HomeMy WebLinkAboutArroyo Pacific Academy Specific Plan_Draft IS_July 2016CITY OF ARCADIA
ARROYO PACIFIC ACADEMY SPECIFIC PLAN
DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Prepared for:
CITY OF ARCADIA
240 W. HUNTINGTON DRIVE
ARCADIA, CA 91066
Prepared by:
3900 KILROY AIRPORT WAY, SUITE 120
LONG BEACH, CA 90806
JULY 2016
CITY OF ARCADIA
ARROYO PACIFIC ACADEMY SPECIFIC PLAN
DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Prepared for:
CITY OF ARCADIA
240 W. HUNTINGTON DRIVE
ARCADIA, CA 91066
Prepared by:
MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL
3900 KILROY AIRPORT WAY, SUITE 120
LONG BEACH, CA 90806
JULY 2016
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Environmental Checklist Form ......................................................................................................................... 1
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected .............................................................................................. 10
Determination (to be completed by the lead agency) ......................................................................... 11
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ......................................................................................................... 12
1. Aesthetics ........................................................................................................................................ 14
2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources ............................................................................................ 15
3. Air Quality ........................................................................................................................................ 16
4. Biological Resources ...................................................................................................................... 25
5. Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................................... 27
6. Geology and Soils .......................................................................................................................... 30
7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................................................... 33
8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials .............................................................................................. 38
9. Hydrology and Water Quality ...................................................................................................... 41
10. Land Use and Planning ................................................................................................................. 44
11. Mineral Resources .......................................................................................................................... 45
12. Noise .................................................................................................................................................. 46
13. Population and Housing ................................................................................................................ 55
14. Public Services ................................................................................................................................. 56
15. Recreation ....................................................................................................................................... 58
16. Transportation/Traffic ..................................................................................................................... 59
17. Utilities and Service Systems ......................................................................................................... 67
18. Mandatory Findings of Significance ........................................................................................... 70
References........................................................................................................................................................ 72
FIGURES
Figure 1 Project Location ............................................................................................................................... 3
Figure 2 Proposed Site Layout ....................................................................................................................... 5
TABLES
Table 1 Proposed Parking Facilities ............................................................................................................. 7
Table 2 Construction-Related Criteria Pollutant and Precursor Emissions
(Maximum Pounds per Day) ........................................................................................................ 19
Table 3 Construction Local Significance Threshold Impacts (Maximum Pounds per Day) ........... 20
Table 4 Proposed Project Operations-Related Criteria Pollutant and Precursor Emissions
(Maximum Pounds per Day) ........................................................................................................ 21
City of Arcadia Arroyo Pacific Academy Specific Plan
July 2016 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
i
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Table 5 Construction-Related and Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Metric Tons per
Year) ................................................................................................................................................. 34
Table 6 Consistency with SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities
Strategy Goals ................................................................................................................................ 36
Table 7 Noise Measurements ..................................................................................................................... 47
Table 8 City of Arcadia General Plan Noise Element Noise Standards ............................................. 48
Table 9 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels .......................................................................... 49
Table 10 Project Conditions Noise Levels along Project Vicinity Roadways ....................................... 50
Table 11 Damage to Buildings for Continuous or Frequent Intermittent Vibration Levels ................ 52
Table 12 Representative Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment ................................. 52
Table 13 Predicted Increases in Traffic Noise Levels – Existing plus Project Conditions .................... 54
Table 14 Existing with Project Conditions (Year 2015) Intersection Peak-Hour Levels of Service .... 60
Table 15 Future with Project Conditions (Year 2016) Intersection Peak-Hour Levels of Service ...... 61
Table 16 Caltrans Locations – HCM Analysis ............................................................................................. 62
Table 17 On-Ramp Evaluation ..................................................................................................................... 63
Table 18 Off-Ramp Evaluation ..................................................................................................................... 63
Table 19 City of Arcadia Water Supply and Demand Comparison ..................................................... 68
APPENDICES
A. Air Quality
B. Greenhouse Gas Model Outputs
C. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
D. Noise
E. Transportation Study
Arroyo Pacific Academy Specific Plan City of Arcadia
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2016
ii
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project title: Arroyo Pacific Academy Specific Plan
2. Lead agency name and address: City of Arcadia
240 W. Huntington Drive
Arcadia, CA 91066
3. Contact person and phone number: Jordan Chamberlin, (626) 821-4334
4. Project location: The proposed Specific Plan Area (project
site) is located along the east side of Rolyn
Place, north of West St. Joseph Street and
east of N. Santa Anita Avenue in Arcadia,
Los Angeles County, California. The project
site is described as two adjacent properties.
Property 1 (parcels 5775-022-
036, -037, -038, -039, and -044 [PM 193-64-
65]) is approximately 44,020 square feet and
developed with an existing 16,440-square-
foot office building with an address of 325 N.
Santa Anita Avenue. Property 2 (Parcel
5775-022-027) is approximately 19,520
square feet and developed with an existing
15,050-square-foot structure with an address
of 400 Rolyn Place. The building is known as
the Clarke Center. The total project site
encompasses 1.68 acres. The project
location is shown on Figure 1.
5. Project sponsor’s name and address: Philip Clarke
41 W. Santa Clara Street
Arcadia, CA 91007
6. General Plan designation: Commercial; Downtown Overlay
7. Zoning: C-M (Commercial-Manufacturing)
8. Project background:
Arroyo Pacific Academy was established in 1998 at 100 East Live Oak Avenue in Arcadia. The
school outgrew its original grounds and in 2002, received a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to
operate an “academic prep school and learning center” for up to 150 students. The approved
site was an office building at 41 W. Santa Clara Street, about 500 feet south of the project site. In
2012, Arroyo Pacific Academy applied for and received a CUP for a second building at 400
Rolyn Place (the Clarke Center), within walking distance of the main school building. The Clarke
Center was approved to be a “trade school/education center” with state-of-the-art
technology, arts, and fitness facilities for a maximum of 80 students and 5 employees. Together,
the current buildings offer space for 230 students and 25 employees. Currently, the school is
permitted to enroll up to 350 students and has an existing enrollment of 178.
City of Arcadia Arroyo Pacific Academy Specific Plan
July 2016 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
1
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
9. Description of project:
The Arroyo Pacific Academy Specific Plan is intended to refine General Plan policies applicable
to a defined area in downtown Arcadia and to modify zoning regulations to allow for and guide
expansion of an existing private high school. The project involves consolidating educational
programs and administration onto a single school campus. The building at 41 W. Santa Clara
Street would no longer be used by the Academy. The contiguous campus will include three
buildings (referred to as Buildings A, B, and C), circulation for pedestrians and vehicles, and three
parking areas. Each improvement is described in the following paragraphs. Figure 2 shows the
proposed site layout.
Gateway Structure (Building A – New Construction)
Building A, fronting N. Santa Anita Avenue, is proposed as a modern, open air, one-story
elevated structure to be built over an existing surface parking lot, which would remain for
parking and vehicle access. The new building would accommodate seven 20-foot by 20-foot
classrooms, one 20-foot by 15-foot classroom, an office, restrooms, and exterior walkways.
Pedestrians would gain access to the second story by use of three stairwells and an elevator. The
new structure would be approximately 6,810 square feet and about 24 feet tall from grade to
the roofline. The wing parallel to N. Santa Anita Avenue toward the front of the parcel would be
about 145 feet by 31 feet.
Science, Math, and Technology Center (Building B – Remodel Existing Office Building)
Building B, fronting Rolyn Place, is an existing commercial office structure. Proposed tenant
improvements include remodeling restrooms, removing walls, and creating classrooms and other
spaces for educational and business use. Once remodeled, Building B would include:
• Twelve classrooms about 20 feet by 20 feet
• Two women’s restrooms and two men’s restrooms
• Kitchen and dining hall
• Library
• Conference room
• Offices
• Storage areas
Clarke Center (Building C)
The Clarke Center was previously improved and is home to a teaching theater, a music room, a
recording and editing studio, a dance studio, a fitness room, a green screen/media room, a
computer lab, an art studio, and administrative offices. The Clarke Center would be upgraded
with minor exterior cosmetic improvements.
Parking and Vehicle Circulation
Three surface parking areas would serve the campus. Parking Area 1 would be located under
Building A at 325 N. Santa Anita Avenue. Parking Area 2 would be located north of Building B.
Parking Area 3 would be adjacent to Building C. The proposed parking facilities are summarized
in Table 1.
Arroyo Pacific Academy Specific Plan City of Arcadia
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2016
2
FIGURE 1Project Location
WEST COLORADO BLVD
N
O
R
T
H
S
A
N
TA
A
N
I
TA
A
V
E
R
O
LY
N
P
L
WEST ST JOSEPH ST
LA PORTE ST
EAST SANTA CLARA ST
EAST NEWMAN AVE
%&g(
S
A
N
M
I
G
U
E
L
D
R
!
Property 2
!
Building C
!
Property 1
!
Building B
!
Proposed Location
of Building A
T:
\
_G
IS
\
Los
_
An
gel
e
s
_C
o
unt
y
\
M
x
ds
\
Ar
c
a
di
a
\A
r
r
o
yo
_P
ac
i
f
i
c
_S
P\
C
EQ
A\
Lo
c
at
i
on
M
ap.
m
x
d
(
2
/2
9/
20
16
)
0150300
FEET
Source: Los Angeles County, 2015; Google Earth Imagery, 2015
Legend
Specific Plan Boundary
Parcel Boundary
3/
9(+,&8/$5(175(1&(9(+,&8/$5(;,73('(675,$1$&&(66
9(+,&8/$5(175(1&(
9(+,&8/$5(;,7
3/
3/
3/
3/
3/3/3/3/3/3/3/3/3/
3/
3/
3/
3/
3/
3/
3/
3/3/3/3/3/
3/
3/
3/
3/
3/
3/
3/
3/
3/
3/
3/
3/
3/
3/
3/
3/
3/
3/
3/3/3/
3/
3/
3/
(;,67,1*%8,/',1*%
(;,67,1*%8,/',1*&
352326('%8,/',1*$
6$17$$1,7$$9(
&/&/&/&/
&/
&/
&/
&/
&/
&/
&/
&/
&/
/$723$6$'(1$0(75 2*2/'/,1(
52/<13/$&(
3
$
5.
:
$
<
'(
',
&$
7
,
2
1
3('(675,$1$&&(663('(675,$1$&&(66
3('(675,$1$&&(663('(675,$1$&&(66
3('(675,$1$&&(66
9(+,&8/$5$&&(66
$
$
3('(675$,1&,5&8/$7,213529,'('5(9,6('/2$',1*=21(
5(9,6('75$6+(1&/2685(%,&<&/(3$5.,1*3529,'('352326('3$5.,1*63$&(6
3('(675$,1&,5&8/$7,213529,'('
33//333
3//3 6
33333/3333333
FIGURE 2Proposed Site Layout
T:\_CS\Work\Arcadia, city of\Arroyo Pacific Academy_CEQA\Figures
Source: Nardi Associates, LLP Not To Scale
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
TABLE 1
PROPOSED PARKING FACILITIES
Parking Area General Location Parking Spaces
(9 x 20)
Parking Spaces
(accessible)
Total Number of
Parking Spaces
Area 1 Under Building A 35 3 39
Area 2 Adjacent to Building B 16 0 16
Area 3 Adjacent to Building C 24 1 25
Total Parking Spaces 80
Vehicular circulation patterns are proposed to be the same as existing conditions. The primary
vehicular access to the campus would be under the Gateway Structure from N. Santa Anita
Avenue. From there, drivers may choose to pass straight through Parking Areas 1 and 2 and exit
on Rolyn Place or turn left in Parking Area 1 and exit on N. Santa Anita Avenue. Secondary
vehicular campus access would be from Rolyn Place to Parking Area 3 next to the Clarke
Center.
Pedestrian Circulation
To provide for student movement throughout the campus, pedestrian walkways would be
improved on-site.
• Pathway between Buildings A and B: Two new sidewalks would be constructed under
Building A to connect the new structure to Building B.
• Pathway between Buildings B and C: The wall between Building B and Building C would
be removed and a walkway would be constructed between the northwest entrance of
Building B and the southeast entrance of Building C.
• Pathway between Buildings A and C: To pass from Building A to Building C, students
could use internal hallways in Building B and follow a proposed walkway between the
northwest entrance of Building B and the southeast entrance of Building C.
The dominant flow of student and employee traffic from off-site would be expected to be from
the Metro Gold Line Station at N. 1st Avenue and E. Santa Clara Street. Students may use the
existing sidewalk along E. Santa Clara Street, the signalized crossing at N. Santa Anita Avenue,
and the existing sidewalk on N. Santa Anita Avenue. Once pedestrians reach Building A, a
pedestrian entrance would be used to connect them with on-site facilities.
Bicycle Circulation
Bicyclists would be expected to follow a slightly different path from the Metro Gold Line Station.
A Class II bicycle route accommodates bicycle traffic on E. Santa Clara Street. At the signalized
crossing at N. Santa Anita Avenue, bicyclists would continue westerly to Rolyn Place where they
would turn north and follow the local road to the campus entrance on Rolyn Place. Parking for
bicycles would be located in front of Building B.
City of Arcadia Arroyo Pacific Academy Specific Plan
July 2016 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
7
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Enrollment and Employment
The proposed Specific Plan is intended to accommodate continued growth of the school to a
maximum of 280 students and 30 employees.
Hours of Operation
The proposed facilities would operate within the same hours as the existing facilities. The school is
in operation Monday through Saturday from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Activities vary throughout the
day:
8:30 a.m. to 2:45 p.m. Classes are in session
2:45 p.m. to 3:45 p.m. Tutoring for Young Scholar Program
3:45 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Occasional student activities and special programs (i.e., school plays)
A few times each year, the school would host events such as alumni gatherings during winter
and summer holidays and the Annual Fundraising Gala. These events last later into the evening
than typical school programs.
The facilities are also available for rent for non-school uses. The teaching theater is used twice
each year by the Arcadia Jewish Federation. On occasion, visiting groups use the facilities for
technical and arts programs. Under the proposed Specific Plan, these uses would no longer be
allowed without an amendment to the CUP.
The current facility at 41 W. Santa Clara Street has room for passive gatherings in outdoor
spaces, but these would discontinue when the school vacates the Santa Clara Street building.
No outdoor uses are planned for the campus except for parking and circulation.
Construction, Phasing, and Entitlements
Project construction would occur in a single phase. Grading would include overexcavation and
recompaction for Building A. With the exception of the Specific Plan, no additional discretionary
entitlements or approvals would be required.
9. Surrounding land uses and setting (briefly describe the project’s surroundings):
The project site is located in downtown Arcadia and is surrounded by an urbanized area
consisting primarily of office, retail, and light industrial uses. Immediately west of the site is Rolyn
Place, which is lined with small office/light industrial buildings and ends in a cul-de-sac just north
of the site. Farther west is a large single-family residential neighborhood. Immediately northeast
of the project site are an office/retail building and the elevated Metro Gold Line Foothill
Extension railroad line. Interstate 210 (I-210) is located farther north of the site. Immediately east
of the project site is N. Santa Anita Avenue, which is a major north–south corridor through
Arcadia. The area east of N. Santa Anita Avenue consists of a mix of uses including retail,
commercial, light industrial, and multi-family residential. Immediately south of the project site are
three office/industrial buildings including a small animal hospital. Farther south are W. St. Joseph
Street and additional commercial uses.
Arroyo Pacific Academy Specific Plan City of Arcadia
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2016
8
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement)
This Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration covers all approvals by government agencies
that may be needed to construct, implement, or operate the proposed project. The proposed
project would require adoption of a Specific Plan by the City of Arcadia. At this time, no
discretionary public agency approvals are known to be required for the project other than those
required by the City of Arcadia.
City of Arcadia Arroyo Pacific Academy Specific Plan
July 2016 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
9
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry
Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology and Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous
Materials Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources Noise
Population and Housing Public Services Recreation
Transportation/Traffic Utilities and Service Systems Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Arroyo Pacific Academy Specific Plan City of Arcadia
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2016
10
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are
adequately supported by the information sources cited following each question. A “No
Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the
impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside
a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on
project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose
sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-
site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as
operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, the
checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than
significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is
appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one
or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made and feasible
mitigation is not identified, an EIR is required.
4) “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant
Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation
measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level
(mitigation measures “Earlier Analyses,” as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.
Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were
within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less Than Significant With Mitigation Measures
Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures that were incorporated or refined from
the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for
the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information
sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a
previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to
the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
Arroyo Pacific Academy Specific Plan City of Arcadia
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2016
12
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however,
lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a
project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant.
City of Arcadia Arroyo Pacific Academy Specific Plan
July 2016 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
13
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
that would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located in an urbanized area, with views
generally limited to surrounding buildings, parking areas, utility lines, and scattered trees.
There are distant views of mountains to the north; however, views of these mountains
from the project site are largely obscured by the elevated transit line located
immediately north/northeast of the site and other existing buildings in the area. Therefore,
project implementation would not have a substantial adverse effect on any existing
scenic vistas, and impacts would be less than significant.
b) No Impact. There are no state or locally designated scenic highways within the viewshed
of the project site (Caltrans 2013). There would be no impact.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. Project implementation would result in the construction of
one new building (Building A) and minor exterior improvements to another (Building C).
Given the developed nature of the project site and surrounding properties, the proposed
project would not substantially change the visual character or quality of the site or
surroundings. Furthermore, the project site would be subject to the City’s Architectural
Design Guidelines, Commercial and Industrial (Arcadia 2002), which would ensure that
the proposed development is of high quality and features architectural design, materials,
and a color palette that are visually harmonious with surrounding development.
Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is currently developed and generates light
from exterior building-mounted lighting fixtures, pole-mounted streetlights along Santa
Anita Avenue, and interior light escaping through windows and doors. The addition of
proposed Building A would not substantially increase lighting levels on the site.
Furthermore, in accordance with the City’s adopted design guidelines, all project lighting
would be located to avoid glare and to reflect the light away from adjoining property
and public rights-of-way. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
Arroyo Pacific Academy Specific Plan City of Arcadia
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2016
14
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural
resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural
Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of
Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In
determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental
effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and
Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forestland, including the Forest and Range Assessment
Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology
provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to
nonagricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forestland (as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland
(as defined by Public Resources Code Section
4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code
Section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forestland or conversion of
forestland to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland,
to nonagricultural use or conversion of
forestland to non-forest use?
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a–e) No Impact. The project site is located in an urbanized area of the city that does not
contain or allow any agriculture or forest uses. Because of the urban nature of the region,
the project site was not surveyed by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
(DOC 2015). The project site is zoned C-M (Commercial-Manufacturing), which does not
allow agriculture or forest uses. Project implementation would have no direct or indirect
effect on agriculture or forestry resources. There would be no impacts.
City of Arcadia Arroyo Pacific Academy Specific Plan
July 2016 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
15
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is in nonattainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions that
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a) Less Than Significant Impact. Arcadia is in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which is
bounded by the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto mountains to the north
and east and by the Pacific Ocean to the south and west. The South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) has jurisdiction in the air basin. The SCAB has a history of
recorded air quality violations and is an area where both state and federal ambient air
quality standards are exceeded. Areas that meet ambient air quality standards are
classified as attainment areas, while areas that do not meet these standards are
classified as nonattainment areas. The air quality in the Los Angeles County portion of the
SCAB does not meet the ambient air quality standards for ozone, coarse particulate
matter (PM10), fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and lead and is therefore classified as a
nonattainment area for these pollutants.
As part of its enforcement responsibilities, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
requires each state with nonattainment areas to prepare and submit a State
Implementation Plan that demonstrates the means to attain the federal standards. The
SIP must integrate federal, state, and local plan components and regulations to identify
specific measures to reduce pollution in nonattainment areas, using a combination of
performance standards and market-based programs. Similarly, under state law, the
California Clean Air Act requires an air quality attainment plan to be prepared for areas
designated as nonattainment with regard to the federal and state ambient air quality
standards. Air quality attainment plans outline emissions limits and control measures to
achieve and maintain these standards by the earliest practical date.
Arroyo Pacific Academy Specific Plan City of Arcadia
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2016
16
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
The SCAQMD is required, pursuant to the federal Clean Air Act, to reduce emissions of
the air pollutants for which the basin is in nonattainment. In order to reduce emissions, the
SCAQMD adopted the 2012 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), which establishes a
program of rules and regulations directed at reducing air pollutant emissions and
achieving state (California) and national air quality standards (the air district is currently
developing the 2016 AQMP). The 2012 AQMP is a regional and multi-agency effort
including the SCAQMD, the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the Southern
California Association of Governments (SCAG), and the EPA.
The 2012 AQMP pollutant control strategies are based on the latest scientific and
technical information and planning assumptions, including the 2012 Regional
Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, updated emission inventory
methodologies for various source categories, and SCAG’s latest growth forecasts.
(SCAG’s latest growth forecasts were defined in consultation with local governments and
with reference to local general plans.) The SCAQMD considers projects that are
consistent with the AQMP, which is intended to bring the basin into attainment for all
criteria pollutants, to also have less than significant cumulative impacts.
Criteria for determining consistency with the AQMP are defined by the following
indicators:
• Consistency Criterion No. 1: The proposed project will not result in an increase in
the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, or cause or contribute to
new violations, or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the
interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP.
• Consistency Criterion No. 2: The proposed project will not exceed the assumptions
in the AQMP.
The violations to which Consistency Criterion No. 1 refers are the California ambient air
quality standards (CAAQS) and the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). As
evaluated in Response b) below, the project would not exceed the SCAQMD short-term
construction thresholds or SCAQMD long-term operational thresholds. The project would
not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, cause
or contribute to new violations, or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards.
Thus, a less than significant impact is expected, and the project would be consistent with
the first criterion.
In regard to Consistency Criterion No. 2, the AQMP contains air pollutant reduction
strategies based on SCAG’s latest growth forecasts. The site is currently developed with a
commercial office building, an educational building, and parking lots. The proposed
project consists of a specific plan for the project site to refine General Plan policies
applicable to the site to allow for and guide expansion of the existing school facility.
The proposed project is consistent with the development density for the site as described
in the City’s General Plan and therefore would not exceed the population or job growth
projections used by the SCAQMD to develop the Air Quality Management Plan. As
described in subsection 13, Population and Housing, buildout of the proposed Specific
Plan would allow for an increase in student enrollment at the school from its current
enrollment of 178 to a maximum of 280 students. The project would also increase staffing
at the school from 25 to 30. The existing housing stock and workforce in the area are
expected to be sufficient to support this increase in student enrollment and employment.
City of Arcadia Arroyo Pacific Academy Specific Plan
July 2016 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
17
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
The project is not expected to substantially increase the city’s population. Consequently,
growth that would occur at the project site is consistent with the growth anticipated to
occur in the city per the General Plan. Thus, no significant impact would occur, as the
project is consistent with both criteria.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed above, the project site and the city are
located in the SCAB, which is considered a nonattainment area for certain criteria
pollutants. Because the project would involve grading and other construction activities,
as well as result in long-term operations at the project site, it would contribute to regional
and localized pollutant emissions during construction (short term) and project
occupancy (long term). The project’s potential impacts from construction and operation
related to violation of an air quality standard or contribution to an existing or projected
air quality violation are evaluated in the paragraphs below.
Construction Emissions
Construction associated with the proposed project would generate short-term emissions
of criteria air pollutants. The criteria pollutants of primary concern in the project area
include ozone-precursor pollutants (i.e., reactive organic gases [ROG] and nitrogen
oxides [NOx]), PM10, and PM2.5.1
Construction-generated emissions are short term and of
temporary duration, lasting only as long as construction activities occur, but would be
considered a significant air quality impact if the volume of pollutants generated exceeds
the SCAQMD’s thresholds of significance.
Construction results in the temporary generation of emissions resulting from site grading
and excavation, road paving, architectural coatings, motor vehicle exhaust associated
with construction equipment and worker trips, and from the movement of construction
equipment, especially on unpaved surfaces. Emissions of airborne particulate matter are
largely dependent on the amount of ground disturbance associated with site
preparation activities as well as weather conditions and the appropriate application of
water.
The duration of construction activities associated with the proposed project, is estimated
to last one year. Construction-generated emissions associated with the proposed project
were calculated using the CARB-approved CalEEMod computer program, which is
designed to model emissions for land use development projects, based on typical
construction requirements. Modeling was based primarily on the default settings in the
computer program for projects in the South Coast Air Basin. All construction projects in
the air basin are subject to SCAQMD rules and regulations in effect at the time of
construction. SCAQMD Rule 403 requires construction contractors to implement Best
Available Control Measures during construction activities to ensure that visible particulate
matter does not cross any property line. Rule 403 is intended to reduce PM10 and PM2.5
emissions from any transportation, handling, construction, or storage activity that has the
potential to generate fugitive dust. Examples of PM10 suppression techniques include:
a. Portions of the construction site to remain inactive longer than a period of three
months will be seeded and watered until grass cover is grown or otherwise
stabilized in a manner acceptable to the City.
1
While the SCAB is designated a nonattainment basin for lead, lead is not a pollutant of concern for the project due to
the elimination of the use of leaded gasoline in vehicles. Sources of airborne lead pollution are largely limited to industrial
emitters (e.g., ore and metals processing) and piston-engine aircraft operating on leaded aviation fuel.
Arroyo Pacific Academy Specific Plan City of Arcadia
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2016
18
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
b. All on-site roads will be paved as soon as feasible or watered periodically or
chemically stabilized.
c. All material transported off-site will be either sufficiently watered or securely
covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
d. The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations
will be minimized at all times.
e. Where vehicles leave the construction site and enter adjacent public streets, the
streets will be swept daily or washed down at the end of the work day to remove
soil tracked onto the paved surface.
f. A wheel washing system will be installed and used to remove bulk material from
tires and vehicle undercarriages before vehicles exit the site.
g. Water will be applied to active portions of the site, including unpaved roads, in
sufficient quantity.
Predicted maximum daily construction-generated emissions for the proposed project are
summarized in Table 2. The construction emissions summarized in the table account for
the quantifiable PM-reducing requirements of SCAQMD Rule 403.
TABLE 2
CONSTRUCTION-RELATED CRITERIA POLLUTANT AND PRECURSOR EMISSIONS (MAXIMUM POUNDS PER DAY)
Construction Activities
Reactive
Organic
Gases
(ROG)
Nitrogen
Oxide
(NOX)
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
Sulfur
Dioxide
(SO2)
Coarse
Particulate
Matter
(PM10)
Fine
Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5)
Demolition, Remodel, and
Construction of Proposed
Project – 2016
12.47 37.86 31.53 0.05 3.67 2.43
SCAQMD Potentially
Significant Impact Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod version 2013.2.2. Projected emissions account for demolition activities associated with the removal of asphalt to
accommodate proposed Building A. Due to limitations with the modeling software and in order to provide a conservative analysis, all
remodeling activities proposed for Buildings B and C are input as full, ground-up building construction activities. Projected emissions
account for adherence to various components of SCAQMD Rule 403, including application of water on the project site, employment of
wheel washing systems, sweeping adjacent streets daily, and reestablishing vegetation on inactive portions of the site. Building
construction, site paving, and painting activities are assumed to occur concurrently. Refer to Appendix A for model data outputs.
As shown, construction-generated emissions are projected at levels below the SCAQMD
significance thresholds. Therefore, construction emissions are less than significant.
Localized Construction Significance Analysis
As part of the SCAQMD’s environmental justice program, attention has been focused on
localized effects of air quality from construction activities. SCAQMD staff has developed
localized significance threshold (LST) methodology that can be used by public agencies
to determine whether a project may generate significant adverse localized air quality
City of Arcadia Arroyo Pacific Academy Specific Plan
July 2016 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
19
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
impacts at the nearest residence or sensitive receptor during construction (SCAQMD
2008). LSTs are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for
each source receptor area (SRA). The project site is located in SRA 9 (East San Gabriel
Valley).
The significance of localized emissions impacts depends on whether ambient levels in the
vicinity of the project are above or below state standards. In the case of CO and NO2, if
ambient levels are below the standards, a project is considered to have a significant
impact if project emissions result in an exceedance of one or more of these standards. In
the case of PM10 and PM2.5, project emissions are considered significant if they increase
ambient concentrations by a measurable amount.
According to the LST methodology, only on-site emissions need to be analyzed. Emissions
associated with hauling, vendor trips, and worker trips are mobile source emissions that
occur off-site and need not be considered according to the LST methodology, since
they do not contribute to isolated local concentrations of air pollution. The SCAQMD has
provided LST lookup tables (i.e., screening thresholds) and sample construction scenarios
to allow users to readily determine whether the daily emissions for proposed construction
activities could result in significant localized air quality impacts. The LST screening
thresholds are estimated for each source receptor area using the maximum daily
disturbed area (in acres) and the distance of the project to the nearest sensitive
receptors (in meters). Though the project site itself could be considered a sensitive land
use due to the educational activities currently conducted at the Clarke Center,
proposed construction would predominantly occur outside of the school session, so
students would not be present throughout the majority of the most intense construction.
The nearest air pollutant sensitive receptors in the project vicinity include residences
located approximately 170 feet (50 meters) to the west. Therefore, a receptor distance
of 50 meters on the LST look-up tables is employed. LST screening thresholds for a 2-acre
construction site were referenced.
Table 3 compares the project’s on-site construction emissions to the applicable LST
screening threshold. The emissions projections included in Table 3 account for SCAQMD
Rule 403.
TABLE 3
CONSTRUCTION LOCAL SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLD IMPACTS (MAXIMUM POUNDS PER DAY)
Construction Activity
Nitrogen
Oxide
(NOX)
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
Coarse
Particulate
Matter
(PM10)
Fine
Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5)
Maximum Daily Emissions (on-site) – Site Preparation 25.77 16.51 3.61 2.41
Maximum Daily Emissions (on-site) – Grading 21.03 13.67 3.02 2.01
SCAQMD Localized Threshold for a 2-acre construction site
with sensitive receptors at 50 meters
151 1,344 22 7
Exceed SCAQMD LST Threshold? No No No No
Source: SCAQMD 2008; CalEEMod v.2013.2.2. Emissions projections account for adherence to various components of SCAQMD Rule
403, including application of water on the project site, employment of wheel washing systems, sweeping adjacent streets daily, and
reestablishing vegetation on inactive portions of the site. See Appendix A for model data outputs.
Arroyo Pacific Academy Specific Plan City of Arcadia
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2016
20
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
As shown in Table 3, air pollutant emissions resulting from project construction would not
exceed the applicable localized significance thresholds.
Operational Emissions
Project operation-generated increases in emissions would be predominantly associated
with motor vehicle use. To a lesser extent, area sources, such as the use of natural-gas-
fired appliances, landscape maintenance equipment, and architectural coatings, would
also contribute to overall increases in emissions.
Long-term operational emissions attributable to the proposed project, in comparison to
the existing baseline which includes a 16,440-square-foot office building and a 15,050-
square-foot educational building, as estimated using CalEEMod software, are
summarized in Table 4.
TABLE 4
PROPOSED PROJECT OPERATIONS-RELATED CRITERIA POLLUTANT AND PRECURSOR EMISSIONS
(MAXIMUM POUNDS PER DAY)
Operational Activities
Reactive
Organic
Gases (ROG)
Nitrogen
Oxide
(NOX)
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
Sulfur
Dioxide
(SO2)
Coarse
Particulate
Matter (PM10)
Fine
Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5)
Proposed Project
38,300 square feet of educational building space & 196 parking spaces on 1.68 acres
Summer Emissions (Pounds per Day)
Proposed Project 5.06 9.20 36.13 0.09 6.44 1.82
Winter Emissions (Pounds per Day)
Proposed Project 5.17 9.68 35.50 0.09 6.44 1.82
Existing Baseline2
16,440 square feet of commercial office space & 15,050 square feet of educational building space
Summer Emissions (Pounds per Day)
Existing Baseline 2.98 6.54 26.64 0.05 3.59 1.03
Winter Emissions (Pounds per Day)
Existing Baseline 3.09 6.91 26.34 0.05 3.59 1.03
Difference
Summer Emissions (Pounds per Day)
Difference +2.08 +2.66 +9.49 +0.04 +2.85 +0.79
Winter Emissions (Pounds per Day)
Difference +2.08 +2.77 +9.16 +0.04 +2.85 +0.79
SCAQMD Potentially
Significant Impact
Threshold
55
pounds/day
55
pounds/day
550
pounds/day
150
pounds/day
150
pounds/day
55
pounds/day
Exceed SCAQMD
Threshold? No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod version 2013.2.2. Proposed project mobile source emissions derived from traffic analysis prepared for the project,
which estimates 694 average daily trips. Existing baseline mobile source emissions derived from traffic analysis prepared for existing
conditions, which estimates 446 average daily trips. Refer to Appendix A for model data outputs.
City of Arcadia Arroyo Pacific Academy Specific Plan
July 2016 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
21
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
As shown in Table 4, the increase of criteria air pollutants over the existing baseline would
not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for any criteria air pollutants. (Note that emissions rates
differ from summer to winter. This is because weather factors are dependent on the
season, and these factors affect pollutant mixing/dispersion, ozone formation, etc.)
Therefore, operational emissions would not result in a significant impact on long-term
regional air quality.
Localized Operational Significance Analysis
According to SCAQMD localized significance threshold methodology, LSTs would apply
to the operational phase of a proposed project only if the project includes stationary
sources or attracts mobile sources that may spend long periods queuing and idling at the
site (e.g., warehouse or transfer facilities). The proposed project does not include such
uses. Thus, due to the lack of stationary source emissions, no long-term localized
significance threshold analysis is needed, as there would be no impact.
In summary, air quality impacts associated with project construction and operations
would be considered less than significant, as SCAQMD significance thresholds for criteria
emissions would not be surpassed (see Tables 2, 3, and 4).
c) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is in the South Coast Air Basin, which is an air
basin that regularly exceeds ambient air quality standards, i.e., a nonattainment area.
The proposed project may contribute to the net increase of ozone precursors and other
criteria pollutants. The SCAQMD’s approach for assessing cumulative impacts is based on
the AQMP forecasts of attainment of ambient air quality standards in accordance with
the requirements of the federal and California Clean Air Acts. In other words, the
SCAQMD considers projects that are consistent with the AQMP, which is intended to
bring the basin into attainment for all criteria pollutants, to also have less than significant
cumulative impacts. The discussion under Response a) describes the SCAQMD criteria for
determining consistency with the Air Quality Management Plan and further demonstrates
that the proposed project would be consistent with it. As such, cumulative impacts
would be less than significant per the SCAQMD significance threshold.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. The potential impact of toxic air pollutant emissions resulting
from development on the project site has also been considered. Sensitive receptors to
toxic air pollutants can include uses such as long-term healthcare facilities, rehabilitation
centers, and retirement homes. Residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, and
athletic facilities can also be considered sensitive receptors. The project site is considered
a sensitive land use when school is in session. The site is located approximately 50 meters
from existing homes.
As discussed in Response b) above, results of the LST analysis, which were developed in
response to environmental justice and health concerns, indicate that the project would
not exceed the SCAQMD localized significance thresholds during construction.
Therefore, sensitive receptors would not be subject to significant air toxic impacts during
project construction. Results of the LST analysis also indicate that the project would not
exceed the SCAQMD localized significance thresholds during operational activity.
Arroyo Pacific Academy Specific Plan City of Arcadia
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2016
22
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Diesel Particulate Matter
In April 2005, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) released the Air Quality and Land
Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective, which offers guidance on developing
sensitive land uses in proximity to sources of air toxics. Freeways and major roadways are
particular sources of air toxics treated in the guidance. These roadways are sources of
diesel particulate matter, which CARB has listed as a toxic air contaminant.
The handbook recommends that sensitive land uses be sited no closer than 500 feet from
a freeway or major roadway accommodating more than 100,000 trips daily. This 500-foot
buffer area was developed to protect sensitive receptors from exposure to diesel PM and
was based on studies that showed a 70 percent drop in PM concentrations at a distance
of 500 feet from the roadway. Presumably, acute and chronic risks as well as lifetime
cancer risk due to diesel PM exposure are lowered proportionately. The project site is
located 1,040 feet from Interstate 210. Therefore, the site lies beyond the CARB-
recommended buffer area, and future receptors would not be significantly affected by
toxic air contaminants generated on a highway or interstate.
There are no other potential sources of air toxics in the vicinity of the project site. While
the Los Angeles Metro Gold Line runs directly adjacent to the project site, this light rail line
is powered by electrical overhead catenary lines as opposed to diesel locomotion and
therefore is not a source of air toxics.
Carbon Monoxide
It has long been recognized that carbon monoxide exceedances are caused by
vehicular emissions, primarily when idling at intersections. Concentrations of CO are a
direct function of the number of vehicles, length of delay, and traffic flow conditions.
Under certain meteorological conditions, CO concentrations close to congested
intersections that experience high levels of traffic and elevated background
concentrations may reach unhealthy levels, affecting nearby sensitive receptors. Given
the high traffic volume potential, areas of high CO concentrations, or “hot spots,” are
typically associated with intersections that are projected to operate at unacceptable
levels of service during the peak commute hours. However, transport of this criteria
pollutant is extremely limited, and CO disperses rapidly with distance from the source
under normal meteorological conditions. Furthermore, vehicle emissions standards have
become increasingly more stringent in the last 20 years. Currently, the CO standard in
California is a maximum of 3.4 grams per mile for passenger cars (requirements for
certain vehicles are more stringent). With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of
cleaner fuels, and implementation of control technology on industrial facilities, CO
concentrations in the project vicinity have steadily declined.
Accordingly, with the steadily decreasing carbon monoxide emissions from vehicles,
even very busy intersections do not result in exceedances of the carbon monoxide
standard. The analysis prepared for carbon monoxide attainment in the South Coast Air
Basin by the SCAQMD can be used to assist in evaluating the potential for CO
exceedances. The CO hot-spot analysis was conducted for four busy intersections in Los
Angeles County during the peak morning and afternoon time periods. The intersections
evaluated included Long Beach Boulevard and Imperial Highway (Lynwood), Wilshire
Boulevard and Veteran Avenue (Westwood), Sunset Boulevard and Highland Avenue
(Hollywood), and La Cienega Boulevard and Century Boulevard (Inglewood). The busiest
intersection evaluated was at Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue, which has a
City of Arcadia Arroyo Pacific Academy Specific Plan
July 2016 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
23
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
traffic volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day. The Los Angeles County
Metropolitan Transportation Authority evaluated the level of service (LOS) in the vicinity
of the Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue intersection and found it to be LOS E at peak
morning traffic and LOS F at peak afternoon traffic. Nonetheless, the analysis concluded
that there was no violation of CO standards (SCAQMD 1992).
As described in the traffic analysis prepared for the project (Gibson Transportation
Consultants 2016), the proposed project is expected to generate approximately 694
daily vehicle trips, 227 of which would occur during the morning peak hour and 48 during
the afternoon peak hour. Therefore, the proposed project would not increase traffic
volumes at any intersection to more than 100,000 vehicles per day, the value studied in
the 1992 carbon monoxide plan. In addition, all of the study area intersections are
projected to operate at acceptable level of service during Existing plus Project traffic
conditions (Gibson Transportation Consultants 2016).
e) No Impact. According to the SCAQMD (1993) CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses
associated with odor complaints typically include agricultural uses, wastewater
treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries,
landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The project would not include any of the land
uses that have been identified by the SCAQMD as odor sources.
Arroyo Pacific Academy Specific Plan City of Arcadia
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2016
24
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly
or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-
status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and
Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands, as defined by Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal wetlands,
etc.), through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
habitat conservation plan, natural community
conservation plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is located in an
urbanized area of the city and is developed with structures and paving. The site does not
provide any significant habitat for special-status species; however, construction of the
proposed Gateway Structure (Building A) would require the removal of several shade
trees in the existing parking lot. These trees are not regulated under the City’s Tree
Ordinance (Ordinance No. 1962). The trees could, however, provide nesting habitat for
migratory birds or bat roosting sites. Their removal would be considered a potentially
significant impact if active nests or bat roosts are present. Implementation of mitigation
measures MM 4.1 and MM 4.2 would reduce this impact to a less than significant level by
City of Arcadia Arroyo Pacific Academy Specific Plan
July 2016 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
25
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
requiring preconstruction surveys for active nest sites and bat roosts and implementation
of appropriate avoidance measures, if necessary.
b–f) No Impact. As stated above, the project is developed and located in a fully urbanized
area of the city. As such, the site does not contain any riparian habitat, federally
protected wetlands, or other sensitive natural community. Given the site’s location in an
urbanized area, the project would not interfere with the movement of any wildlife
species. Furthermore, the project would not conflict with any local policies protecting
biological resources or an adopted habitat conservation plan. As noted above in
Response a), construction of the proposed Gateway Structure (Building A) would require
the removal of several shade trees in the existing parking lot. These trees are not
regulated under the City’s Tree Ordinance (Ordinance No. 1962). There would be no
impact.
Mitigation Measures
MM 4.1 If clearing and/or construction activities will occur during the migratory bird
nesting season (March 15–August 15), preconstruction surveys to identify active
migratory bird nests shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within 14 days
prior to construction initiation. Focused surveys must be performed by a qualified
biologist for the purposes of determining the presence/absence of active nest
sites within the proposed impact area.
If active nest sites are discovered in any trees proposed for removal, the tree shall
not be removed until the nest(s) become inactive.
Timing/Implementation: Prior to construction activities
Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Arcadia Development Services Department
MM 4.2 Removal of trees shall be preceded by a survey for bat presence, conducted by
a qualified biologist. Trees being used by bats shall not be removed until it has
been determined that bats are no longer using the site or until demolition can be
carried out without harming any bats.
Timing/Implementation: Prior to construction activities
Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Arcadia Development Services Department
Arroyo Pacific Academy Specific Plan City of Arcadia
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2016
26
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined
in Section 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
d) Would the project cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource as defined in Public Resources Code
21074?
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a) No Impact. None of the existing buildings on-site are listed or eligible to be listed on the
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the California Register of Historical Resources
(CRHR), or on a local list of designated historic resources. The project does not propose to
demolish any of the existing buildings on the project site. Therefore, the project would not
have the potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource. There would be no impacts in this regard.
b, d) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project would
include ground-disturbing construction activities on a project site that has been
previously disturbed. Pursuant to California Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), which became
effective on July 1, 2015, the City undertook a formal notification process for California
tribes as part of the CEQA process. AB 52 specifies that any project that may affect or
cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource
would require a lead agency to “begin consultation with a California Native American
tribe that is traditional and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed
project.” According to the legislative intent for AB 52, “tribes may have knowledge about
land and cultural resources that should be included in the environmental analysis for
projects that may have a significant impact on those resources.” Section 21074 of AB 52
also defines a new category of resources under CEQA called “tribal cultural resources,”
which are defined as “sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and
objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe” and either listed on or
eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources or a local historic register, or if
the lead agency chooses to treat the resource as a tribal cultural resource. The City of
Arcadia carried out the AB 52 consultation, which included mailing notification letters to
the one tribe that had requested notification, the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh
Nation. Subsequently, consultation with the Gabrieleño Band was conducted, which
resulted in Mitigation Measures MM-5.1.
City of Arcadia Arroyo Pacific Academy Specific Plan
July 2016 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
27
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
While the project site has previously been disturbed, construction activities may uncover
previously undiscovered archaeological and/or tribal cultural resources. This would be a
potentially significant impact. Implementation of mitigation measure MM 5.1 would
reduce this potentially significant impact to a less than significant level by requiring work
to halt if a resource is encountered and for the resource to be properly managed under
the direction of a qualified archaeologist.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is not known or expected to have
been used for the disposal of human remains. While not anticipated, project-related
construction activities would have the potential to disturb previously undiscovered
human remains. Procedures of conduct following the discovery of human remains on
nonfederal lands are mandated by California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, by
California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, and by CEQA in California Code of
Regulations Section 15064.5(e). According to these provisions, should human remains be
encountered, all work in the immediate vicinity of the burial must cease and any
necessary steps to ensure the integrity of the immediate area must be taken. The remains
are required to be left in place and free from disturbance until a final decision as to the
treatment and their disposition has been made. The Los Angeles County Coroner would
be immediately notified, and the coroner would then determine whether the remains
are Native American. If the coroner determines the remains are Native American, the
coroner has 24 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which
will in turn notify the person identified as the most likely descendant (MLD) of any human
remains. Further actions would be determined, in part, by the desires of the MLD, who
has 24 hours to make recommendations regarding the disposition of the remains
following notification from the NAHC of the discovery. If the MLD does not make
recommendations within 24 hours, the owner is required, with appropriate dignity, to
reinter the remains in an area of the property secure from further disturbance.
Alternatively, if the owner does not accept the MLD’s recommendations, the owner or
the descendant may request mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission.
Any discovery of human remains within the project site would be subject to these
procedural requirements, which would reduce impacts associated with the
discovery/disturbance of human remains to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measures
MM 5.1 A certified Native American Monitor/archaeologist approved by the Planning
Director of the City of Arcadia shall be present for all initial ground-disturbing
activities associated with the project. If archaeological resources (i.e., historic,
prehistoric, and isolated artifacts and features) are inadvertently discovered
during project construction, work shall be halted immediately within 50 feet of the
discovery, the City shall be notified.
The Monitor/archaeologist shall prepare and submit to the City a report including
a list of the resources discovered, documentation of each site/locality,
interpretation of the resources identified, and the method of preservation and/or
recovery for identified resources. In the event the significant resources are
recovered and the qualified archaeologist determines the resources to be
historic or unique, avoidance and/or mitigation would be required pursuant to
and consistent with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.5 and 15126.4 and Public
Resources Code Section 21083.2.
Arroyo Pacific Academy Specific Plan City of Arcadia
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2016
28
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
The landowner shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including sacred
items, burial goods, and all archaeological artifacts, that are found on the
project site to the appropriate tribe for proper treatment and disposition.
Timing/Implementation: During all ground-disturbing construction activities
Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Arcadia Development Services Department
City of Arcadia Arroyo Pacific Academy Specific Plan
July 2016 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
29
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death, involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault?
Refer to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, 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 wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of wastewater?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geological feature?
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a)
i. No Impact. The project site is located approximately one-quarter mile southeast of the
Sierra Madre earthquake fault zone (Arcadia 2010a, Figure S-2). However, the site itself is
not located within the zone and is not subject to any development restrictions. Therefore,
Arroyo Pacific Academy Specific Plan City of Arcadia
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2016
30
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
the site is not considered to be at risk of surface fault rupture and there would be no
impact.
ii. Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located in a seismically active region and
is considered to be in a high ground shaking hazard zone. The design-controllable
aspects of building foundation support, protection from seismic ground motion, and soil
or slope instability are governed by existing regulations of the California Building Code
(CBC), which was adopted by the City of Arcadia (see Arcadia Municipal Code Article
VIII, Section 8110). These regulations require that project designs reduce potential
adverse soils, geology, and seismicity effects to less than significant levels. Compliance
with these regulations is required, not optional. All construction on the project site would
be required to comply with the applicable engineering standards of the California
Building Code. Compliance with the CBC would minimize the risk of loss, injury, and
death in the event of seismic ground shaking. The impact would be less than significant.
iii. Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is not located in a liquefaction seismic
hazard zone (DOC 1999). In addition, a site-specific geotechnical study would be
required as part of the building permit process, which would evaluate site-specific soil
characteristics and provide recommendations for site preparation, foundations, and
building construction as necessary. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.
iv. No Impact. According to Figure S-3 in the City’s (2010a) General Plan Safety Element, the
project site is not located within an earthquake-induced landslide zone. Furthermore, the
project site and surrounding area are flat and would not be at risk of landslide due to
slope instability. There would be no impact.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. Proposed construction activities would disturb site soils,
exposing them to the erosive effects of wind and water. To reduce the potential for wind
erosion, fugitive dust would be controlled through compliance with SCAQMD Rules 403
and 1166. The following erosion control features associated with SCAQMD rules utilized
during remedial activities are expected to be employed: covering stockpiles with plastic
sheeting; covering loaded soils with secured tarps; prohibiting work during periods of high
winds; and watering exposed soils during construction.
To reduce the potential for water erosion, the proposed development would be subject
to the requirements set forth in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Storm Water General Construction Permit for construction activities, which
requires projects to develop and implement a stormwater pollutant prevention plan
(SWPPP) that includes best management practices (BMPs) and requires inspections of
stormwater control structures and pollution prevention measures. Examples of typical
construction best management practices in SWPPPs include using temporary mulching,
seeding, or other suitable stabilization measures to protect uncovered soils; storing
materials and equipment to ensure that spills or leaks cannot enter the storm drain
system or surface water; developing and implementing a spill prevention and cleanup
plan; installing traps, filters, or other devices at drop inlets to prevent contaminants from
entering storm drains; and using barriers, such as straw bales or plastic, to minimize the
amount of uncontrolled runoff that could enter drainages and surface waters. The
discharger must also install structural controls, such as sediment control, as necessary,
which would constitute Best Available Technologies (BAT) to achieve compliance with
water quality standards.
City of Arcadia Arroyo Pacific Academy Specific Plan
July 2016 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
31
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
In addition, the proposed project would be subject to Arcadia Municipal Code Article
VII, Chapter 8, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control, which would require
preparation and submittal to the City of an erosion and sediment control plan prior to
issuance of a grading or building permit. The erosion and sediment control plan would
including BMPs designed to control erosion and sediment. Compliance with these
requirements would minimize soil erosion during project construction. Therefore, this
impact would be less than significant.
c, d) Less Than Significant Impact. See Response a)(iii–iv) above. The project site is not located
in an area that is susceptible to liquefaction or landslides. Soils in the project area consist
of alluvial material from the San Gabriel Mountains, which is primarily of sand and gravel
with an expansion potential in the low to moderate range. In accordance with CBC and
Municipal Code requirements, the City would require the submittal of a site-specific
geotechnical study for the project as part of the building permit process. The
geotechnical study would evaluate site soils and provide recommendations as
necessary for site preparation, foundations, and building construction to address issues
such as unstable or expansive soils. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
e) No Impact. The project site is served by a public sewer system. No septic tanks or other
alternative wastewater systems are proposed. There would be no impact.
f) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Project-related construction
activities have the potential to disturb previously undiscovered subsurface
paleontological resources (fossilized remains, traces, or imprints) and/or unique
geological features. Implementation of mitigation measure MM 6.1 would reduce this
impact to a less than significant impact by requiring work to halt if a resource is
encountered and for the resource to be properly managed under the direction of a
qualified paleontologist.
Mitigation Measures
MM 6.1 If paleontological resources (i.e., fossilized remains, traces, or imprints) are
inadvertently discovered during project construction, work shall be halted
immediately within 50 feet of the discovery, the City shall be notified, and a
professional paleontologist shall be retained to evaluate the discovery.
The project applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist to provide an
evaluation of the find and to prescribe techniques to reduce impacts to a less
than significant level. In considering any suggested techniques proposed by the
consulting paleontologist, the City of Arcadia Development Services Department
shall determine whether avoidance is necessary and feasible in light of factors
such as the nature of the find, project design, costs, land use assumptions, and
other considerations. If avoidance is unnecessary or infeasible, other appropriate
measures (e.g., data recovery) shall be instituted. Work may proceed on other
parts of the project site while mitigation for paleontological resources is carried
out.
Timing/Implementation: During all ground-disturbing construction activities
Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Arcadia Development Services Department
Arroyo Pacific Academy Specific Plan City of Arcadia
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2016
32
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a) Less Than Significant Impact. Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are referred to as
greenhouse gases (GHG). The main components of GHG include carbon dioxide (CO2),
methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). Greenhouse gases are emitted by both natural
processes and human activities. In response to growing scientific and political concern
related to global climate change, the State of California has adopted a series of laws to
reduce emissions of GHGs to the atmosphere from commercial and private activities in
the state. Construction and operation of the proposed project would generate GHG
emissions.
GHG emissions associated with the proposed project would occur over the short term
from construction activities, consisting primarily of emissions from equipment exhaust.
There would also be long-term regional emissions associated with project-related new
vehicular trips and stationary source emissions, such as natural gas used for heating and
electricity usage for lighting. The calculation presented below includes construction as
well as long-term operational emissions in terms of annual carbon dioxide equivalents
(CO2e) associated with the anticipated operations of the proposed project. The resultant
emissions of these activities were calculated using CalEEMod (Appendix B). CalEEMod is
a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform
for the use of government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals.
On September 28, 2010, the SCAQMD recommended an interim screening level numeric
“bright‐line” threshold of 3,000 metric tons of CO2e annually and an efficiency-based
threshold of 4.8 metric tons of CO2e per service population (residents plus employees)
per year in 2020 and 3.0 metric tons of CO2e per service population per year in 2035.
These thresholds were developed as part of the SCAQMD GHG CEQA Significance
Threshold Working Group. The Working Group was formed to assist the SCAQMD’s efforts
to develop a GHG significance threshold and comprises a wide variety of stakeholders
including the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), CARB, the
Attorney General’s Office, a variety of city and county planning departments in the
South Coast Air Basin, various utility purveyors such as sanitation and power companies
throughout the SCAB, industry groups, and environmental and professional organizations.
The numeric bright-line and efficiency-based thresholds were developed to be consistent
with CEQA requirements for developing significance thresholds, are supported by
substantial evidence, and provide guidance to CEQA practitioners with regard to
determining whether GHG emissions from a proposed project are significant. For the
purposes of this evaluation, the proposed project is compared to the SCAQMD interim
screening level numeric bright‐line threshold of 3,000 metric tons of CO2e annually.
City of Arcadia Arroyo Pacific Academy Specific Plan
July 2016 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
33
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Emissions resulting from implementation of the proposed project have been quantified
and the quantified emissions are compared with the recommended SCAQMD
greenhouse gas screening threshold. The anticipated GHG emissions during project
construction and operation are shown in Table 5. In accordance with the SCAQMD
guidance, projected GHGs from construction have been quantified and amortized over
30 years, which is the number of years considered to represent the life of the project. The
amortized construction emissions are added to the annual average operational
emissions.
TABLE 5
CONSTRUCTION-RELATED AND OPERATIONAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS (METRIC TONS PER YEAR)
Emission Type CO2e
Proposed Project
38,300 square feet of educational building space & 196 parking spaces on 1.68 acres
Construction (amortized over 30 years) 3
Indirect Emissions from Energy Consumption 157
Water Demand 26
Waste Generation 38
Area Source (hearth, landscaping) 0
Mobile Source (vehicles) 1,036
Operations Total 1,260
Existing Baseline
16,440 square feet of commercial office space & 15,050 square feet of educational building space
Indirect Emissions from Energy Consumption 123
Water Demand 16
Waste Generation 27
Area Source (hearth, landscaping) 0
Mobile Source (vehicles) 595
Operations Total 761
Difference
Construction (amortized over 30 years) +3
Indirect Emissions from Energy Consumption +34
Water Demand +10
Waste Generation +11
Area Source (hearth, landscaping) 0
Mobile Source (vehicles) +441
Total +499
SCAQMD Greenhouse Gas Threshold 3,000
Threshold Exceeded? No
Source: CalEEMod version 2013.2.2. Per SCAQMD guidance, construction emissions are amortized over 30 years, which is
considered to represent the life span of development. Proposed project mobile source emissions derived from traffic analysis
prepared for the project, which estimates 694 average daily trips. Existing baseline mobile source emissions derived from traffic
analysis prepared for existing conditions, which estimates 446 average daily trips. Refer to Appendix B for model data outputs.
Arroyo Pacific Academy Specific Plan City of Arcadia
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2016
34
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Per Table 5, GHG emissions projected to result from both construction (amortized over 30
years) and operation of the proposed project would not exceed the SCAQMD
greenhouse gas screening threshold of 3,000 metric tons of CO2e per year. The impact is
therefore considered less than significant.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. No applicable plans, policies, or regulations adopted for
the purpose of reducing GHG emissions apply to the project area. However, Arcadia
Municipal Code Division 3, Water Conservation Plan, and Division 4, Water Efficient
Landscaping, promote water conservation in large landscaped areas, careful water
management practices and wastewater prevention for existing landscapes, and other
resource management directives in new construction projects in the city. Such water
conservation measures reduce GHG emissions by reducing the energy consumed by
water transport and delivery.
In addition, the project would be subject to applicable federal, state, and local
regulatory requirements, further reducing project-related GHG emissions. The project
would not conflict with or impede implementation of reduction goals identified in AB 32
and other strategies to help reduce GHG emissions.
SCAG’s 2016–2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
(RTP/SCS), adopted on April 7, 2016, is a long-range visioning plan that balances future
mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental, and public health goals. The
RTP/SCS embodies a collective vision for the region’s future and is developed with input
from local governments, county transportation commissions, tribal governments,
nonprofit organizations, businesses, and local stakeholders in Imperial, Los Angeles,
Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura counties. The plan establishes
greenhouse emissions goals for automobiles and light-duty trucks for 2020 and 2035, and
establishes an overall GHG target for the region consistent with both the target date of
AB 32 (2020) and the post-2020 GHG reduction goals of Executive Orders 5-03-05 and B-
30-15. The 2016 RTP/SCS contains over 4,000 transportation projects, including highway
improvements, railroad grade separations, bicycle lanes, new transit hubs, and
replacement bridges. These future investments were included in county plans developed
by the six county transportation commissions and seek to reduce traffic bottlenecks,
improve the efficiency of the region’s network, and expand mobility choices. The
RTP/SCS is an important planning document for the region, allowing project sponsors to
qualify for federal funding. In addition, the RTP/SCS is supported by a combination of
transportation and land use strategies that help the region achieve state GHG emission
reduction goals and federal Clean Air Act requirements, preserve open space areas,
improve public health and roadway safety, support the vital goods movement industry,
and utilize resources more efficiently. As shown in Table 5, GHG emissions resulting from
development-related mobile sources are the most potent source of emissions. Therefore,
project comparison to the RTP/SCS is an appropriate indicator of whether the proposed
project would inhibit the post-2020 GHG reduction goals promulgated by the State.
The proposed project’s consistency with the RTP/SCS goals is analyzed in detail in Table 6.
City of Arcadia Arroyo Pacific Academy Specific Plan
July 2016 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
35
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
TABLE 6
CONSISTENCY WITH SCAG’S REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN/SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES STRATEGY GOALS
SCAG Goal Compliance with Goal
Goal 1: Align the plan investments
and policies with improving regional
economic development and
competitiveness.
This is not a project-specific policy and is therefore not applicable.
Goal 2: Maximize mobility and
accessibility for all people and goods
in the region.
The project is consistent with this goal. Improvements to the transportation
network in Arcadia are developed and maintained to meet the needs of local
and regional transportation and to ensure efficient mobility. A number of
regional and local plans and programs are used to guide development and
maintenance of transportation networks, including but not limited to:
• Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County
• Caltrans Traffic Impact Studies Guidelines
• Caltrans Highway Capacity Manual
• SCAG RTP/SCS
Goal 3: Ensure travel safety and
reliability for all people and goods in
the region.
The project is consistent with this policy. All modes of transit in Arcadia are
required to follow safety standards set by the corresponding regulatory
documents. Pedestrian walkways and bicycle routes must follow safety
precautions and standards established by local (e.g., City of Arcadia, County
of Los Angeles) and regional (e.g., SCAG, Caltrans) agencies. Roadways for
motorists must follow safety standards established for the local and regional
plans.
Goal 4: Preserve and ensure a
sustainable regional transportation
system.
The project is consistent with this goal. All new roadway developments and
improvements to the existing transportation network must be assessed with
some level of traffic analysis (e.g., traffic assessments, traffic impact studies) to
determine how the developments would impact existing traffic capacities and
to determine the needs for improving future traffic capacities.
Goal 5: Maximize the productivity of
our transportation system.
The project is consistent with this goal. The local and regional transportation
system would be improved and maintained to encourage efficiency and
productivity. The City’s Public Works Department oversees the improvement
and maintenance of all aspects of the public right-of-way on an as-needed
basis. The City also strives to maximize productivity of the region’s public
transportation system for residents, visitors, and workers coming into and out
of Arcadia.
Goal 6: Protect the environment and
health of our residents by improving
air quality and encouraging active
transportation (e.g., bicycling and
walking).
The project is consistent with this goal. The reduction of energy use,
improvement of air quality, and promotion of more environmentally
sustainable development are encouraged through the development of
alternative transportation methods, green design techniques for buildings, and
other energy-reducing techniques. For example, development projects are
required to comply with the provisions of the California Building and Energy
Efficiency Standards and the Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen). The
City also strives to maximize the protection of the environment and
improvement of air quality by encouraging and improving the use of the
region’s public transportation system for residents, visitors, and workers
coming into and out of Arcadia.
Goal 7: Actively encourage and
create incentives for energy
efficiency, where possible.
This is not a project-specific policy and is therefore not applicable.
Arroyo Pacific Academy Specific Plan City of Arcadia
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2016
36
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
SCAG Goal Compliance with Goal
Goal 8: Encourage land use and
growth patterns that facilitate transit
and non-motorized transportation.
The project is consistent with this goal. The project site is in the immediate
vicinity of the Metro Gold Line Arcadia Station, which provides transit
opportunities for students and faculty. See also response to Goal 6.
Goal 9: Maximize the security of our
transportation system through
improved system monitoring, rapid
recovery planning, and coordination
with other security agencies.
The project is consistent with this goal. The City of Arcadia monitors existing
and newly constructed roadways and transit routes to determine the adequacy
and safety of these systems. Other local and regional agencies (i.e., Caltrans
and SCAG) work with the City to manage these systems. Security situations
involving roadways and evacuations would be addressed in the County of Los
Angeles’s emergency management plans (e.g., Los Angeles County
Emergency Operations Plan) developed in accordance with the state and
federally mandated emergency management regulations.
As shown in Table 6, the proposed project does not conflict with the stated goals of the
RTP/SCS. For these reasons, the proposed project would not interfere with SCAG’s ability
to achieve the region’s post-2020 mobile source GHG reduction targets outlined in the
2016 RTP/SCS.
For the reason stated above, the project would not conflict with an applicable GHG
reduction plan, policy, or regulation. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
City of Arcadia Arroyo Pacific Academy Specific Plan
July 2016 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
37
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan area or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or a
public use airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
g) Impair implementation of, or physically interfere
with, an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a–c) Less Than Significant Impact. The project proposes to relocate and expand an existing
school facility on the project site. Education uses, like those proposed for the project site,
do not typically use, store, or transport hazardous materials beyond small quantities of
common materials such as cleaning products, paints, pesticides, and batteries.
Maintenance staff would be required by law to use and store these materials in
Arroyo Pacific Academy Specific Plan City of Arcadia
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2016
38
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
accordance with the product labels, and Los Angeles County has hazardous waste
collection centers to ensure proper disposal of such materials. As such, it is assumed that
the presence of these materials on the project site would not create hazardous
conditions or a risk of upset at the site or in the surrounding area, including at the
proposed school facility and other schools in the area. This impact would be less than
significant.
d) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is not included
on a list of hazardous materials sites (DTSC 2015; SWRCB 2015).
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was prepared for 400 Rolyn Place by DCI
Environmental Services in 2012. This Phase I ESA identified that the property was listed on
the HWIS (Hazardous Waste Information System) and RCRA-G (Resource Conservation
and Recovery Information System-Generators) databases as a generator of small
quantities of hazardous waste and that no violations were reported. DCI Environmental
also reported that the Los Angeles County Sanitation District records show a previous
operator maintained permits to discharge wastewater through a sump system located
on the property from 1984 through 1996 and that no violations were reported. The Phase I
ESA did not identify any on- or off-site Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) and
provided no recommendations for additional investigations (Alta Environmental 2015,
p. 9).
A second Phase I ESA was prepared for the project site (325 N. Santa Anita Avenue and
400 Rolyn Place) by Alta Environmental in December 2015 in support of the proposed
project (see Appendix C). Alta Environmental determined that the property at 325 N.
Santa Anita Avenue is not identified on any hazardous materials databases. The property
at 400 Rolyn Place was again identified on multiple databases as a generator of small
quantity hazardous waste, but no violations were identified.
The second Phase I ESA identified one REC at the 400 Rolyn Place property and one
additional REC at an adjacent property located at 312 Rolyn Place. Historical operations
on the 400 Rolyn Place property and the adjacent property included the use of unknown
organic solvents, likely including chlorinated organic solvents. These solvents, even when
properly stored and disposed of, can be released from facilities in small, frequent
releases through floor drains, cracked concrete, and sewer systems. Chlorinated organic
solvents are highly mobile chemicals that can easily accumulate in soil and migrate
laterally in vapor form intruding in to buildings and negatively impacting indoor air
quality. Thus, Alta Environmental (2015, p. 20) recommends further assessment of these
identified Recognized Environmental Conditions. Implementation of mitigation measure
MM 8.1 would reduce this impact to a less than significant level by requiring a Phase II
ESA, which would include soil sampling and testing to identify contaminants and, if
necessary, remediation.
e, f) Less Than Significant Impact. The nearest airport to the project site is El Monte Airport,
which is located approximately 3.75 miles to the south. Due to the distance from the
airport, project site visitors would not be at risk of any safety hazards related to airport
operations. This impact would be less than significant.
g) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site and surrounding properties do not contain
any critical facilities such as police stations or hospitals. Furthermore, the project does not
propose any improvements to the roadway system or access points that could interfere
with emergency response or evacuation plans. This impact would be less than significant.
City of Arcadia Arroyo Pacific Academy Specific Plan
July 2016 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
39
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
h) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located in an urbanized area that is
served by the Arcadia Fire Department and is not subject to the risk of wildland fire.
Furthermore, according to Figure S-6 of the City’s (2010a) General Plan Safety Element,
the site is not located within a fire hazard zone. Therefore, the proposed project would
not expose any people or structures to significant risks related to wildland fire, and this
impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
MM 8.1 The project applicant shall have a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment
prepared for the project site including soil and indoor air sampling and testing for
the presence of residual chlorinated organic solvents. All recommended
remediation shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City of Arcadia and the
Los Angeles County Department of Environmental Health prior to project
implementation.
Timing/Implementation: Phase II ESA shall be submitted to the City for review
and approval, and any necessary remediation shall
be completed prior to issuance of a grading permit
Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Arcadia Planning Department; Los Angeles
County Department of Environmental Health
Arroyo Pacific Academy Specific Plan City of Arcadia
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2016
40
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-
existing nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing land uses or
planned uses for which permits have been
granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through the alteration
of the course of a stream or river, in a manner
which would result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through the alteration
of the course of a stream or river, or substantially
increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner that would result in flooding on- or off-
site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard
area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other
flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures that would impede or redirect flood
flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of a failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
City of Arcadia Arroyo Pacific Academy Specific Plan
July 2016 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
41
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a, f) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project could result in water quality
degradation during construction and operation. Construction activities associated with
development of Building A would include demolition, excavation, and grading, which
would disturb and expose soils to water erosion, potentially increasing the amount of silt
and debris entering the drainage system and downstream waterways. In addition,
refueling and parking of construction equipment and other vehicles on-site during
construction could result in oil, grease, and other related pollutant leaks and spills that
could enter runoff. However, as noted above, the project would be required to obtain
coverage under the State’s General Construction NPDES permit, which requires projects
to develop and implement a SWPPP that includes best management practices and
requires inspections of stormwater control structures and pollution prevention measures.
Compliance with these requirements would ensure that site development activities do
not result in the movement of unwanted material into waters on or off the project site.
The portion of the project site proposed for construction of Building A is currently
developed as a parking lot. Operation of the proposed project could generate runoff
from the site that contains oil, grease, fuel, antifreeze, and byproducts of combustion
(such as lead, cadmium, nickel, and other metals), as well as nutrients, sediments, and
other pollutants. However, because the use on the site would be similar to the existing
use, operation of the proposed project would not substantially change the quality or
constituents in stormwater runoff entering the public drainage system. In addition, the
proposed project would be subject to City of Arcadia Municipal Code Article VII,
Chapter 8, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control, to control discharges
during project operation. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. Domestic water service to the project site is provided by the
City of Arcadia, which obtains its water supplies primarily from groundwater from both
the Main Basin and the Raymond Basin. Both basins are adjudicated and managed to
ensure the established safe yields for the basins are not exceeded. Any demand in
excess of the City’s groundwater allocations could be met by purchasing treated,
imported water. However, the City does not typically import water because its collective
groundwater supplies are sufficient to meet water demands (Arcadia 2011, p. 4-1).
The proposed project would increase the capacity of the existing school by up to
approximately 102 students and 5 additional staff, or about a 30 percent increase in
students and staff. Assuming a nonresidential water demand of approximately 200
gallons per day (gpd) per 1,000 square feet (Arcadia 2010b, p. 4.16-27), the 6,810-
square-foot Building A would generate demand for an additional 1,362 gpd or 1.5 acre-
feet per year (afy). The increase represents a small fraction of the estimated demand in
the city in 2010 (17,975 afy) or the estimated demand of 15,702 afy in 2035 (Arcadia
2010b, p. 4.16-26). This would not represent a substantial increase in water demand and
would not result in a substantial depletion of groundwater supplies. Furthermore, the
proposed site of Building A is currently developed as a parking lot, which does not allow
for infiltration. Therefore, the proposed project would not interfere with groundwater
recharge. This impact would be less than significant.
c–f) Less Than Significant Impact. The portion of the project site proposed for construction of
Building A is currently a paved surface parking lot. Therefore, construction would not
substantially increase the impervious surface area or stormwater drainage flow rates or
volumes. The project site is served by a public drainage system and the existing drainage
Arroyo Pacific Academy Specific Plan City of Arcadia
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2016
42
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
pattern would not be substantially altered. Therefore, the project would not result in on-
or off-site flooding and would not exceed the capacity of the serving drainage system.
Furthermore, as described previously, soil erosion would be controlled through
implementation of a SWPPP including best management practices to minimize erosion
and siltation during construction. The project would be subject to City of Arcadia
Municipal Code Article VII, Chapter 8, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control,
to control discharges during project operation. Therefore, this impact would be less than
significant.
g, h) No Impact. The project site is not located in a flood hazard area (FEMA 2008) and does
not involve the construction of any residential uses. There would be no impact.
i) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located within the inundation area for the
Big Santa Anita Dam. This 225-foot-high concrete thin-arch dam on Santa Anita Creek
was constructed between 1923 and 1927 and serves flood control, water conservation,
and debris control purposes. It is owned by the Los Angeles County Flood Control District
and is regulated by the California Division of Safety of Dams, which routinely inspects the
dam’s condition to ensure public safety. Therefore, the project site is not considered to
be at significant risk of inundation resulting from a dam failure. This impact would be less
than significant.
j) No Impact. The project site is not located in a tsunami evacuation area and is not
located in the vicinity of any large enclosed bodies of water capable of producing
seiche waves. Furthermore, the project site is not located near any hillsides and is not at
risk of inundation from mudslide. There would be no impact.
City of Arcadia Arroyo Pacific Academy Specific Plan
July 2016 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
43
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not
limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan?
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a) No Impact. The project site is located on a developed parcel in downtown Arcadia. The
project would construct one new building and renovate two existing buildings. These
proposed improvements would in no way affect vehicular, transit, bicycle, or pedestrian
access in the area. The project does not include any changes to the roadway system,
the existing bicycle lanes and sidewalks adjacent to the site, or the Metro Gold Line
Foothill Extension, which runs immediately northeast of the site. There would be no
impact.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project requires preparation of a Specific
Plan for the project site to refine General Plan policies applicable to the site and modify
zoning regulations to allow for and guide expansion of the existing school facility. The
Specific Plan would ensure that the proposed improvements and operation of the
proposed school facility would be consistent with the City’s General Plan, Zoning Code,
and all other applicable land use plans and policies. The proposed project would not
conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Therefore, this impact would be less
than significant.
c) No Impact. There are no adopted habitat conservation plans or natural community
conservation plans applicable to the project site. There would be no impact.
Arroyo Pacific Academy Specific Plan City of Arcadia
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2016
44
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan
or other land use plan?
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a, b) No Impact. The California State Mining and Geology Board classifies lands in California
based on the availability of mineral resources. According to the City of Arcadia General
Plan (2010a, p. 6-30), there are only four remaining undeveloped sites in those portions of
the city designated as mineral resource zones. Three of these sites are used for flood
control, groundwater recharge, and wilderness/recreation purposes and are not
available for mineral resource extraction. The Livingston-Graham site is located primarily
in Irwindale and is not in the vicinity of the project site. Furthermore, given the developed
nature of the project site and its location in downtown Arcadia, project implementation
would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource or of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site. There would be no impact.
City of Arcadia Arroyo Pacific Academy Specific Plan
July 2016 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
45
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
12. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance or of
applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan area or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or a
public use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
Noise Fundamentals
Noise is generally defined as sound that is loud, disagreeable, or unexpected. The selection of a
proper noise descriptor for a specific source is dependent on the spatial and temporal
distribution, duration, and fluctuation of the noise. The noise descriptors most often encountered
when dealing with traffic, community, and environmental noise include an overall frequency
weighted sound level in decibels that approximates the frequency response of the human ear
(A-weighted decibels, or dBA). Noise can be generated by a number of sources, including
mobile sources, such as automobiles, trucks, and airplanes, and stationary sources, such as
construction sites, machinery, and industrial operations. The rate depends on the ground surface
and the number or type of objects between the noise source and the receiver. Mobile
transportation sources, such as highways, and hard and flat surfaces, such as concrete or
asphalt, have an attenuation rate of 3.0 dBA per doubling of distance. Soft surfaces, such as
uneven or vegetated terrain, have an attenuation rate of about 4.5 dBA per doubling of
distance from the source. Noise generated by stationary sources typically attenuates at a rate
of approximately 6.0 to 7.5 dBA per doubling of distance from the source (EPA 1971).
Construction noise is assumed to average 6 dB of attenuation per doubling of distance from the
source. Sound levels can be reduced by placing barriers between the noise source and the
receiver. In general, barriers contribute to decreasing noise levels only when the structure breaks
Arroyo Pacific Academy Specific Plan City of Arcadia
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2016
46
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
the “line of sight” between the source and the receiver. Buildings, concrete walls, and berms
can all act as effective noise barriers. Wooden fences or broad areas of dense foliage can also
reduce noise but are less effective than solid barriers.
In order to quantify existing ambient noise levels in the project area, Michael Baker International
conducted four short-term noise measurements on May 11, 2016. The noise measurement sites
were representative of typical existing noise exposure within and immediately adjacent to the
project site. The 15-minute measurements were taken between 11:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. Short-
term (Leq) measurements are considered representative of the noise levels throughout the day.
The average noise levels and sources of noise measured at each location are identified in Table
7. The existing daytime noise levels ranged from 52.1 to 71.6 dBA.
TABLE 7
NOISE MEASUREMENTS
Site No. Location Leq (dBA) Lmin (dBA) Lmax (dBA) Time
1 325 Santa Anita Avenue 71.6 50.4 95.7 11:05 a.m.–11:20 a.m.
2 400 Rolyn Place 57.8 47.5 78.3 11:23 a.m.–11:38 a.m.
3 41 Santa Clara Street 68.4 47.9 86.8 11:43 a.m.–11:58 a.m.
4 115 San Miguel Drive 52.1 43.7 68.2 12:18 p.m.–12:33 p.m.
Source: Michael Baker International, May 11, 2016
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a) Less Than Significant Impact. The City’s (2010a) General Plan Noise Element contains the
City’s policies on noise. The Noise Element is a comprehensive program to limit the
exposure of the community to excessive noise levels. The Noise Element establishes
guidelines for controlling noise in the city and identifies noise-sensitive land uses and noise
sources with the intent of separating these uses. Noise-sensitive land uses are those that
may be subject to stress and/or interference from excessive noise. Noise-sensitive land
uses include public schools, hospitals, and institutional uses such as churches, museums,
and private schools. Typically, residential uses are also considered noise-sensitive
receptors. Industrial and commercial land uses are generally not considered sensitive to
noise. Noise-sensitive receptors in the project area include the residential neighborhood
approximately 170 feet to the west.
Table 8 lists the standards and criteria that specify acceptable limits of noise for various
land uses throughout Arcadia.
City of Arcadia Arroyo Pacific Academy Specific Plan
July 2016 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
47
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
TABLE 8
CITY OF ARCADIA GENERAL PLAN NOISE ELEMENT NOISE STANDARDS
Land Use Maximum Exterior Noise level Maximum Interior Noise Level
Residential 65 dBA CNEL 45 dBA CNEL
Schools
Classroom
Playground
70 dBA CNEL
70 dBA CNEL
45 dBA CNEL
—
Library — 45 dBA CNEL
Hospitals/Convalescent Facilities
Sleeping Areas
Living Areas
Reception, Office
65 dBA CNEL
—
—
45 dBA CNEL
50 dBA CNEL
50 dBA Leq
Hotels/Motels
Sleeping Areas
Reception, Office
—
—
45 dBA CNEL
50 dBA Leq
Place of Worship 65 dBA CNEL 45 dBA Leq
Open Space/Recreation
Wildlife Habitat
Passive Recreation Areas
Active Recreation Areas
60 dBA CNEL
65 dBA CNEL
70 dBA CNEL
—
—
—
Commercial and Business Park
Office
Restaurant, Retail, Service
Warehousing/Industrial
—
—
—
55 dBA CNEL
65 dBA CNEL
70 dBA CNEL
Source: Arcadia 2010a
The City’s Municipal Code addresses construction-related noise generation by
prohibiting construction activities any time after the hour of 6:00 p.m. on any weekday;
any time before the hour of 7:00 a.m. on any weekday; any time after the hour of 5:00
p.m. on any Saturday; any time before the hour of 8:00 a.m. on any Saturday; any time
on any Sunday; and any time on major holidays. The City exempts construction from the
City’s Noise Ordinance during non-prohibited hours (e.g., 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on
weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays).
Short-Term Noise Impacts
Construction of the proposed project would occur over several months and would
include site preparation, minor grading, construction of a new building, remodeling of
two existing buildings, and application of architectural coatings.
Construction noise typically occurs intermittently and varies depending on the nature or
phase of construction (e.g., land clearing, grading, excavation, paving). Noise
generated by construction equipment, including earth movers, material handlers, and
portable generators, can reach high levels. Noise levels associated with individual
construction equipment are summarized in Table 9.
Arroyo Pacific Academy Specific Plan City of Arcadia
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2016
48
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
TABLE 9
TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVELS
Equipment Typical Noise Level (dBA Lmax)
50 Feet from Source
Air Compressor 81
Backhoe 80
Compactor 82
Concrete Mixer 85
Concrete Vibrator 76
Crane, Mobile 83
Dozer 85
Generator 81
Grader 85
Impact Wrench 85
Jackhammer 88
Loader 85
Truck 88
Paver 89
Pneumatic Tool 85
Roller 74
Saw 76
Source: FTA 2006
As depicted in Table 9, noise levels generated by individual pieces of construction
equipment typically range from approximately 74 dBA to 89 dBA Lmax at 50 feet (FTA 2006).
Short-term increases in vehicle traffic, including worker commute trips and haul truck trips,
may also result in temporary increases in ambient noise levels at nearby receptors. During
project construction, exterior noise levels could affect the nearest existing sensitive
receivers in the vicinity. The nearest sensitive receptors include residences to the west,
which are approximately 170 feet away. Therefore, accounting for the fact that
construction noise levels average 6 dB of attenuation per doubling of distance from the
source, these residential land uses could be exposed to temporary and intermittent noise
levels up to 79.4 dBA. As previously described, the City exempts construction from the City’s
Noise Ordinance during non-prohibited hours (e.g., 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays
and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays). Restricting construction to these hours is intended
to mitigate temporary noise impacts by avoiding construction during nighttime periods
that would disturb noise-sensitive land uses (residential). Because construction noise would
be temporary, intermittent, short in duration, and would take place during legal hours of
construction, the project’s construction phase noise would have a less than significant
impact.
City of Arcadia Arroyo Pacific Academy Specific Plan
July 2016 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
49
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Operational Noise Impacts
On-Site Operations
On-site noise-related operational noise impacts associated with the proposed project
would be similar to existing conditions. The project is located in an urbanized area of the
city and is developed with commercial office and educational land uses. Since the
project site is already developed with commercial and educational uses, operation of
the proposed project is not expected to result in any substantial changes in the noise
environment. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in substantial permanent
long-term operational increases in noise levels as a result of on-site operations.
Traffic-Generated Noise
Future traffic noise levels throughout the area surrounding the project site were modeled
based on the traffic volumes identified by Gibson Transportation Consultants (2016) to
determine the noise level contours along project area roadways (see Appendix D). Table
10 shows the calculated roadway noise levels accounting for the development potential
allowed under the proposed project.
TABLE 10
PROJECT CONDITIONS NOISE LEVELS ALONG PROJECT VICINITY ROADWAYS
Roadway Segment
Existing Plus Project Conditions
dBA @ 100
Feet from
Roadway
Centerline
Distance (Feet) from Roadway Centerline to:
55 CNEL
Noise
Contour
60 CNEL
Noise
Contour
65 CNEL
Noise
Contour
70 CNEL
Noise
Contour
Santa Anita Avenue
North of I-210 westbound ramp 56.7 dBA 130 feet 60 feet — —
I-210 westbound ramp to I-210 eastbound
ramp 61.0 dBA 249 feet 116 feet — —
I-210 eastbound ramp to Colorado
Boulevard 61.0 dBA 251 feet 116 feet 54 feet —
Colorado Boulevard to Santa Clara Street 60.5 dBA 232 feet 108 feet 50 feet —
Santa Clara Street to Huntington Drive 59.2 dBA 191 feet 89 feet — —
Huntington Drive to south 56.1 dBA 122 feet 56 feet — —
Huntington Drive
Northwest of Colorado Place 60.6 dBA 244 feet 113 feet 53 feet —
Colorado Place to Santa Clara Street 59.2 dBA 199 feet 92 feet — —
Santa Clara Street to Santa Anita Avenue 59.7 dBA 219 feet 101 feet — —
Santa Anita Avenue to east 57.3 dBA 153 feet 71 feet — —
ADT = average daily trips; dBA = A-weighted decibels; CNEL = community noise equivalent level.
Source: FHWA Highway Noise Prediction Model; Gibson Transportation Consulting 2016
Arroyo Pacific Academy Specific Plan City of Arcadia
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2016
50
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
As presented in Table 8, the maximum allowable exterior noise level at schools is 70 dBA
CNEL. As shown in Table 10, traffic-related noise levels on vicinity roadways as a result of
the project would range from 56.1 to 61.0 dBA CNEL at 100 feet from the roadway
centerlines. Furthermore, noise levels would not reach the level of 70 dBA CNEL at any
distance. Therefore, the project site itself would be exposed to acceptable levels of
traffic noise.
The surrounding commercial land uses would also be subject to acceptable traffic noise
levels as a result of the project. As depicted in Table 8, commercial office uses are
protected by maximum interior noise level standards. Interior noise levels are about 12 to
17 dBA lower than exterior levels with the windows partially open and approximately 20
to 25 decibels lower than exterior levels with the windows closed, assuming typical
California construction methods. Therefore, the project would result in maximum interior
noise levels of 49 dBA CNEL, which is lower than the 55 dBA CNEL threshold.
There are residential land uses located adjacent to project vicinity roadways, including
residences directly adjacent to Santa Anita Avenue and approximately 140 feet from
Huntington Drive northwest of Colorado Place. As shown in Table 8, the maximum
allowable exterior noise level at residences is 65 dBA CNEL. A review of Table 10 shows
that traffic-related noise as a result of the project would reach 65 dBA CNEL at three
different locations: 54 feet from the Santa Anita Avenue centerline between the I-210
eastbound ramp and Colorado Boulevard; 50 feet from the Santa Anita Avenue
centerline between Colorado Boulevard and Santa Clara Street; and 53 feet from the
centerline of Huntington Drive northwest of Colorado Place.
The exterior front yards of the residences adjacent to Santa Anita Avenue between
Interstate 210 and Colorado Boulevard are 55 feet from the centerline of Santa Anita
Avenue; therefore, these residences would be exposed to acceptable noise levels (65
dBA CNEL and lower) from project-related traffic increases. There are no residential lands
uses on Santa Anita Avenue between Colorado Boulevard and Santa Clara Street, and
the residential neighborhood northwest of Colorado Place is set back approximately 140
feet from Huntington Drive, well beyond the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour.
New Student Receptors Exposure to Train Noise
The project site is located adjacent to the Los Angeles Metro Gold Line. The noise levels
generated by trains traversing the Metro Gold Line range from 45 to 67 dBA CNEL (Metro
2007, p. 3-11-31). This range of noise is within the acceptable noise range for schools as
established by the Arcadia General Plan (see Table 8).
For the reasons stated, predicted noise levels would not exceed the City’s noise
standards, and noise from project operations would be less than significant.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. This analysis uses the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) vibration impact threshold for sensitive buildings and residences.
Increases in groundborne vibration levels attributable to the proposed project would be
primarily associated with short-term construction-related activities. Construction activities
associated with the proposed improvements would likely require the use of various
equipment, such as tractors and haul trucks. For structural damage, Caltrans uses a
vibration limit of 0.3 inches per second, peak particle velocity (inches/second, PPV) for
older residential buildings (see Table 11). If this groundborne vibration level threshold is
exceeded, the result may be “architectural” damage to normal buildings.
City of Arcadia Arroyo Pacific Academy Specific Plan
July 2016 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
51
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
TABLE 11
DAMAGE TO BUILDINGS FOR CONTINUOUS OR FREQUENT INTERMITTENT VIBRATION LEVELS
Velocity Level, PPV (in/sec) Human Reaction Effects on Buildings
0.01 Barely perceptible No effect
0.04 Distinctly perceptible Vibration unlikely to cause damage of any type to
any structure
0.08 Distinctly perceptible to
strongly perceptible
Recommended upper level of the vibration to which
runs and ancient monuments should be subjected
0.01 Strongly perceptible Virtually no risk of damage to normal buildings
0.3 Strongly perceptible to severe
Threshold at which there is a risk of damage to older
residential dwellings such as plastered walls or
ceilings
0.5 Sever – Vibrations considered
unpleasant
Threshold at which there is a risk of damage to
newer residential structures
Source: Caltrans 2004
Construction activities would require the use of off-road equipment such as tractors,
jackhammers, and haul trucks. The use of major groundborne vibration–generating
construction equipment, such as pile drivers, would not be needed for the project.
Groundborne vibration levels associated with representative construction equipment are
summarized in Table 12.
TABLE 12
REPRESENTATIVE VIBRATION SOURCE LEVELS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
Equipment Peak Particle Velocity
at 25 Feet (in/sec)
Loaded Trucks 0.076
Jackhammer 0.035
Small Bulldozers/Tractors 0.003
Source: FTA 2006; Caltrans 2004
Once construction is completed, all construction-generated groundborne vibration
would cease. The nearest residential structure to the project site is approximately 170 feet
from the construction fence line. Based on the vibration levels presented in Table 12,
ground vibration generated by heavy-duty equipment would not be anticipated to
exceed approximately 0.08 inches per second peak particle velocity at 25 feet.
Predicted vibration levels at the nearest on- and off-site structures would not exceed
recommended criteria. Furthermore according to the Arcadia Municipal Code,
construction and related activities are restricted to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on
weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Restricting construction to these hours
is intended to mitigate temporary impacts associated with construction activities by
avoiding construction during nighttime periods that would disturb sensitive land uses
(residential).
There would be no source of ground vibration associated with the proposed school
operations.
Arroyo Pacific Academy Specific Plan City of Arcadia
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2016
52
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
As previously stated, the proposed project site is located adjacent to the Los Angeles
Metro Gold Line. According to the environmental analysis prepared for the Gold Line,
which evaluated groundborne vibration impacts resulting from light rail operations,
vibration impacts are experienced in Arcadia but not at the project site (Metro 2007, p.
3-11-54). Vibration impacts from the Gold Line were predicted at 20 single-family and 8
multi-family residences, the majority of which are experienced to the northwest of the
project site between the light railway corridor and N. Colorado Boulevard (Metro 2007, p.
3-11-54).
For the reasons stated above, the proposed project would not expose persons to or
generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. Impacts in this
regard are less than significant.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. In addition to reviewing the proposed development for
compliance with specific noise thresholds, this analysis accounts for the increases in noise
levels over pre-project noise conditions. Noise environments and consequences of
human activities are usually well represented by median noise levels during the day or
night or over a 24-hour period. Regarding increases in A-weighted noise levels (dBA), the
following relationships should be noted for understanding this analysis:
• Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of 1 dBA cannot
be perceived by humans.
• Outside of the laboratory, a 3 dBA change is considered a just-perceivable
difference.
• A change in level of at least 5 dBA is required before any noticeable change in
community response would be expected. An increase of 5 dBA is typically
considered substantial.
• A 10 dBA change is subjectively heard as an approximate doubling in loudness
and would almost certainly cause an adverse change in community response.
As stated under Response a), on-site noise-related operational noise impacts associated
with the proposed project would be similar to existing conditions. The project is located in
an urbanized area of the city and is developed with commercial and educational land
uses. Since the project site is already developed with such uses, operation of the
proposed project is not expected to result in any substantial changes in the noise
environment. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in substantial permanent
long-term operational increases in noise levels as a result of on-site operations.
The primary effect on the ambient noise environment as a result of the proposed project
would be from the project-related traffic increase on vicinity roadways. As described, a
change in level of at least 5 dBA is the change required before any noticeable change
in community response would be expected. Therefore, an increase of 5 dBA over the
pre-project noise conditions is considered significant. Table 13 shows the calculated
roadway noise levels with existing traffic levels compared to the existing plus project
scenario.
City of Arcadia Arroyo Pacific Academy Specific Plan
July 2016 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
53
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
TABLE 13
PREDICTED INCREASES IN TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS – EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS
Roadway Segment
CNEL at 100 Feet from Near-
Travel-Lane Centerline1 Increase Threshold Impact Without
Project
With
Project
Santa Anita Avenue
North of I-210 westbound ramp 56.7 dBA 56.7 dBA 0.0 >5.0 No
I-210 westbound ramp to I-210 eastbound ramp 60.9 dBA 61.0 dBA 0.1 >5.0 No
I-210 eastbound ramp to Colorado Boulevard 61.0 dBA 61.0 dBA 0.0 >5.0 No
Colorado Boulevard to Santa Clara Street 60.4 dBA 60.5 dBA 0.0 >5.0 No
Santa Clara Street to Huntington Drive 59.1 dBA 59.2 dBA 0.1 >5.0 No
Huntington Drive to south 56.1 dBA 56.1 dBA 0.0 >5.0 No
Huntington Drive
Northwest of Colorado Place 60.6 dBA 60.6 dBA 0.0 >5.0 No
Colorado Place to Santa Clara Street 59.2 dBA 59.2 dBA 0.0 >5.0 No
Santa Clara Street to Santa Anita Avenue 59.7 dBA 59.7 dBA 0.0 >5.0 No
Santa Anita Avenue to east 57.3 dBA 57.3 dBA 0.0 >5.0 No
ADT = average daily trips; dBA = A-weighted decibels; CNEL = community noise equivalent level.
Source: FHWA Highway Noise Prediction Model; Gibson Transportation Consulting 2016
In comparison to existing traffic noise levels, the project would result in a predicted
increase in traffic noise levels below 5 dBA. Therefore, predicted traffic noise levels would
not result in a substantial increase in traffic noise levels along other primarily affected
roadways. This impact is less than significant.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. See Response a). Temporary and periodic increases in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity would result from project construction and
remodeling activities. As stated, the City exempts construction from the City’s Noise
Ordinance during non-prohibited hours (7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00
a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays). Restricting construction to these hours is intended to
mitigate temporary noise impacts by avoiding construction during nighttime periods that
would disturb noise-sensitive land uses (residential). Because construction noise would be
temporary, intermittent, short in duration, and would take place during legal hours of
construction, the project would have a less than significant impact.
e) No Impact. The project area is not located within 2 miles of a public airport or public use
airport and therefore does not expose students to excessive noise levels from aircraft. The
nearest airport to the project site is El Monte Municipal Airport, located approximately
3.75 miles from the project site to the south. According to the City’s General Plan, the
noise contours for the airport show that the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour is located entirely
outside of Arcadia. There is no impact.
f) No Impact. The project area is not in the vicinity of a private airstrip and therefore does
not expose people to excessive noise levels from aircraft. There is no impact.
Arroyo Pacific Academy Specific Plan City of Arcadia
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2016
54
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an
area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g.,
through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a) Less Than Significant Impact. As of January 2015, Arcadia had an estimated population
of 57,761 (DOF 2015). Buildout of the proposed Specific Plan would allow for an increase
in student enrollment at the school from its current enrollment of 178 to a maximum of
280 students. The project would also increase staffing at the school from 25 to 30.
Nonetheless, the school would serve existing students in the area and the new staff
positions would likely be filled by existing area residents. Therefore, the project is not
expected to substantially increase the city’s population. The impact would be less than
significant.
b, c) No Impact. The proposed project does not involve the demolition of any housing and
would not otherwise displace any housing or people. There would be no impact.
City of Arcadia Arroyo Pacific Academy Specific Plan
July 2016 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
55
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any
of the following public services:
a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d) Parks?
e) Other public facilities?
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a, b) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is served by the City of Arcadia’s Fire and
Police departments. The Arcadia Fire Department (AFD) operates three fire stations.
Station 105, located at 710 S. Santa Anita Avenue, is located less than 1 mile south of the
project site and is staffed with firefighters 24 hours per day (Arcadia 2016b). The Arcadia
Police Department (APD) has over 75 sworn officers and support staff and is located
adjacent to City Hall at 250 West Huntington Drive, less than 1 mile from the project site.
In 2014, the APD handled 1,362 crimes, a 21.5 percent reduction from 2013 (Arcadia
2010a, 2016a).
The proposed project would increase the capacity at an existing school but would not
be expected to significantly increase calls for fire protection or law enforcement services.
Furthermore, the only proposed new building would be limited to two stories in height
and would not require any special firefighting equipment. The proposed project would
not result in the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for
the Fire Department or Police Department. The impact would be less than significant.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would increase capacity at an
existing school by physically expanding and consolidating facilities to a single location.
The effects of this expansion are the subject of this IS/MND. The potential environmental
effects of constructing the proposed improvements are discussed in the appropriate
subsections of this document and, where necessary, mitigation is provided to reduce
impacts to levels that are less than significant. The proposed project would not generate
additional demand for school facilities such that there would be additional effects
beyond those disclosed in this document. Furthermore, the proposed project would not
increase the demand for public schools.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. Students currently use local parks for physical education
programs. In addition, many of the students attending the school are international
students who are hosted by local families and likely use local parks for recreational
Arroyo Pacific Academy Specific Plan City of Arcadia
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2016
56
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
purposes. Parks in the vicinity of the campus include Newcastle Park, Arcadia Park,
Eisenhower Park, and Bonita Park.
The proposed project would incrementally increase the use of local parks by increasing
capacity at the school and by increasing the number of foreign exchange students
temporarily residing in the city. However, this increase would be negligible and would not
require additional maintenance activities at existing parks or construction of new or
expanded facilities. This impact would be less than significant.
e) No Impact. The proposed project would increase the capacity at an existing school but
would not substantially increase the city’s population. Thus, the project would not be
expected to increase demand for any other public services or require the expansion of
any public facilities. There would be no measurable impact on other public services.
City of Arcadia Arroyo Pacific Academy Specific Plan
July 2016 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
57
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
15. RECREATION.
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur
or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities, or
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities, which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a, b) Less Than Significant Impact. See Response d) in subsection 14, Public Services. The
proposed project would incrementally increase the use of local parks by increasing
capacity at the school and by increasing the number of foreign exchange students
temporarily residing in the city. However, this increase would be negligible and would not
require additional maintenance activities at existing parks or the construction of new or
expanded recreational facilities. This impact would be less than significant.
Arroyo Pacific Academy Specific Plan City of Arcadia
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2016
58
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or
policy establishing measures of effectiveness for
the performance of the circulation system, taking
into account all modes of transportation
including mass transit and non-motorized travel
and relevant components of the circulation
system, including but not limited to
intersections, streets, highways and freeways,
pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion
management program, including, but not limited
to, level of service standards and travel demand
measures, or other standards established by the
county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels or a
change in location that results in substantial
safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or
pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the
performance or safety of such facilities?
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a) Less Than Significant Impact. A transportation study (traffic study) for the proposed
project was completed by Gibson Transportation Consulting (2016). See Appendix E for
the traffic study. Since the proposed project site is entirely within Arcadia, the intersection
capacity calculations and traffic impact analyses were conducted based on guidelines
established by the City. According to these guidelines, a project creates a significant
impact if the increase in traffic demand generated by a proposed project equals or
exceeds 2 percent of the intersection’s capacity, causing or worsening level of service
(LOS) E or F conditions, i.e., the project increases the background level of service to a
LOS E or F operation OR the increase in the volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio is equal to or
greater than 0.020 with the addition of project traffic, worsening an intersection already
predicted to operate at LOS E or F conditions before project traffic is added.
City of Arcadia Arroyo Pacific Academy Specific Plan
July 2016 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
59
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
The traffic study analyzed four different scenarios at seven intersections to determine the
project’s level of impact to the surrounding roadway network. These scenarios include
Existing Conditions (2015); Existing with Project Conditions (2015); Future without Project
Conditions (2016); and Future with Project Conditions (2016). The seven intersections
include:
1. Santa Anita Avenue and I-210 Westbound Ramps
2. Santa Anita Avenue and I-210 Eastbound Ramps
3. Santa Anita Avenue and Colorado Boulevard
4. Santa Anita Avenue and Santa Clara Street
5. Colorado Place and Huntington Drive
6. Santa Clara Street and Huntington Drive
7. Santa Anita Avenue and Huntington Drive
As identified in the traffic study, the project is expected to generate a total of 248 net
new daily trips on a typical weekday, including approximately 81 morning peak-hour trips
(49 inbound, 32 outbound) and 17 afternoon peak-hour trips (8 inbound, 9 outbound)
(Gibson Transportation Consultants 2016, p. 37).
Table 14 identifies the Existing and Existing with Project conditions for the seven
intersections. As shown, the proposed project would not result in a significant impact to
any of the seven intersections under Existing with Project Conditions.
TABLE 14
EXISTING WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS (YEAR 2015) INTERSECTION PEAK-HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE
No Intersection Peak
Hour
Existing Conditions Existing with Project Conditions
V/C LOS V/C LOS Change in
V/C Ratio
Significant
Impact?
1 Santa Anita Ave & I-210 WB
Ramps
A.M. 0.600 A 0.600 A 0.000 No
P.M. 0.575 A 0.577 A 0.001 No
2 Santa Anita Ave & I-210 EB Ramps A.M. 0.705 C 0.723 C 0.018 No
P.M. 0.607 B 0.611 B 0.004 No
3 Santa Anita Ave & Colorado Blvd A.M. 0.658 B 0.731 C 0.073 No
P.M. 0.608 B 0.611 B 0.003 No
4 Santa Anita Ave & Santa Clara St A.M. 0.674 B 0.705 C 0.031 No
P.M. 0.677 B 0.685 B 0.008 No
5 Colorado Pl & Huntington Dr A.M. 0.451 A 0.455 A 0.004 No
P.M. 0.694 B 0.695 B 0.001 No
6 Santa Clara St & Huntington Dr A.M. 0.800 C 0.807 D 0.007 No
P.M. 0.656 B 0.657 B 0.001 No
7 Santa Anita Ave & Huntington Dr A.M. 0.812 D 0.845 D 0.033 No
P.M. 0.771 C 0.774 C 0.003 No
Source: Gibson Transportation Consultants 2016, Table 8
Arroyo Pacific Academy Specific Plan City of Arcadia
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2016
60
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Table 15 identifies the Future and Future with Project conditions for the seven
intersections. As shown, the proposed project would not result in a significant impact to
any of the seven intersections under Future with Project Conditions.
TABLE 15
FUTURE WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS (YEAR 2016) INTERSECTION PEAK-HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE
No Intersection Peak
Hour
Existing Conditions Future with Project Conditions
V/C LOS V/C LOS Change in
V/C Ratio
Significant
Impact?
1 Santa Anita Ave & I-210 WB
Ramps
A.M. 0.605 B 0.605 B 0.000 No
P.M. 0.586 A 0.587 A 0.001 No
2 Santa Anita Ave & I-210 EB
Ramps
A.M. 0.726 C 0.706 C -0.020 No
P.M. 0.625 B 0.630 B 0.005 No
3 Santa Anita Ave & Colorado Blvd A.M. 0.678 B 0.752 C 0.074 No
P.M. 0.626 B 0.630 B 0.004 No
4 Santa Anita Ave & Santa Clara St A.M. 0.691 B 0.721 C 0.030 No
P.M. 0.696 B 0.704 C 0.008 No
5 Colorado Pl & Huntington Dr A.M. 0.473 A 0.477 A 0.004 No
P.M. 0.720 C 0.721 C 0.001 No
6 Santa Clara St & Huntington Dr A.M. 0.825 D 0.832 D 0.007 No
P.M. 0.675 B 0.676 B 0.001 No
7 Santa Anita Ave & Huntington Dr A.M. 0.835 D 0.868 D 0.033 No
P.M. 0.792 C 0.795 C 0.003 No
Source: Gibson Transportation Consultants 2016, Table 9
CALTRANS FACILITIES
Intersections
Two of the seven analyzed intersections fall under Caltrans jurisdiction. These include:
1. Santa Anita Avenue and I-210 westbound ramps
2. Santa Anita Avenue and I-210 eastbound ramps
Caltrans requires that all intersections of ramps or state highways be analyzed using the
2010 Highway Capacity Manual (2010 HCM) methodology. The 2010 HCM methodology
determines the average stopped delay experienced per vehicle (measured in seconds)
and corresponding level of service for the turning movements and intersection
characteristics at signalized intersections. Both of the intersections listed above are
currently controlled by a traffic signal.
As shown in Table 16, using the 2010 HCM methodology, both intersections are projected
to operate at LOS C or better during the weekday peak hours under the Existing and
Future scenarios.
City of Arcadia Arroyo Pacific Academy Specific Plan
July 2016 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
61
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
TABLE 16
CALTRANS LOCATIONS – HCM ANALYSIS
No Intersection Peak
Hour
Existing Conditions Future without Project
Conditions
Future with Project
Conditions
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 Santa Anita Ave &
I-210 WB Ramps
A.M. 17.0 B 17.1 B 17.1 B
P.M. 14.0 B 14.0 B 14.0 B
2 Santa Anita Ave &
I-210 EB Ramps
A.M. 20.6 C 20.9 C 21.2 C
P.M. 16.0 B 16.0 B 16.1 B
Source: Gibson Transportation Consultants 2016, Table 11
On-Ramps
Based on on-ramp metering, Caltrans has established a maximum capacity of 900
vehicles per hour per lane (vphpl) for on-ramps. An on-ramp is considered to be
oversaturated or failing if the existing or future peak-hour traffic on the ramp exceeds 900
vphpl. A project would have a significant impact if it caused an on-ramp to exceed 900
vphpl or if it added traffic to a ramp already projected to operate beyond 900 vphpl.
As shown in Table 17, the studied on-ramps do not exceed the Caltrans standard in any
of the analyzed scenarios.
Off-Ramps
For off-ramps, Caltrans defines a ramp as failing if the peak-hour traffic queue length
(85th
percentile as determined by 2010 HCM methodology) on the ramp exceeds the
storage length and results in queues backing into the mainline freeway. Failing ramp
conditions are determined for two levels: Level 1 if the queue exceeded the storage
length of any individual approach lane (e.g., left turn lane on the ramp) at the junction
of the ramp with the surface street intersection (identified as “Lane” in Table 18), and/or
Level 2 if the queue was large enough to result in backing up into the freeway mainline
(identified as “Yes” in Table 18). Caltrans considers it a significant impact if a project
causes off-ramp traffic to back up onto the freeway mainline or adds to a backup
already projected to reach the freeway mainline.
As shown in Table 18, none of the studied off-ramps exceed the Caltrans standard and
the project would not result in a backup onto the freeway mainline in any of the
analyzed scenarios. Therefore, the proposed project does not create a significant
impact and does not cause any failing conditions (increased queuing) at the off-ramps.
Arroyo Pacific Academy Specific Plan City of Arcadia
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2016
62
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
TABLE 17
ON-RAMP EVALUATION
No Intersection Ramp Description # of
Lanes
Peak
Hour
Existing Conditions Future without Project
Conditions
Future with Project
Conditions
Vehicles
per Hour
Exceeds
Capacity?
Vehicles
per Hour
Exceeds
Capacity?
Vehicles
per Hour
Exceeds
Capacity?
1
Santa Anita
Ave & I-210
WB Ramps
I-210 westbound
on-ramp from
northbound Santa
Anita Ave
1
A.M. 555 No 581 No 608 No
P.M. 527 No 557 No 566 No
I-210 westbound
on-ramp from
southbound Santa
Anita Ave
1
A.M. 397 No 401 No 401 No
P.M. 221 No 223 No 223 No
2
Santa Anita
Ave & I-210
EB Ramps
I-210 eastbound
on-ramp from
Santa Anita Ave
1
A.M. 481 No 493 No 504 No
P.M. 456 No 476 No 479 No
Source: Gibson Transportation Consultants 2016, Table 12
TABLE 18
OFF-RAMP EVALUATION
No Intersection Ramp
Description
Vehicle
Storage
Capacity1
Peak
Hour
Existing Conditions Future without Project
Conditions
Future with Project
Conditions
85th
Percentile
Vehicle
Queue
Length
Exceeds
Capacity?
85th
Percentile
Vehicle
Queue
Length
Exceeds
Capacity?
85th
Percentile
Vehicle
Queue
Length
Exceeds
Capacity?
1
Santa Anita
Ave & I-210
WB Ramps
I-210 Westbound Off-Ramp to Santa Anita Avenue
Left Turn
Lane 8 A.M. 5 No 5 No 5 No
P.M. 5 No 5 No 5 No
Shared Left-
Right lane 8 A.M. 13 Lane 13 Lane 14 Lane
P.M. 9 Lane 10 Lane 10 Lane
Ramp 50 A.M. 5 No 5 No 6 No
P.M. 1 No 2 No 2 No
2
Santa Anita
Ave & I-210
EB Ramps
I-210 Eastbound Off-Ramp to Santa Anita Avenue
Left Turn
Lane 12 A.M. 4 No 4 No 4 No
P.M. 3 No 3 No 3 No
Shared Left-
Through-
Right Lane
12
A.M. 10 No 10 No 11 No
P.M. 6 No 7 No 7 No
Right Turn
Lane 12 A.M. 7 No 7 No 8 No
P.M. 4 No 4 No 4 No
Ramp 21 A.M. 0 No 0 No 0 No
P.M. 0 No 0 No 0 No
Source: Gibson Transportation Consultants 2016, Table 13
Notes: 1. Car length
City of Arcadia Arroyo Pacific Academy Specific Plan
July 2016 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
63
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
b) Less Than Significant Impact. State statute requires that a congestion management
program (CMP) be developed, adopted, and updated biennially for every county that
includes an urbanized area and include every city and the county government within
that county. In Los Angeles County, the County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
(Metro) is responsible for implementing the CMP. The CMP serves as the monitoring and
analytical basis for transportation funding decisions in the county made through the
Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) and State Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP) processes. The CMP requires that a traffic impact analysis
be performed for all CMP arterial monitoring intersections where a project would add 50
or more trips during either the morning or afternoon weekday peak hours and all
mainline freeway monitoring locations where a project would add 150 or more trips (in
either direction) during the morning or afternoon weekday peak hours.
The traffic study determined that the CMP has two designated arterial monitoring stations
outside the study area boundary:2
Rosemead Boulevard and Huntington Drive, and
Rosemead Boulevard and Foothill Boulevard. The project is not expected to add 50 or
more trips during either the morning or the afternoon weekday peak hours to either.
Therefore, the project is not expected to result in a significant traffic impact at these CMP
arterial monitoring stations. Similarly, the project will not add 150 peak-hour trips to any
freeway segment (Gibson Transportation Consultants 2016, p. ES-3). As such, the project
would not conflict with the CMP. Therefore, it would have a less than significant impact.
c) No Impact. The nearest airport to the project site is El Monte Airport, which is located
approximately 3.75 miles to the south. The only new building for the proposed project
would be Building A. This building would be approximately 24 feet high. The two
additional buildings, B and C, would be remodeled. No change to the exteriors of
Buildings B and C would occur. The construction of a new building, 24 feet in height,
would not result in a change in air traffic patterns. The proposed project would allow up
to 280 students, or an increase of 102 students over existing conditions. This increase in
the number of students would not result in an expansion to airport traffic at levels that
would cause a substantial safety risk at any regional airports. The project would have no
impact in this area.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. The project would incorporate three new access points, all
providing access to the new school building at 325 Santa Anita Avenue. Currently, two
project driveways are located on Santa Anita Avenue and the third project driveway is n
Rolyn Place. The current driveway on Rolyn Place provides full access, while the two
driveways on Santa Anita Avenue provide right-in/right-out only movements. The project
proposes to alter the existing operations of two of these driveways to accommodate a
student pick-up/drop-off area in the parking lot of the new building. In order to provide
the safest pick-up/drop-off operation that would not interfere with public streets, the
northern Santa Anita Avenue driveway would be converted to inbound only and the
Rolyn Place driveway would be converted to outbound only to create an organized
circulation system. The southern Santa Anita Avenue driveway would be converted to an
outbound right-only driveway.
With the project, the school would conduct most pick-up and drop-off operations in the
parking lot of the new building at 325 Santa Anita Avenue. The existing pick-up/drop-off
2
The project study area includes a geographic area approximately 0.4 miles (north–south) by approximately 0.3 miles
(east–west) surrounding the project site.
Arroyo Pacific Academy Specific Plan City of Arcadia
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2016
64
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
operations at the Clarke Center would remain in place with no operational changes.
Vehicles would enter the parking lot through the northern Santa Anita Avenue driveway
and proceed to a pick-up/drop-off zone adjacent to the building to load and unload
students. The vehicles would then exit the parking lot via the Rolyn Place driveway. This
configuration provides 320 feet of queuing area before any vehicle in line would affect
the sidewalk along Santa Anita Avenue. It would allow 15 to 16 cars in the queue before
pedestrians or through traffic along Santa Anita Avenue would be affected by school
traffic. If the queue length at the pick-up/drop-off point were proportional to the
increase in the number of students, the 6 to 7 vehicles in the queue today could be
expected to increase to a 9- to 11-vehicle maximum queue. Since the proposed
configuration provides storage for 15–16 cars, a queue onto Santa Anita Avenue is not
projected to occur.
These changes would require some parents to make a U-turn at the intersection of Santa
Anita Avenue and Colorado Boulevard to reach the northerly Santa Anita Avenue right
turn inbound driveway, but those U-turns were included in the impact analysis and were
found to not create any significant impacts. Likewise, the exit movements from the Rolyn
Avenue driveway back to Santa Anita Avenue or to Santa Clara Street were included in
the traffic analysis.
The project’s driveways would be designed to ensure adequate sight distance and
bicycle and pedestrian safety. No hazard issues are expected to result due to the access
locations. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact.
e) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed above, the project site would have numerous
access points from the surrounding roadways. Three access driveways would be
provided on Rolyn Place and two access driveways on Santa Anita Avenue. All
driveways would be required to comply with the City’s design requirements. This impact
would be less than significant.
f) Less Than Significant Impact. Both bus and Metro rail transit service are available as part
of the public transit system in the area. Bus transit providers in the region offering service
in the vicinity of the project site include Metro, Foothill Transit, Arcadia Dial-a-Ride, and
Pasadena Area Rapid Transit System (ARTS). The Metro bus system has nine bus lines in
the form of both rapid and local service in the area. The Foothill Transit system provides
two local bus lines, and the Pasadena ARTS provides four local bus lines in the area.
The Metro Gold Line runs along the median of I-210 from Sierra Madre Boulevard westerly
to the Pasadena Central District, where it then turns south to downtown Los Angeles. An
easterly expansion of the Metro Gold Line was recently completed that provides a
station at Santa Anita Avenue approximately 0.2 mile east of the project site.
Based on the guidelines outlined in Section B.8.4 of the CMP, transit trips expected to
result from the project were estimated based on the number of vehicle trips. This
methodology assumes an average vehicular occupancy (AVO) factor of 1.40 in order to
estimate the number of person trips to and from the project. Assuming an AVO of 1.40,
the project is expected to generate a total of 348 net new daily person trips on a typical
weekday, including 114 morning peak-hour person trips and 24 afternoon peak-hour
person trips (Gibson Transportation Consultants 2016, p. 46).
The CMP guidelines estimate that approximately 3.5 percent of the total project person
trips may use public transit to travel to and from the site. Therefore, the project is
City of Arcadia Arroyo Pacific Academy Specific Plan
July 2016 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
65
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
expected to generate approximately 13 daily transit trips on a typical weekday,
including four morning peak-hour transit trips and one afternoon peak-hour transit trip.
Sufficient excess capacity now exists on the bus routes serving the site such that this level
of increase would result in a less than significant impact on transit services near the
project site.
Figure CI-7 of the City of Arcadia (2010a) General Plan identifies existing and potential
bike lanes/paths in the city. No dedicated bicycle lanes currently exist on Santa Anita
Avenue and Rolyn Place surrounding the site. General Plan Figure CI-7 does not include
proposed bike lanes along Santa Anita Avenue or Rolyn Place adjacent to the project
site. The proposed project would not conflict with the General Plan’s proposed bicycle
facilities. There would be no significant impact.
Arroyo Pacific Academy Specific Plan City of Arcadia
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2016
66
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water
or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new
stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project from existing entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements
needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider that serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand, in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project’s solid
waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a, b, e) Less Than Significant Impact. Wastewater generated on the project site would be
conveyed via local sewer lines maintained by the City into trunk lines maintained by the
Los Angeles County Sanitation District (LACSD). LACSD District Nos. 15 and 22 serve
Arcadia and the surrounding cities of Sierra Madre, Temple City, Rosemead, El Monte,
San Gabriel, La Puente, and Baldwin Park. The LACSD operates three wastewater
treatment facilities that treat wastewater generated in the city:
1) Whittier Narrows Water Reclamation Plant (WRP), located near South El Monte, with a
design capacity of 15 million gallons per day (mgd) and an average flow of 5.4 mgd
2) San Jose Creek WRP, located adjacent to the City of Industry, with a design capacity
of 100 mgd and an average flow of 77.1 mgd
3) Los Coyotes WRP, located in Cerritos, with a design capacity of 37.5 mgd and an
average flow of 27 mgd
City of Arcadia Arroyo Pacific Academy Specific Plan
July 2016 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
67
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
According to the City’s (2010b) General Plan EIR, there are no deficiencies at the LACSD
facilities that serve Arcadia and there is approximately 43 mgd of remaining capacity at
the three water reclamation plants serving the city.
The LACSD estimates that private school facilities generate an average of 200 gallons of
wastewater per 1,000 square feet per day. The proposed project includes construction of
a new 6,810-square-foot building (Building A), which would increase wastewater
generated on the site by approximately 1,362 gallons per day (6.81 x 200 gpd = 1,362
gpd). This would be a negligible increase and the existing conveyance and treatment
facilities serving the City would have sufficient capacity to serve the project. Therefore,
the project would not require the construction or expansion of wastewater treatment
facilities or exceed applicable wastewater treatment requirements of the Los Angeles
Regional Water Quality Control Board. The impact would be less than significant.
b, d) Less Than Significant Impact. See Response b) in subsection 9, Hydrology and Water
Quality. The City of Arcadia would provide domestic water service to the proposed
project. The City obtains its water from groundwater resources which are adjudicated
and can supplement its supplies when necessary by purchasing treated imported water.
However, according to the City’s 2010 UWMP (2011, pp. 4-1 through 4-2), the City does
not typically import water because its collective groundwater supplies are sufficient to
meet water demands. As shown in Table 19, City water supplies are projected to
continue to be sufficient to meet water use through 2035 under normal, single dry, and
multiple dry year conditions.
TABLE 19
CITY OF ARCADIA WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND COMPARISON
2014–15 2019–20 2024–25 2029–30 2034–35
Normal Water Year
Total Water Supplies 16,452 14,888 15,152 15,416 15,680
Total Potable Water Use 16,452 14,888 15,152 15,416 15,680
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Single Dry Year
Total Water Supplies 18,298 16,558 16,852 17,145 17,439
Total Potable Water Use 18,298 16,558 16,852 17,145 17,439
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Multiple Dry Years
Year 1
Total Water Supplies 18,298 16,558 16,852 17,145 17,439
Total Potable Water Use 18,298 16,558 16,852 17,145 17,439
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Year 2
Total Water Supplies 17,177 15,544 15,819 16,095 16,371
Total Potable Water Use 17,177 15,544 15,819 16,095 16,371
Arroyo Pacific Academy Specific Plan City of Arcadia
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2016
68
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
2014–15 2019–20 2024–25 2029–30 2034–35
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Year 3
Total Water Supplies 1,6431 14,869 15,133 15,396 15,660
Total Potable Water Use 16,431 14,869 15,133 15,396 15,660
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Source: Arcadia 2011, Tables 13 through 15
Notes: All units are in acre-feet per year.
The proposed project would allow the school to increase enrollment from the current 178
students to a maximum of 280 students. Based on water demand estimates for similar
school projects (WCCUSD 2008, p. 4.11-34; City of Wildomar 2014, p. 111) of 30 gallons
per day per student, the proposed project would increase total water demand on the
site by approximately 3,060 gpd or 3.4 acre-feet per year. Therefore, the proposed
project would not substantially increase current water demand at the site. As shown in
Table 19, the City pumps sufficient water to meet system demands each year and would
increase pumping to meet the demands of the proposed project. No new or expanded
water entitlements or treatment facilities would be required. The impact would be less
than significant.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. See Response c–f) in subsection 9, Hydrology and Water
Quality. As described previously, the project site is served by the City’s drainage system,
and the proposed project would not substantially increase runoff or alter the existing
drainage patterns. The project would include minor on-site drainage improvements to
serve the new building and connect with the existing system. The project would be
required to implement a SWPPP including best management practices to minimize
erosion and siltation during construction. In addition, the project would be subject to City
of Arcadia Municipal Code Article VII, Chapter 8, Stormwater Management and
Discharge Control, to control discharges during project operation.
The potential environmental effects of constructing the drainage improvements included
in the project are evaluated throughout this IS/MND and where necessary, mitigation
measures are provided to reduce project impacts to less than significant levels. This
impact would be less than significant.
f, g) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is currently served by a commercial
hauler, which collects and transports waste generated on the site to multiple local
landfills. The City’s General Plan Update Program Environmental Impact Report
determined that there would be no significant adverse impact on landfill capacity and
that continuation of existing City and County programs and implementation of pertinent
goals, policies, and implementation actions in the General Plan update would provide
for future developments’ compliance with solid waste regulations (Arcadia 2010b, p.
4.16-33). The project would not substantially increase solid waste generated at the site
and would not exceed the permitted capacity of any of the serving landfills. The project
would comply with all applicable solid waste regulations. Impacts would be less than
significant.
City of Arcadia Arroyo Pacific Academy Specific Plan
July 2016 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
69
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
18. 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 rare or
endangered plants or animals, or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? “Cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects.
c) Does the project have environmental effects that
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Based on the analysis in
subsection 4, Biological Resources, of this IS/MND, the proposed project would not have
substantial impacts to special-status species, stream habitat, and wildlife dispersal and
migration. Furthermore, the proposed project would not affect the local, regional, or
national populations or ranges of any plant or animal species and would not threaten
any plant communities. Similarly, as discussed in subsection 5, Cultural Resources, and
subsection 6, Geology and Soils, with the incorporation of mitigation measures, the
proposed project would not have substantial impacts to historical, archaeological, or
paleontological resources and thus would not eliminate any important examples of
California history or prehistory. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a
Mandatory Finding of Significance due to impacts to biological, cultural, or
paleontological resources.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. A significant cumulative impact may occur if the project, in
conjunction with related projects in the region, would result in impacts that are less than
significant when viewed separately but would be significant when viewed together.
When considering the proposed project in combination with other past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable future projects in the vicinity of the project site, the proposed
project does not have the potential to cause impacts that are cumulatively
considerable. As detailed in the above discussions, the proposed project would not result
in any significant and unmitigable impacts in any environmental categories. In all cases,
Arroyo Pacific Academy Specific Plan City of Arcadia
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2016
70
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
the impacts associated with the project are limited to the project site or are of such a
negligible degree that they would not result in a significant contribution to any
cumulative impacts. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a Mandatory
Finding of Significance due to cumulative impacts.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. As detailed above, the proposed project does not have the
potential to result in direct or indirect substantial adverse effects on human beings. The
proposed project does not approach or exceed any significance thresholds for
environmental issues typically associated with direct or indirect effects on people, such
as air, water, or land pollution, natural environmental hazards, transportation-related
hazards, or adverse effects to emergency service response.
City of Arcadia Arroyo Pacific Academy Specific Plan
July 2016 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
71
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
REFERENCES
Alta Environmental. 2015. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report.
Arcadia, City of. 2002. Architectural Design Guidelines, Commercial and Industrial.
———. 2010a. Arcadia General Plan.
———. 2010b. City of Arcadia 2010 General Plan Update Draft Program Environmental Impact
Report (SCH# 2009081034).
———. 2011. City of Arcadia Urban Water Management Plan 2010 Update.
———. 2016a. Arcadia Police Department: Statistics. Accessed March 9.
http://www.arcadiaca.gov/government/city-departments/police-department/about-
apd/statistics.
———. 2016b. Arcadia Fire Department. Accessed March 9.
http://www.arcadiaca.gov/government/city-departments/fire-department.
Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2002. Transportation Related Earthborne
Vibrations.
———. 2004. Transportation- and Construction-Induced Vibration Guidance Manual.
———. 2013. Officially Designated State Scenic Highways. Accessed October 22, 2015.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/schwy.htm.
CARB (California Air Resources Board). 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community
Health Perspective.
DOC (California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program).
2015. Los Angeles County Important Farmland 2012.
DOC (California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology). 1999. Seismic
Hazard Zones, Mt. Wilson Quadrangle, Official Map, Released: March 25, 1999.
DOF (California Department of Finance). 2015. E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and
the State with Annual Percent Change – January 1, 2014 and 2015.
DTSC (California Department of Toxic Substances Control). 2015. EnviroStor. Accessed October
23. http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/.
EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 1971. Noise from Construction Equipment and
Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2008. Flood Insurance Rate Map Panel No.
06037C1400F, dated 9/26/2008.
FTA (Federal Transit Administration). 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment.
Arroyo Pacific Academy Specific Plan City of Arcadia
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2016
72
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Gibson Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2016. Transportation Study for the Arroyo Pacific
Academy Specific Plan.
Metro. 2007. Gold Line Phase II Pasadena to Montclair – Foothill Extension Final Environmental
Impact Report (SCH# 200361157), Volume 2, Book 2.
SCAG (Southern California Association of Governments). 2016. 2016–2040 Regional
Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy.
SCAQMD (South Coast Air Quality Management District). 1992. Federal Attainment Plan for
Carbon Monoxide.
———. 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
———. 2003. 2003 Air Quality Management Plan.
———. 2008. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology.
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/localized-
significance-thresholds#appc.
———. 2009. Localized Significance Threshold Appendix C – Mass Rate LST Look-Up Tables.
http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/LST/LST.html.
———. 2012. 2012 Air Quality Management Plan.
http://www.aqmd.gov/aqmp/2012aqmp/index.htm.
SWRCB (California State Water Resources Control Board). 2015. GeoTracker. Accessed October
23. http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/.
WCCUSD (West Contra Costa Unified School District). 2008. Charter Schools Construction and
Modernization and City of Richmond Martin Luther King Jr. Community Center and Park
Renovation Project Draft Environmental Impact Report.
Wildomar, City of. 2014. Initial Study for the Sycamore Canyon Academy.
City of Arcadia Arroyo Pacific Academy Specific Plan
July 2016 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
73
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
This page is intentionally left blank.
Arroyo Pacific Academy Specific Plan City of Arcadia
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2016
74