find, and retain a professional archaeologist to examine the
material to determine whether it is a “unique archaeological resource,” as defined in Section
21083.2 (g) of the State CEQA Statues. If the determination is positive, the scientifically,
consequential information shall be fully recovered by the archeologist. Work may continue
outside of the area of the find. However, no further work shall occur in the immediate location of
the find until all information recovery has been completed and a report concerning same filed
with the Planning Division.
163
The initial purpose of the Condition of Approval is not to ascertain the nature of a find, but to
establish that when any excavation accidentally encounters potential cultural resources, that
work is stopped in the area of the potential resource and the Planning Department notified
immediately. The nature and significance of the potential find will be verified by qualified
cultural resource professionals at that stage of the process. Construction personnel are qualified
to to detmine if a potential cultural resource, regardless of its source or value, is present onsite.
The project has a Less than Significant Impact on cultural resources.
3.8.3 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
here is no evidence of dumping onsite or evidence of equipment, chemicals, petroleum products
or other materials that would be considered hazardous. Therefore, there are no known surface
or likely sub-surface hazardous wastes onsite. The California Regional Water Quality Control
Board website www.geo-tracker.swrcb.ca.gov does not identify any hazardous waste sites
within the project vicinity (e.g. north of Elkins Avenue). In accordance with local, state and
federal regulations, all fuels and lubricants will be safely stored onsite during construction and
pose no hazards to people onsite or offsite. Upon buildout, the project site will use only
common landscaping, paint and household chemicals. The project has a Less than Significant
Impact on hazards and hazardous materials.
3.8.4 Mineral Resources
The Resource Element of the General Plan includes the project site in a MRZ-3 mineral
resource zone. The significance of mineral deposits for the MRZ-3 zone cannot be determined
from the available data (Figure RS-1: Mineral Resources Zone, Resource Sustainability
Element).
However, the City has identified four sites which are undeveloped and only the Livingston-
Graham sand and gravel extraction site in Irwindale is available. With grading on only 1.34
acres, the project impact on mineral resources is Less than Significant.
3.8.5 Population/Housing
The proposed project includes only one dwelling units and a projected population of less than
five persons. (The average household size in the City is 2.8 persons per dwelling unit). The
project does not displace any existing housing units or persons, or necessitate the construction
of replacement housing elsewhere. Therefore, the project has No Impact on housing and
population displacement.
The Draft Final Housing Element (October 2013) indicates that 61 percent of the housing units
in the City are single-family detached and the median sale price in December 2012 was
$962,750 (Housing Element, Table H-2: Summary of Housing Unit Types and Table H-4 Median
Home Prices). The need for large households of above moderate income (120%+ Median
Family Income) was 434 units (Table H-6: Summary of Housing Need) and the City’s share for
164
accommodating regional housing needs for 2008-14 is 2,281 total units (Table H-5: RHNA
2014-2021).
3.8.6 Public Services
The proposed project does not result in adverse impacts on public services (i.e. fire, police,
schools, parks, and other public facilities). The public service demands for a project of one
dwelling unit are minimal and Less than Significant.
The discussion of specific public service providers is included below.
A. Police Protection
The Arcadia Police Department provides police protection to the project site and to the project
area from headquarters at 250 W. Huntington Drive. The Department has 75 sworn officers and
support staff.
Standard conditions of approval include compliance with design features to prevent crimes (e.g.,
defensible space concepts) and security measures for residential buildings. The project has a
Less than Significant Impact on police protection services.
B. Schools
The Arcadia Unified School District serves the project area and assesses school impact fees on
residential projects. The current fee for residential uses is $2.95 per square foot. The applicant
must provide evidence of payment of school impact fees prior to issuance of a building permit.
Highland Oaks Elementary (K-5), Foothill Middle School (6-8) and Arcadia High School (9-12)
will serve the project site. Given the low student generation of the project and the required
payment of school impact fees, the project has a Less than Significant Impact on local public
school services.
C. Parks
The nearest park facilities to the project site are Arcadia Wilderness Park (120 acres) and the
field and playground at Highland Oaks Elementary (3.8 acres).
The project does not generate the need for new parks because of the small population onsite.
Therefore, the project impact on demand for new parks is Less than Significant. The project
impact on existing maintenance of parks is also Less than Significant. The project is subject to
the City’s park facility impact fee (Ordinance 2237).
D. Other City Public Facilities
The project will not have adverse impacts on other public facilities: Arcadia Public Library (240
West Duarte), Los Angeles County Library (4153 Live Oak Drive) and the Civic Center/Senior
Center (365 Campus Drive)), because of the small project population. Therefore, the project
has No Impact on other public facilities.
165
3.8.7 Recreation
The project impact on existing neighborhood parks and regional parks was discussed above.
The project impact on other recreational facilities offsite is Less than Significant.
The project does not include a recreational facilities onsite and does not require the construction
of recreational facilities offsite that may have adverse physical effects.
3.8.8 Transportation/Traffic
With one dwelling unit, the project generates 9.5 ADT. The existing volumes on Canyon Road
near the project site are less than 600 ADT. Given the project’s low trip generation and the
available capacity on the roadway network, the project will have a Less than Significant Impact
on the operation of local roadways.
Construction related traffic is subject to a future Truck Hauling Plan, which specifies permissible
routes for equipment hauling. The restricted hours for truck hauling (between 9:00 am and 2:00
pm Monday through Friday and between 8:00 am to 5:00 pm on Saturdays) recommended in
Mitigation Measure AQ-03 reduce the potential for construction vehicular impacts during peak
hours.. The project impact from construction hauling is Less than Significant.
3.8.9 Utilities and Service Systems
Public utility and service system increases are not significant effects, unless they result in new
physical facilities that cause significant effects. No new physical facilities (i.e., water or
wastewater treatment plants, new sewer lines) are needed for the project other than onsite
lateral lines to connect the proposed pad to existing facilities in Canyon Road and a water
booster system to ensure adequate fire flow onsite. The project impact on utility and service
systems is Less than Significant. .
It should be noted that CalEEMod projects operational emissions due to utility and service
systems in its emission projections.
A. Water
The Arcadia Public Services Department maintains the water storage and distribution system in
the City. The system consists of local groundwater wells, natural underground storage basins,
reservoirs, booster pump stations and 165 miles of pipelines. The water supply includes local
sources in the groundwater basins, treated and imported water. The water serve area in the
City ranges in elevation from 300 to 1,200 feet msl. Booster pump stations move water to 15
reservoirs at higher elevations with a combined total capacity of 44.8 million gallons. Three
additional forebay reservoirs have a capacity of 1.55 million gallons. Interconnections with
adjacent water systems provide short-term emergency water supply needs. The Water Master
Plan is updated every five years.
166
All development onsite will be located below 1,200 feet msl and water lines in Canyon Road will
supply the project. The project has a Less than Significant Impact on water demand, treatment
and water supply.
B. Wastewater
The Arcadia Public Works Department manages local sewage collection system, with over 130
miles of pipelines and support booster station. The City updates its Sewer Master Plan and
Hydraulic Modeling Report every 10 years. Local sewage flows into regional trunk lines owned
by the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (CSDLA). CSDLA conveys collected
sewage to treatment plans located in Whittier (San Jose Creek West Water Reclamation Plan)
and Carson (Carson Joint Water Pollution Control Plant). The Public Works Service
Department has indicated the 8-inch sewer main in Canyon Road has the capacity to meet the
needs of the project (Correspondence from Tiffany Lee to Tom Li, April 7, 2014). . Project
development will have a Less than Significant Impact on wastewater services.
C. Solid Waste
The City contracts with private waste haulers for refuse pick up and recycling services. Arcadia
Reclamation, Inc. operates an inert materials landfill in a former quarry site for construction
debris. The Consolidated Sanitation District of Los Angeles County has adequate capacity to
serve the project and the City’s waste provider, Consolidated Disposal, has adequate capacity.
The Integrated Waste Management Authority of Los Angeles County plans for countywide
landfill capacity for at least fifteen years capacity.
The project must comply with all state and local regulations regarding recycling and disposal of
solid wastes. The project will have a Less than Significant Impact on solid waste services.
D. Electricity/Natural Gas
All electrical, natural gas and other urban utility systems (i.e. cable, telephone, wireless access,
etc.) are available at the project site in Canyon Road. The project demand for electricity and
natural gas is minimal because only one dwelling unit is proposed. Therefore, the project has a
Less than Significant Impact on public utilities.
3.8.10 Mandatory Findings of Significance
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
167
The biological survey for the project was completed for more than 100 acres (Exhibit 2.1.1).
The report was summarized in Section 3.2 and included as Appendix D in Volume 2:
Appendices.
The project proposes grading on 1.34 acres,. The remaining 89 acres will be subject to a
Conservation Easement and will be zoned Open Space. There are no federal or state rare or
endangered wildlife or fish species observed residing or nesting onsite. The American
Peregrine Falcon (CA Endangered) was observed onsite but no suitable nesting habitat occur
onsite.
The Cooper’s Hawk and Southern California Rufous-Crowned Sparrow (CDFW Watch List)
were observed and suitable nesting trees may occur onsite. The Oak Titmouse (American Bird
Conservancy: State Special Animal) was also observed onsite. Any active nests will be
identified 72 hours prior to grading and active nests will be protected. Therefore, the project
impact will be Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated.
The San Diego Desert Woodrat (CDFW: State Species of Special Concern) is present onsite
and nests were observed. All nesting areas identified within the graded area will be relocated to
safer areas. Therefore, the project impact will be Less than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated.
Two plants designated Federal Species of Concern that may occur onsite are the Mariposa Lily
and Parish’s Gooseberry. There are fourteen CNPS 1A, 1B, 2 plant species that may occur
onsite. However, neither of the two special status species were observed onsite during the
focused plant surveys in May 2012 and May 2014. With only 1.34 acres of grading, it is
presumed that if rare plants were observed prior to grading, the project impacts can be reduced
to Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated (relocation or planting elsewhere).
Grading on 1.34 acres within Parcel 1 will result in removal of thirty-two (32) living oak trees.
However, the required mitigation measures for the project include replacement of thirty-two (32)
oaks in Parcel 2 and protection-in-place (PIP) of 33 oak trees in Parcel 1. The project does not
impact sixty-three (63) existing oak trees in Parcel 1. The project will have No Impact on
additional oaks located in Parcel 2 (Exhibit 3.2.1).
Mitigation Measure OAK-05 requires the planting of potted seedlings for replacement oaks
within Parcel 2 and monitoring their vitality for ten years. If a habitat bank is established, as a
permitted use with the Conservation Easement, additional oak trees could be planted near of
within the 4.8 acres of oak woodland habitat in the northern portion of Parcel 2. Therefore, the
project impact on oak trees is Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. As
established in the Cultural Resources Study (Appendix K) there are no historic resources onsite.
Therefore, the project has No Impact on historic resources.
(b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are
168
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
While the region and area have cumulative air quality and greenhouse gas impacts, the
project’s contribution to these cumulative impacts is less than cumulatively considerable (see
Table 3.6.1, Table 3.6.2 and Section 3.6.5). Therefore, the project cumulative impacts are Less
than Significant (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15130 (a) (3)).
(c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
The project does not result in substantial adverse effects on human beings, directly or indirectly.
Examples of adverse effects upon human beings would be air quality-related health impacts, ,
exposure to hazardous waste, danger from seismic events due to faulty construction, severe fire
hazards or exposure to contaminated water (see Sections 3.3, 3.5, 3.6). The project has no
substantial adverse effect on human beings.
169
UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS
4.0 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS
All potential project effects that are adverse are identified in Section 3.0.
A significant effect on the environment means a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse
change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project (Section 15382).
The definition of a project is the whole of the action, which has a potential for resulting in either
a direct or indirect change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical
change in the environment (Section 15378). All phases of project planning, implementation and
operation are considered (Section 15063). Section 15161 includes planning, construction and
operation.
Section 15126.2 of the CEQA Guidelines states the Lead Agency will normally limits its
examination to changes in the existing physical conditions in the affected area as they exist at
the time the Notice of Preparation is published. Direct and indirect significant effects (Section
15358, Ibid) of the project on the environment must be clearly identified and described, given
due consideration to both the short-term and long-term effects.
CEQA analysis of project impacts is based on stated thresholds of significance, whether these
are defined specifically for a project, or they are determined based on City policies and
regulations. The City has no formally adopted thresholds of significance for environmental
analysis. If desired, thresholds of significance may be adopted by any Lead Agency in a noticed
public hearing.
In CEQA analysis, thresholds of significance differ for each environmental topic and include
adopted thresholds from other responsible agencies and thresholds from conventional CEQA
practices. For example, air quality impacts are assessed based on SCAQMD daily emission
threshold for construction and operation. When one factor causes another, but the factor is
permitted by ordinance or regulation, that factor takes a secondary consideration in the final
determination. For example, while grading causes landform modification and changes in
viewshed, the direct effect (grading) is permitted when it is in compliance with City regulations
and policies.
Similarly, the removal of natural oaks is permitted when a project complies with the Oak Tree
Protection Ordinance. The Ordinance does not prohibit oak tree removals, but requires
information on the health and physical characteristics of existing oaks and identifies what oaks,
if any, should be protected if feasible in comparison to the development proposal. The
recommendations of a certified arborist form the basis for further regulation.
170
Unavoidable Adverse View Impacts
A comprehensive discussion of the project impacts on views was included in Section 3.1.1 D
and Section 3.1.2 F and is not repeated herein.
City policies require the building permit and Draft Landscape Plan for the building pad be
reviewed concurrently. Both plans are subject to Design Review and Plan Check Review.
Neither plan is submitted with a Tentative Parcel Map application. Therefore, for this EIR,
known project details are limited to completion of grading and implementation of the Conceptual
Landscape Plan (Phase 1). Therefore, the following recommendations are provided for the
City’s consideration:
1. To fully comply with the legal requirements of CEQA, a Statement of Overriding
Considerations (SOC) is recommended for TPM buildout impacts on views because the project
has a short-term impact on views until the hydro-seeded plants and trees planted onsite in
Parcel 1 mature. When mature, the plants and trees provide sufficient mitigation in the long-
term for project view impacts. A Statement of Overriding Considerations is recommended for
short-term view impacts only.
2. Section 15268 (d) of the CEQA Guidelines states that when one or more actions are
discretionary, all actions, including those that are ministerial for the project are considered
discretionary and subject to CEQA. The City is the Lead Agency and may specify or modify
existing CEQA procedures (Section 15268) and determine what actions are ministerial and what
actions are discretionary. The Planning Division has stated they usually regard review of the
Draft Landscape Plan and Building Permit as ministerial. If the City decides that future review of
the Building Plan and Landscape Plan (Phase 2) are discretionary, a finding in the staff report
indicating that the Final EIR is adequate for the “final” project in its entirety would be needed. If
future actions are ministerial no additional environmental evaluation would be required.
The Draft Landscape Plan (Phase 2) provides new information only for the landscaping
surrounding the residence (Zone A) within the 0.36 acre building pad. The level building pad is
not highly visible to offsite locations and the new landscaping is not likely to result in new
significant view effects. In addition, the residence itself will block most views of the
manufactured slope northwest of the residence. The residence is not likely to cause significant
effects since its mass and height must comply with the Zoning Code. The Design Review and
Plan Check review for a residential project consistent with existing Zoning regulations deal with
architectural and landscaping issues that rarely can be classified as significant effects under
CEQA regulations or judicial rulings. Both the Draft Landscape Plan and Draft Building Plan are
subject to Design Review.
171
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT
5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT
Section 5.0 identifies and discusses the potential impacts of alternatives to the project. The no
project alternative plus four project alternatives are analyzed, and their potential impacts
compared with the project. A project alternatives matrix provides a qualitative comparison of
specific environmental issues related to the project, along with selected statistic data.
5.1 ALTERNATIVE 1: NO-PROJECT/NO-BUILD
5.2 ALTERNATIVE 2: CONTIGUOUS DEVELOPMENT
WITH EASTERN ACCESS
5.3 ALTERNATIVE 3: CONTIGUOUS DEVELOPMENT
WITH WESTERN ACCESS
5.4 ALTERNATIVE 4: OPEN SPACE – RESOURCE PROTECTION
5.5 ALTERNATIVE 5: APPROVED TWO UNIT SUBDIVISION
5.6 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES MATRIX
5.7 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES CONCLUSIONS
This section is prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6, which specifies that an
EIR shall describe a reasonable range of alternatives to the project, or to the location of the
project, which could feasibly attain most of the basis project objectives, and could avoid or
substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects of the project. The discussion should
allow meaningful evaluation, analysis and comparison of the alternatives with the proposed
project. Among the factors that may be taken into account when assessing the feasibility of
project alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, General
Plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether
the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site.
The Project Objectives were listed in Section 2.3.4. The objectives of the project are:
Develop one residential dwelling unit onsite consistent with the General Plan and Zoning
designations in the City of Arcadia.
Develop a building pad and access driveway consistent with City guidelines and the
Residential Mountainous Development Permit.
Minimize the dangers of landslides, mudflows and wildfire hazards onsite for future onsite
residents and the adjacent offsite property owners through implementation of the Grading Plan
and Drainage Plan.
While other alternative locations, if they exist and are available for sale could be included in the
analysis, the impacts at an alternative site may be similar or greater than those projected for the
172
proposed project. The applicant has owned the project site since 2004 and desires to develop
this site. Since his objective is a property owner’s right, no alternative sites are being
considered for the project. However, alternative pad locations are included in Alternatives 2, 3.
The project alternatives herein include different pad locations with different access, topographic
elevation and landform modifications resulting from site grading for the access entrance and
building pad..
The focus of comparison for the project and project alternatives is on five issues: (1) Quantity
and location of grading, (2) Change in topography viewed from offsite southern locations, (3)
Likelihood of mudlfows, earthquake-induced landslides and fire hazards, (4) Removal of healthy
oak trees protected by the Tree Preservation Ordinance, and (5) Economic viability of a project
for the applicant. However, the primary focus remains on reducing the potential environmental
impacts of the project.
Section 5.1 to Section 5.4 includes discussion of five project alternatives. Exhibit 2.1.2: Project
Area (ALTA Base) in Section 2 shows the project and the adjacent offsite residential lots north
along Canyon Road from the project site and south of the project’s southern boundaries.
5.1 ALTERNATIVE 1: NO-PROJECT/NO-BUILD
Alternative 1 is the no-project/no-build alternative. Development onsite may not occur without
City approval of a tentative parcel map and Residential Mountainous Development Permit. In
Alternative 1, no new development would occur on the project site and no grading would occur.
The existing General Plan and Zoning designations would remain in place, no permanent open
space would be designated, and the property would remain in private ownership.
No grading or landform modification would occur and Alternative 1 would result in fewer traffic
and air quality impacts than the proposed project. However, since no development or
construction activity would occur onsite, the existing drainage patterns would continue, with
associated decreases in water quality and, with no grading, an increased danger of wildland
fires. Grading for the project and the fuel modification zones proposed will reduce the area fire
danger. No economic benefit would occur for the property owner and the City would not
received increased property taxes, or additional units credited to its Regional Housing Needs
Assessment.
Alternative 1 is rejected from further consideration as a project alternative since a long-standing
public controversy over development for the project site would not be resolved, no additional
open space would be designated in the General Plan or preserved by a Conservation
Easement, and the property owner would not achieve an economic return for his ownership of
property designated for residential development.
5.2 ALTERNATIVE 2: CONTIGUOUS DEVELOPMENT WITH EASTERN ACCESS
Alternative 2 proposes one dwelling unit on approximately 1.20 acres located in the southern
portion of the project site below 1,050 feet msl contiguous to existing offsite development. The
173
residential pad may be elevated slightly above existing grade and grading onsite would be
balanced. With a 15,000 square foot minimum lot (34.2 percent lot coverage) one dwelling unit
would be developed onsite with a maximum 5,250 square foot house. .
The precise street alignment is not indicated for the Alternative 2 entrance and would l be based
on fire and emergency vehicle, and traffic and engineering requirements. However, the location
is likely south of the proposed project entrance on Canyon Drive adjacent to Tract 20211 (Lot
18).
Alternative 2 would reduce the loss of oaks compared to the project. Approximately three oaks
would be impacted by Alternative 2. However, approximately a quarter of the oak
woodland/riparian habitat in the southeast area of the site below 1,050 feet msl would be
removed by grading. The grading required to develop Alternative 2 would be less than the
project because of the shorter street length.
Alternative 2 concentrates development below 1,050 feet msl in the eastern portion of the
property. This substantially reduces the amount of grading required onsite and alteration of the
existing landforms. However, the new development will be highly visible from offsite residences
to the south until landscaping matures. The situation will be similar to adjacent residential lots
along Carolwood Drive. Natural vegetation along Canyon Road, except for an entrance road,
would be retained.
The building pad in Alternative 2 would be the minimum distance from the southern property
line. The minimum front and rear yard building setback is 25 feet. If the entrance road is
adjacent to the offsite units, a minimum setback of 25 feet would be provided for a landscape
buffer between onsite and offsite units. If an elevated slope is required along the southern edge
of the property for the onsite lots, the setback distance may be increased.
If feasible, all open space outside of the graded area will be subject to a Conservation
Easement with the future property owners. The acreage included in the Easement would
increase slightly compared to the project.
Alternative 2 should be retained in the CEQA review process.
174
Exhibit 5.2.1: Alternative 2: Contiguous Development With Easterly Access)
175
5.3 ALTERNATIVE 3: CONTIGUOUS DEVELOPMENT WITH WESTERN ACCESS
Alternative 3 would obtain site access from Santa Anita Canyon Road west of the City limits with
the City of Sierra Madre and west of the developed parcels fronting on Vista Avenue (Tract
18702, Lot 18). The location of building pads onsite is contiguous to the offsite properties to the
south. The entrance road would be adjacent to the existing land owner’s pool and tennis court.
A new building pad, of similar square footage to the proposed project, would be situated
adjacent to the southern project boundary. The grading would occur below 1,100 feet msl. A
new access road from Santa Anita Canyon Road would be aligned to the northeast and east to
gain access to the building pad.
The grading required to develop Alternative 3 (approximately 1.8 acres) would be slightly more
than that proposed for the project. The residential pads may also be 15,000 sq. feet with
building coverage of 35 percent.
Extensive retaining walls may be required due to the topography to create the access road from
Santa Anita Canyon Road. The building pads in Alternative 3 would be a minimum distance of
80 feet from the southern property line. However, the entrance street would be adjacent to
offsite residential lots (Lot 18) and would cross the onsite drainage.
Eliminating the access road to Canyon Road requires no change in topography or grading in the
easterly portions of the site. New landscaping may obscure views of the pads and street
entrance from the south for most offsite southerly units but, the off-site and on-site units will be
separated by only 100 feet from the onsite units.
The drainage issues associated with Alternative 3 may be complex because of the existing
ephemeral drainage north of and at higher elevations than the proposed building pad. The
building pad location is not desirable for fire and emergency vehicles obtaining access to the
site from Santa Anita Canyon Road. Santa Anita Canyon Road is unimproved, with sharp
curves and narrow lanes. This presents a serious obstacle for Alternative 3. An access road
from Vista Avenue to Santa Anita Canyon Road is not feasible without acquisition of existing
residential lots.
The economic return from Alternative 3 may be less than the project since the units have no
prominent views, access is more limited and the costs of development may be greater.
The open space onsite outside of the graded area may be subject to a Conservation Easement
with the future property owners.
Alternative 3 would likely require a Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA) with the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife for impacts to the ephemeral drainage impacted by grading.
Alternative 3 should be retained in the CEQA review process.
176
Exhibit 5.3.1: Alternative 3 (C
Exhibit 5.3.1: Alternative 3 (Contiguous Development with Westerly Access)
177
5.4 ALTERNATIVE 4: OPEN SPACE – RESOURCE PROTECTION
Alternative 4 is similar to Alternative 1, except that the entire 90.5 acre site is designated as
Open Space: Protected Resources. Like a Conservation Easement, the Open Space –
Resource Protection land use designation may have some permitted uses.
The Open Space – Resource Protection designation applies to areas which require special
management or regulation because of unusual environmental conditions such as earthquake
fault zones, steep slopes, flood zones, high-risk fire areas, and areas required for the protection
of water quality. While alternative uses of such constrained areas may be allowed, the unique
character or constraints of the area must be adequately addressed. This land use designation
may also include sensitive habitat areas, groundwater recharge basins, hillside areas, and view
shed management areas.
The City could also consider use of the Open Space Overlay Zone (AMC Section 9278.1) or the
Open Space – Outdoor Recreation land use designation. However, the description for the Open
Space – Resource Protection designation seems more appropriate.
No extensive grading, change in topography, view shed or improvement in onsite drainage
facilities would occur. No drainage improvements would be implemented onsite, unless they
were related to an alternative use allowed in the zone. The existing Residential Estate and R-M
Zoning onsite would be removed and no residential development onsite could occur. Possible
alternative low-impact development onsite may be a caretaker residence, a nature center, a
research facility or other facilities related to the natural resources onsite.
The property would be purchased by either a public agency or a non-profit, who would be
responsible for its maintenance. The primary cost would be safeguarding the property from wild
land fires, mudflows and drainage impacts, unauthorized public access and uses that destroy
habitat and cause soil erosion. Unlike the Conservation Easement, the General Plan and
zoning for the site could be amended in the future.
The CEQA Guidelines require designation of an Environmentally Superior Alternative (CEQA
Guidelines, Section 15126.6 (e) (2).) Alternative 4 is regarded as the Environmentally Superior
Alternative (Section 151626.2) per the CEQA Guidelines since the entire property becomes
open space and is actively managed to preserve the project site’s resources and provide
safeguards from wild land fires, mudflows, and habitat degradation. Limited drainage facilities
would be built onsite to improve water quality in storm runoff. Some grading is assumed to
complete the limited drainage facilities.
178
5.5 ALTERNATIVE 5: APPROVED TWO UNIT SUBDIVISION
The City approved a two-unit subdivision along Canyon Road for the property in 2010
(Application Number TPM 09 - 08). The project proposed two units on approximately 2,900
square foot pads directly adjacent to Canyon Road. The units would be highly visible from
Canyon Road and exposed to road noise from area traffic. TPM09-08 is included in Appendix I
Because of the steep ascent of the existing landform adjacent to Canyon Road, retaining walls
were required at the 1,040 msl contour for the southerly parcel and at 1,030 msl for the northern
parcel. Each lot had its own driveway from Canyon Road. Approximately 2.0 acres would be
graded for the development of Alternative 5. The grading plan proposed approximately 5,000
cubic yards of cut and 40 cubic yards of fill. However, Alternative 5 has steeper compacted
slopes (1.5:1 – H: V) than the proposed project, which has maximum compacted slopes of 2:1.
The limited area below the ridge along Canyon Road necessitated the steeper slopes to create
the building pads.
The arborist report for the current project concluded there were 128 oaks in Parcel 1, with 30
oaks recommended for removal, 33 with encroachments requiring protective mitigation, and 65
oaks that will not be impacted. Development of Alternative 5 would remove 12 oaks.
Alternative 5 has greater aesthetic impacts along Canyon Road than the proposed project.
Approximately 460 linear feet would be graded immediately adjacent to Canyon Road to create
the building pad. Manufactured slopes extend west 160 feet (i.e. linear width) from Canyon
Road to create the building pad. The proposed project requires grading for a 26-foot entrance
road only.
While the tentative parcel map was approved by the City, the project did not gain much market
support and was never built. While the units were approximately 5,000 square feet, they were
in close proximity to each other and to Canyon Road. However, three additional existing units
are also located along Canyon Road immediately north of the building pad.
All of the relevant recommended mitigation measures for Alternative 5 are also recommended
for the proposed project. Based on the current biological studies, the MND also did not
adequately address the biological resources onsite. No biological study was completed for the
MND so no surveys were completed for the presence or absence of woodrat nests or bats.
Alternative 5 is presented for informational purposes only. Since CEQA requires the selection
of project alternatives that have less adverse impacts than the project, Alternative 5 does not
qualify as a CEQA project alternative. Alternative 5 has greater aesthetic impacts immediately
adjacent to Canyon Road. All drivers on this segment of Canyon Road will view the
development while only the driveway will be the dominant view for drivers for the project. While
Alternative 5 continues the historical pattern of development further north along Canyon Road,
the segment of Canyon Road immediately north of Carolwood Drive provides some views of
existing vegetation onsite.
179
However, the dominant valid reason for rejection of Alternative 5 is the plan has proven to be
economically infeasible. Economic viability is one of many feasibility criteria identified by
Section 15126.6 (f) (1) that may be considered in assessing project alternatives. No buyers
have been interested in the site design for Alternative 5 and the building product at the projected
cost associated with two units adjacent to each directly adjacent to Canyon Road. Therefore,
Alternative 5 is essentially identical to the No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1).
Therefore, Alternative 5 is rejected from further consideration.
180
Exhibit 5.5.1: Approved Two-Unit Subdivision (2009)
181
5.6 PROJECT ALTERNATIVE MATRIX
Table 5.6.1 compares the project and project alternatives across a variety of project statistics
and environmental effects.
The significant effects ranking is a general comparison of environmental effects of the six
project alternatives, with the lowest ranking (Rank 1) implying less environmental effects.
182
Table 5.6.1: Project Alternative Matrix
Comparisons
(Magnitude 1 -5 higher)
Project
TPM 72681
Project Alternatives
1
No-Build
2
Contiguous
Development
and Eastern
Access
3
Contiguous
Development
and Western
Access
4
Open Space
5
Approved
Two-Unit
Subdivision
TPM 09-08
Graded Area (GA Estimate) 1.5 0 1.2 1.8 0.3 2.0
Cut/Fill Quantities (Estimated Cubic
Yards)
7,0001 0 Not Available Not available 0 5,000/40
Max. Grading Pad Elevation (feet msl) 1,112 -- 1,050 1,100 -- 1,010
Site Access
Canyon Road
None
Canyon Road
Santa Anita
Canyon Drive
Limited &
Restricted
Canyon
Road
Pad Sizes (sq. ft.) 15,600 0 15,600 15,600 0 2,941/2,992
Protected Oaks Removed (Estimated) 32 0 3 0 0-5 12
Removal of Plants and Wildlife (1 – 5) 5 1 3 4 2 3
Drainage Improvements Yes No Yes Yes Minimal Yes
Open Space Acreage (Estimate) 89.0 90.5 89.3 88.7 90.2 88.5
Environmental Issues (Ranking)
Open Space Status
Potential
Private
Conservation
Easement
Residential
Estates
Potential
Private
Conservation
Easement
Potential
Private
Conservation
Easement
Public/Quasi-
Public
Open Space –
Resource
Protection
Potential
Private
Conservation
Easement
Short-Term Aesthetics: Viewshed Comparisons (0=less alteration to 5)
Viewing the Onsite Grading From:
Canyon Road 2 1 2 0 0 4
Residential Lots Adjacent to South
Project Boundaries
2 1 4 4 0 0
Areas ¼ - ½ South of Project South
Boundaries
1 1 2 4 0 0
Other Issues
183
Earthquake Related Landslides (1 –
10)
4 4 3 4 4 4
Mudflows (1 – 10) 3 4 2 4 3 4
Runoff (1 – 10) 3 4 3 3 4 4
High Fire Danger (1 – 10) 4 6 4 5 6 6
Reject as Infeasible No No No No No Yes
Environmental Ranking (1 = Best) 4 2 3 5 1 6
Environmental Ranking based on composite evaluation of alternative impact for landform modification, graded area, viewshed, emergency
access, loss of biological resources.
1-Balanced with shrinkage.
184
5.7 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES CONCLUSIONS
Alternative 4: Open Space – Resources Protection is regarded as the environmentally superior
alternative. Grading onsite would occur for limited drainage improvements and no landforms
would be altered. Hence, the current viewshed is not changed. However, mudflows,
earthquake-induced landslides and potential wildland fires continue to be potential hazards for
adjacent property owners. While Alternative 1 is also open space, the General Plan designation
remains Residential Estates. Alternative 4 would preserve the entire property as open space in
perpetuity.
Alternatives 1: No-Project/No Build, and Alternative 4 would not impact the protected oak trees
onsite, little or no grading would occur onsite and the topography would remain unchanged.
The General Plan designation could be amended in the future for both Alternatives 1, 4.
However, none of the project objectives to develop a dwelling unit, consistent with the General
Plan and Zoning designations, would be achieved in Alternatives 1, 4. Until a future Residential
Mountain Permit is approved, no development could occur onsite. The viewshed would remain
unchanged in the no build alternative.
Alternative 2 reduces the impacts on topography by moving the building pad to lower elevations
below 1,050 feet msl, except for an entrance road to Canyon Road. Only three oaks would be
removed in Alternative 2. Development of Alternative 2 would have a low to high impact on
viewsheds, with the low impact being the viewshed from Canyon Road and the high impact
being the viewshed from the adjacent residential lots to the south. The high viewshed impact
for Alternative 2 from the residential lots to the south is greater than the project because of the
reduced distance between offsite residential lots and onsite grading.
Alternative 3 reduces the impacts on topography by moving the building pads to a lower
elevation than the project in the southwest portion of the site. Offsite access is from Santa
Anita Canyon Road.
No changes in topography above 1,100 feet msl would occur. The onsite and offsite dwelling
units would be separated by 100 feet or more. Alternatives 2, 3 have similar high viewshed
impacts from the offsite residential lots to the south. Alternative 3 has a higher viewshed impact
than the project on their southerly residential lots because of the smaller separation from the
graded area.
Vehicular visibility at the project entrance would be limited and emergency vehicle access along
Santa Anita Canyon Road may increase response times beyond acceptable limits. Alternative 3
would impact the ephemeral drainage and require a CDFG Streambed Alteration Permit.
Alternative 4, like the no build alternative, does not change the existing viewshed. However,
designating the entire site as Open Space removes the possibility of future residential
development with the current General Plan/Zoning designations.
185
Alternative 5 has a smaller graded area than the project and a smaller quantity of grading (5,000
cubic yards). The project would be highly visible from Canyon Road and would be subject to
traffic noise from Canyon Road during peak hours. The existing vegetation in the remaining
acreage would be preserved as open space. Alternative 5 has the most impact of the project
alternatives and the project on viewshed from Canyon Road. As stated earlier, the linear
grading along Canyon Road is approximately 460 feet in length and the linear width is up to 160
feet for the manufactured slope to create the building pad in existing steep terrain.
The status of the open space onsite differs for the alternatives in magnitude and status. In
Alternatives 2, 3, and the project, the open space may be subject to a Conservation Easement.
The open space would be approximately 90.5 and 88.7 acres respectively. In Alternative 1,
there would be no Conservation Easement and the entire property (90.5 acres) is designated
Residential Estates. In Alternative 4, the entire property (90.5 acres) is designated Open Space
– Resource Protection.
In terms of overall ranking of environmental impact, Alternative 3 is regarded as more adverse
than the project because of the limited access from the west from Santa Anita Drive for fire and
emergency vehicles, and the location of the entrance road along the existing offsite lot side .
Alternative 2 is given a higher ranking (e.g. less adverse) than the project because of the
reduced impacts on oaks and the location of the building pad at lower elevation.
It should be noted that the current viewsheds of higher elevations (e.g. above 1,050 feet) is
unchanged in Alternatives 2 and 3 but result in the close proximity of grading and new
development from residential lots adjacent to the project south boundary.
The fire hazard, without mitigation, remains high for all project alternatives. Alternatives that
include little or no development present a fire hazard from natural vegetation. The developed
alternatives present a fire hazard because of human activity, although the new fire retardant
landscaping, landscaping irrigation systems, fuel modification zones, and fire-retardant building
materials reduce the fire hazard. Absent regular brush clearance, the natural conservation
areas present a continuing potential fire hazard for all alternatives. As illustrated by recent
regional fires, the danger may be higher onsite from fires originating offsite and being
accelerated by Santa Ana winds southward, rather than fires being started onsite.
186
IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVALE COMMITMENTS OF
ENERGY SUPPIES AND OTHER RESOURCES
SHOULD THE PROJECT BE IMPLEMENTED
6.0 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF ENERGY
SUPPLIES AND OTHER RESOURCES SHOULD THE PROJECT BE
IMPLEMENTED
Buildout of the project will result in the grading of 1.34 acres onsite and construction of one
residential unit.
Buildout of the project represents a long-term irreversible commitment of the project site for a
residential project with a structural lifespan of 40-50 years. It is unlikely that the new
construction would be replaced by later construction for alternative use in the near future.
The project will require irretrievable commitments of energy supplies and other resources, both
during the construction and operational phases of the project. However, no critical shortages of
material resources or energy supplies for the project have been identified in this analysis. Both
the materials and supplies for the project are typical of wood, steel and masonry construction
projects. The energy resources required for the project include gasoline and diesel fuels during
construction, and electricity and natural gas during operation.
The construction of new or revised water, sewer and electrical systems onsite also will use
resources, including concrete pipes, electrical lines, iron and plastic pipes.
Implementation of the project will result in continued generation of greenhouse gases. The
magnitude of the project-related greenhouse gases (i.e. traffic, energy, water and construction-
related) were projected in Section 3.3 and are Less than Significant.
Because of its small size, the project does not have a significant impact on energy supplies and
other resources.
187
GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS
OF THE PROJECT
7.0 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT
Approval of the project will permit demolition of existing vegetation onsite, grading, and new
construction on 1.34 acres, including utilities, water, sewer and drainage systems.
All public services are available to the project site and the lack of extension or expansion
indicates the project is not growth-inducing. No new water or sewer lines are being extended
into an undeveloped area. The surrounding area is suburban and developed.
While future project applications may occur for land designated Residential Estate west of
Canyon Drive, the project does not induce additional development in that area which has
restricted access, steep terrain and limited public services.
The project will not foster population growth or require the construction of additional housing in
the project area.The project is consistent with the land use and zoning designations in the
General Plan and the projections for housing growth in the Housing Element.
While the project adds to cumulative impacts of past projects, its net contribution to cumulative
air quality (fugitive dust, nitric oxides) is less than considerable and Less than Significant. See
Section 3.6.
The cumulative impacts of land use, traffic, air quality emissions and noise were evaluated in
the topical sections of Section 3.0. The City has indicated there are no additional projects in
application for the immediate project area.
Therefore, the project has no growth-inducing or cumulative significant impacts.
188
ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED
8.0 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED
8.1 CITY OF ARCADIA
Dominic Lazzaretto, City Manager
Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator
Jason Kruckeberg, Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director
Phil Wray, Development Services Deputy Director/City Engineer
Tom Tait, Public Works Service Director
Ken Herman, Deputy Public Works Service Director
Robert Guthrie, Chief, Police Department
Tony Trabbie, Chief, Fire Department
Mark Krikorian, Fire Marshal, Fire Department
Mark Rynkiewicz, Associate Civil Engineer, Engineering Division
Tiffany Lee, Assistant Engineer, Engineering Division,
Coleman Olinger, PE, Assistant Engineer, Engineering Division
Tim Kelleher, Assistant Engineer, Engineering Division
Lisa Flores, Senior Planner
Tom Li, Associate Planner
Tim Schwehr, Assistant Planner
Nick Baldwin, Assistant Planner
John M. Bellas, Project Manager, PMC (Peer Review Environmental Consultant)
189
8.2 APPLICANT TEAM
Jeff Lee, President, Nevis Capital LLC
Scott Yang, President, F8GI
Wendy Wu, First Pacific Builders
Maggie Teng, First Pacific Builders
Ronald W. Spindler, RCE 13194, President, SCE Engineering
Steven Demsher, SCE Engineering
Larry Gray, P. E., Spindler Engineering
Hank Jong, GE 2305, CEG 1646, Principal, Environmental Geotechnology
Laboratory Associates, Inc. (EGL)
Shawn Yu, Associate Engineer, Principal, Environmental Geotechnology
Laboratory Associates, Inc. (EGL)
Greg Baek, Associate Engineer, Principal, Environmental Geotechnology
Laboratory Associates, Inc. (EGL)
Jan Scow, ABCA Certified Arborist WC 1972, ISA Certified Arborist # WC1972,
Thomas Ryan, M. S., Senior Ornithologist/Wildlife Biologist, Ryan Ecological Consulting
Nate Mudry, Biologist, Ryan Ecological Consulting
Richard Montijo, Plegadis, Consulting Biologist, Ryan Ecological Consulting
Ben Lundgren, Principal, Ben Lundgren & Associates.
W. Larry Sward, Principal Delineator, Helix Environmental Planning, Inc.
Mark Bender, Ph.D., RPA, ASM Affiliates
Catherine Wright, Vice President, ASM Affiliates
Tony Tri Quach, Associate Archaeologist, ASM Affiliates
190
8.3 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Sidney Allan Lindmark, Senior Associate, SID LINDMARK, AICP
8.4 OTHER AGENCIES
Danny Castro, Director, Community Development, City of Sierra Madre
Leticia Landoso, Senior Planner, Community Development, City of Sierra Madre
Steve Sizemore, Director, Community Development, City of Monrovia
April Soash, Director, Director of Community Services, City of Monrovia
Wesley Lee, Business Technician, Arcadia Unified School District
Daniel Garcia, Air Quality Specialist, CEQA Section, SCAQMD
Scott Morgan, Assistant Deputy Director, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
Stacy St. James, Coordinator, South Central Coastal Information Center
Anthony Dang, CEQA Technician, State Clearinghouse
Betty J. Courtney, Environmental Program Manager I, South Coast Region, California
Department of Fish and Wildlife
Katy Sanchez, Associate Government Program Analyst, Native American Heritage
Commission
George Mize, Air Quality Specialist, CEQA Section, South Air Quality Management
District
8.5 OTHER GROUPS
Bob Stover, President, Highland Homeowners Association
April Verlato, ARB Chairperson, Highland Homeowner’s Association
191
BIBLIOGRAPHY
9.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY
The following documents are available for review upon request at the Planning Division, City of
Arcadia, 240 W. Huntington Drive, Arcadia, California, (626) 574-5416. Many but not all of the
documents are also available as pdf files upon request.
9.1 Project Application
City of Arcadia Tentative Map Application, undated.
Conceptual Grading & Drainage Plan, Sheets C-1, C-2, Environmental Geotechnology
Laboratory, Inc., (EGL Associates), October 28, 2013
Tentative Parcel Map No. 72681, EGL Associates, December 10, 2013.
Survey Map for APN 5765-002-012 and 5765-002-013, S.E.C. Civil Engineers,
November 29, 2011.
Hydrology Analysis, APN 5765-002-014 Canyon Road, EGL Associates, December 10, 2013.
Hydrology Map, EGL Associates (extracted from EGL Hydrology Analysis report listed above)
City of Arcadia Owner’s Certification: Forms OC1`, PC, P1, P 2, undated
City of Arcadia Master Covenant and Agreement Regarding On-Site BMP Maintenance,
undated
Preliminary Arborist Report for “Canyon Private Residence,” Arcadia, California, Jan C. Scow
Consulting Arborists, LLC, February 5, 2014.
Biological Assessment for the Canyon Private Residence, City of Arcadia, County of Los
Angeles, California, Ryan Ecological Consulting, December 24, 2013
Conceptual Landscape Plan, Ben Lundgren and Associates, January 2014
Update Report of Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Proposed Residential Development,
PM 71182, 2111 to 2125 Canyon Road, City of Arcadia, California, EGL Project No. 07-177-
002EGU2, Environmental Geotechnical Laboratory, Inc., January 7, 2011.
Report of Geotechnical Engineering and Geological Investigation (PM 69775), Environmental
Geotechnology Laboratory, Inc., September 20, 2007
192
Record Search for 2111 and 2125 Canyon Road, Arcadia, California, South Central Coastal
Information Center, SCCIC #12148.8863, February 21, 2012
Cultural Resource Survey of Canyon Estates in Arcadia, Los Angeles County, California, ASM
Affiliates, Inc., PN 19250, March 2012, Revised December 2013, PN 19250.
Preliminary Arborist Report for 2111 and 2125 Canyon Road, Arcadia, California, Jan C. Scow
Consulting Arborists, LLC, January 6, 2012.
Nevis Homes, Tract No. 51941 Jurisdictional Delineation Report, February 20, 2012, Revised
December 16, 2013
Special Status Plant Survey for Nevis Homes, Tract 51941, Arcadia, California, Helix
Environmental Planning, Inc., December 18, 2013
Special Status Plant Survey for Nevis Homes, Tract 51941, Arcadia, California, Helix
Environmental Planning, Inc., May 19, 2014.
Correspondence from Mark Krikorian, Fire Marshall, Arcadia Fire Department, to Jeff Lee, Nevis
Capital LLC dated February 11, 2014.
9.2 City of Arcadia Documents
Draft 2013 – 2022 Housing Element, Final Draft Arcadia General Plan - Chapter 5: Housing
Element, October 2013.
Draft Environmental Checklist Form: Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 72681 and Residential
Mountainous Development Permit Application No. RM 11-01, City of Arcadia, undated.
2010 Arcadia General Plan Update, Hogle-Ireland and BonTerra Consulting et. al. November
2010.
2010 Arcadia General Plan Update Final EIR, (SCH 2009081034), Bon Terra Consulting, July
2010.
Arcadia Municipal Code, Codified through Ordinance No. 2289, Passed September 6, 2011
(Supp No. 31, 9-11).
Regulations for Construction in the Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area, Department of
Development Services, Arcadia, California, undated.
Single Family Residential Guidelines, Effective January 6, 2006, City of Arcadia.
193
The Shops at Santa Anita Park Specific Plan, SCH 2005031131, Volume 1: Revised DEIR
Chapter 1 to Section 4.8, EIP, October 23, 2006.
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for Tentative Parcel Map Number 09-08, City of
Arcadia, undated.
Preliminary Arborist Report for 2111 and 2125 Canyon Road, Arcadia, Jan C. Scow Consulting
Arborist, LLC, July 8, 2011.
9.3 Other Agencies
California 2010 Green Building Standards (CalGreen), California Code of Regulations, Title 24,
Part 11, California Building Standards Commission, Effective January 1, 2011.
California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) User’s Guide, Version 2011.1, SCAQMD et.
al., February 2011.
California Environmental Quality Act/CEQA Guidelines (2015) CELSOC, January 1, 2015.
Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures, California Air Pollution Control Officers
Association, August 2010.
Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Office of Planning and Environment, Federal
Transit Administration, May 2008.
Final 2012 Air Quality Management Plan, SCAQMD, February 2013
Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD), June 2003, revised July 2008.
General Guidelines for Creating Defensible Space, State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection
(BOF) and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, February 8, 2006.
Wildland Hazard/Building Codes, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection,
www.fire.ca.gov.
Chapter 7A (SFM) Materials and Construction Methods for Exterior Wildfire Exposure, 2007
California Bulding Code, January 1, 2009 Supplement.
Climate Zone Lookup, Appendix F, Environ, February 2011.
Climate Change Scoping Plan, California Air Resources Board, May 2009.
CEQA and Climate Change, California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, January 2008.
194
First Update of the Climate Change Scoping Plan California Air Resources Board, May22, 2014.
2007 Air Quality Management Plan, South Coast Air Quality District, June 1, 2007
Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy, Southern California
Association of Governments, April 2012.
2008 Final Regional Comprehensive Plan, Southern California Association of Governments,
October 2008.
Low Impact Development Standards Manual, County of Los Angeles Department of Public
Works, February 2014.
Green Infrastructure Guidelines: Low Impact Development and Other Sustainable Practices for
Public Works Projects, County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, June 2011.
195
APPENDICES
10.0 APPENDICES (See Volume 2)
A. Notice of Preparation/Initial Study
B. Comments on the Notice of Preparation
C. Hydrology/Water Quality Study
D. Biological Resource Study
E Arborist Study
F. Soils/Geology Reports
G. CalEEMod Emissions Reports
H. Correspondence Received
I. Other Project Information
J. Jurisdictional Delineation Report