HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary 15, 2005MEETING AGENDA ❑ ❑❑
.eoa
Arcadia City Council
and
= = Arcadia Redevelopment Agency
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2005
This agenda contains a summary of each item of business which the Council may discuss or act on at
this meeting. The complete staff report and all other written documentation relating to each item on
this agenda are on file in the office of the City Clerk and the reference desk at the Arcadia Public
Library and are available for public inspection and review. If you have any questions regarding any
matter on the agenda, please call the office of the City Clerk at (626) 574 -5455. In compliance with
the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in a City Council
meeting, please contact the City Manager's office at (626) 574 -5401 at least three (3) business days
before the meeting or time when special services are needed. This notification will help City staff in
making reasonable arrangements to provide you with access to the meeting.
5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber Conference Room
STUDY SESSION
a .
b.
CLOSED SESSION
a .
INVOCATION
Mid Year Budget Review
Discussion and direction regarding an architectural style for Fire Station 105
Public Employee Performance Evaluation (Govt. Code Section 54957)
Title: City Manager
7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS
MOTION TO READ ALL ORDINANCES/ RESOLUTIONS BY TITLE ONLY AND WAIVE
READING IN FULL
PRESENTATIONS
Presentation of Proclamation declaring Rotary Month in the City of Arcadia
d.,
ass
b. Presentation of Citizen of the Month Award to the Arcadia High School Apache
Marching Band and Color Guard,
.,
C. Presentation of Certificates of Appreciation to the Student Ambassadors with
the Pasadena Tournament of Roses Association
1. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. Consideration of Final EIR. Tentative Map 51941 and Highland Oaks Specific
Plan S.P. 2003 -001 for a rxoposed 7 -lot residential hillside development located
north of the terminus of Vista Avenue and northwest of Canyon Road in the
City of Arcadia
Recommendation: Certify the Final EIR, and deny Specific Plan S.P. 2003 -001
and Tentative Tract Map No. 51941 (Resolution No. 6464)
b. Proposed Fees - Arcadia Fire Department
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 6461 setting forth fees related to the
Arcadia Fire Department
AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION - (S minutes per person)
REPORTS FROM ELECTED OFFICIALS
2. CONSENT CALENDAR - ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Minutes of the February 1, 2005 Regular Meeting_
Recommendation: Approve
CONSENT CALENDAR - CITY COUNCIL
b. Minutes of the February 1, 2005 Regular Meeting.
Recommendation: Approve
C. Waiver of normal purchasing procedures and appropriate $958.475 from the
Equipment Acquisition Fund for the "emergency" purchase of two (2) Triple
Combination Fire Pumpers from Pierce Manufacturing for the Arcadia Fire
Department.
Recommendation: Approve
d. Resolution - Annual Weed Abatement Protest Hearing Date
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 6458
e. Professional Services Agreement with John L. Hunter and Associates, Inc. for a
contract extension the amount of $57.170 for Municipal Storm Water and
Industrial Waste Program support services.
Recommendation: Approve
f. Renewal of Local Emergency Proclamation
Recommendation: Approve
- -.
9. Resolution No. 6462 approving submittal of the Fiscal Year 04 -05
Transportation Development Act - Article 4 Claim Form to receive operating
funds for Arcadia Transit.
Recommendation: Adopt
h. Contract with SOL Construction. Inc in the amount of $101,014 for the Orange
Grove Plant Block Wall Reconstruction - West Wall Proiect
Recommendation: Approve
Purchase - One (1) 2004 Vactor Hydro- Excavation unit from Hakker Equipment
in the amount of $143,865.33 for the Public Works Services Department
Recommendation: Approve
j. Classification specifications and compensation levels for Human Resources
Administrator. Senior Code Services Officer, and Economic Development
Manager
Recommendation: Approve
k. Appropriation of $70 000 for personnel legal services and authorize additional
services in excess of $15,000 under current letter agreements with Liebert
Cassidy Whitmore and Jackson Lewis, LLP
Recommendation: Approve
3. CITY MANAGER
a. Recommendations of the Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction
Authority's Draft Proiect Definition Report
Recommendation: Accept
b. Federal Legislative Advocate Priorities
Recommendation: Determine priorities and direct staff as necessary.
C. Resolution No 6465 approving the form of and authorizing the execution and
delivery of a purchase and sale agreement and related documents with respect
to the sale of the seller's vehicle license fee receivable from the state• and
directing and authorizing certain other actions in connection therewith
Recommendation: Adopt
ADJOURNMENT
The City Council will adjourn this meeting to Tuesday, February 22, 2005, 7:00p.m. in the
Temple City City Hall Community Room, 9701 Las Tunas Drive, Temple City, CA.
ANNOTATED AGENDA
Arcadia City Council ❑ ❑�
and
Arcadia Redevelopment Agency
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2005
MOTION TO READ ALL ORDINANCES /RESOLUTIONS BY TITLE ONLY AND WAIVE
READING IN FULL
1. PUBLIC HEARINGS
APPROVED
5 -0
Consideration of Final EIR Tentative Map 51941 and Highland Oaks Specific APPROVED
Plan S.P. 2003 -001 for a proposed 7 -lot residential hillside development located 5-0
north of the terminus of Vista Avenu and northwest of Canvon Road in the
City of Arcadia
Recommendation: Certify the Final EIR, and deny Specific Plan S.P. 2003 -001
and Tentative Tract Map No. 51941 (Resolution No. 6464)
b. Proposed Fees - Arcadia Fire Department
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 6461 setting forth fees related to the APPROVED
Arcadia Fire Department 5-0
2. CONSENT CALENDAR - ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
a. Minutes of the February 1. 2005 Regular Meeting. APPROVED
Recommendation: Approve 3-0
CONSENT CALENDAR - CITY COUNCIL
b.
Minutes of the February 1 2005 Regular Meeting
Recommendation: Approve
3-0
C.
Waiver of normal purchasing procedures and appropriate $958,475 from the
APPROVED
Equipment Acquisition Fund for the "emergency" purchase of two (2) Triple
5-0
Combination Fire Pumpers from Pierce Manufacturing for the Arcadia Fire
Department,
Recommendation: Approve
d.
Resolution - Annual Weed Abatement Protest Hearing Date
APPROVED
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 6458
3-0
e.
Professional Services Agreement with John L Hunter and Associates Inc for a
APPROVED
contract extension the amount of $57,170 for Municipal Storm Water and
5-0
Industrial Waste Program support services
Recommendation: Approve
f.
Renewal of Local Emergency Proclamation
APPROVED
Recommendation: Approve
5-0
g. Resolution No. 6462 approving submittal of the Fiscal Year 04 -05 APPROVED
Transoortation Development Act - Article 4 Claim Form to receive operating 5- 0
funds for Arcadia Transit.
Recommendation: Adopt
h. Contract with SOL Construction. Inc. in the amount of $101,014 for the Orange APPROVED
Grove Plant Block Wall Reconstruction - West Wall Proiect 5-0
Recommendation: Approve
Purchase - One (1) 2004 Vactor Hydro - Excavation unit from Hakker Equipment APPROVED
in the amount of $143.865.33 for the Public Works Services Department 5-0
Recommendation: Approve
j. Classification specifications and compensation levels for Human Resources APPROVED
Administrator, Senior Code Services Officer. and Economic Development 5-0
Manager
Recommendation: Approve
k. Appropriation of $70,000 for personnel legal services and authorize additional APPROVED
services in excess of $15,000 under current letter agreements with Liebert 5-0
Cassidy Whitmore and Jackson Lewis. LLP.
Recommendation: Approve
3.
CITY MANAGER
a. Recommendations of the Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction APPROVED
Authority's Draft Proiect Definition Report 5-0
Recommendation: Accept
b. Federal Legislative Advocacy Priorities APPROVED
5 -0
Recommendation: Determine priorities and direct staff as necessary.
C. Resolution No. 6465 approving the form of and authorizing the execution and APPROVED
delivery of a purchase and sale agreement and related documents with respect 5-0
to the sale of the seller's vehicle license fee receivable from the state; and
directing and authorizing certain other actions in connection therewith
Recommendation: Adopt
47:0015
MINUTES
Arcadia City Council
and
*' Arcadia Redevelopment Agency
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2005
5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber Conference Room
ROLL CALL Present Council /Agency Members Chandler, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Kovacic
Absent: None.
AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION
None.
STUDY SESSION
a. Mid Year Budget Review
Bill Kelly, City Manager, provided the City of Arcadia Mid -Year Revenue and Expenditure Update; this fiscal
year will end with about a $500,000 surplus; the multi -year projection shows that the Council will have to dip
into the six (6) million dollar reserve in either fiscal year 2008 -2009 or 2009 -2010.
Tracey Hause, Administrative Services Director, responded to questions from the Council regarding the sale of
a bond related to the Vehicle License Fee funds.
Mr. Kelly responded to questions from the Council regarding the financing of the Civic Center Plaza Project
and the upcoming Fire Department Headquarters Fire Station (Station SOS); he noted that a classification and
compensation study is currently underway and that any modifications in salaries for employees will affect the
multi -year budget projections.
b. Discussion and direction regarding an architectural style for Fire Station 105
Don Penman, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Director provided the report regarding an
architectural style for the new station 105; noted the seismic deficiencies with the existing station 105 and
various options staff considered including moving headquarters to Station 106; at this point staff has
concluded that rebuilding Station 105 is the most feasible option; Mr. Penman also walked through the
architectural options for the new building, and various aspects of the design and building construction issues;
Armando Gonzales, of Gonzales /Goodale Associates, discussed the various design elements for fire apparatus,
safety, and various functional aspects of the new building.
In response to a question from Mayor Kovacic, Mr. Gonzales further articulated the proposed design of the
new fire station as necessary for its particular functionality.
In response to a question from Council Member Chandler, Mr. Gonzalez mentioned that he would work with
staff to determine the appropriate mitigating design elements for vandalism.
CLOSED SESSION - City Council recessed for a Closed Session meeting
a. Public Employee Performance Evaluation (Govt. Code Section 54957)
Title: City Manager
02 -15 -05
47:0016
7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber
INVOCATION Reverend Charlie Wang, Lutheran Church of the Cross
PLEDGE OF Tom Landes, Arcadia High School Band Director
ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL Present Council /Agency Members Chandler, Marshall, Segal, Wuo, and Kovacic
Absent: None.
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS
None.
MOTION TO READ ALL ORDINANCES/ RESOLUTIONS BY TITLE ONLY AND WAIVE READING IN FULL
A motion was made by Council Member Chandler, seconded by Council Member Marshall, and carried without
objection to read all Ordinances /Resolutions by title only and waive reading in full.
REPORT FROM CITY ATTORNEY REGARDING CLOSED SESSION
Steve Deitsch, City Attorney, noted the items that the City Council discussed during tonight's study and closed
sessions, and further noted that no reportable action was taken.
PRESENTATIONS
a. Presentation of Proclamation declaring Rotary Month in the City of Arcadia
Mr. John Murphy, President of Arcadia Rotary, accepted the Proclamation.
b, Presentation of Citizen of the Month Award to the Arcadia High School Apache Marching Band and Color
Guard.
The following representatives from the Arcadia High School Marching Band and Color Guard were presented
with the Citizen of the Month award: Terry Schriner, Chris Go, Allison DeSurra, Jeff Chen, Tom Landes, and
Kevin Sherrill
C. Presentation of Certificates of Appreciation to the Student Ambassadors with the Pasadena Tournament of
Roses Association
The following representatives from the Pasadena Tournament of Roses Student Ambassadors program were
presented with certificates of appreciation: Matthew Scolinos, Taylor Anderson, Joanna Kim, and James Price.
Also appearing were representatives from the Pasadena Tournament of Roses Association: Dave Davis, Joan
Madsen, and Jack Cudworth.
1. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. Consideration of Final EIR Tentative Mao 51941 and Highland Oaks Specific Plan S P 2003 -001 for a
proposed 7 -lot residential hillside development located north of the terminus of Vista Avenue and northwest of
Canyon Road in the City of Arcadia
02 -15 -05
47:0017
Staff Report Mr. Penman and Corky Nicholson, Planning Manager, presented the report; Mr. Nicolson noted that the
project was a proposed 7 -lot residential hillside development; a portion of the property was proposed to be
dedicated as public land; the project's Environmental Impact Review (EIR) was prepared to analyze the
potential environmental impacts of the proposed development; the project would have to be in conformance
with the General Plan and the Hillside Management Strategies; staff concluded that there were unavoidable
public safety and environmental impacts to the property.
John Sorley, from Environmental Consortium, who prepared the EIR, explained the alternatives provided in
the environmental impact report, he noted that it provided mitigations options for the project; reasonable
alternatives for the project need to be considered under California Envrionmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Fire Chief David Lugo, appeared to discuss the safety impacts of the project; he referenced the California Fire
Code and noted that the gradient for this project would not be safe for the fire apparatus.
Mark Rogers, a representative of TRG, provided detailed insight on hillside planning and mapping; he
specializes in creating maps that create predictable outcomes for projects including the impacts of circulation
and access, how roads actually work, the hillside gradient.
Mr. Deitsch noted that the Council must make specific findings if thry consider taking any specific action on
this item.
Public Testimony Fred Talarico. the applicant, appeared to advocate support to approve this project.
Members of the public appearing in opposition to this project:
Ralph Bicker. Highland Avenue
J eff Dolan President of the Highland Oaks Homeowners Association.
Michael Wheel Arcadia resident, 2055 Carolwood Drive
Jeff Cowland. Canyon Road
Jim McKeller 2000 Oaks Place
Betty Olson resident of Highland Oaks
Phil Consiglio. 2215 Canvon Road
Motion to Close Public A motion was made by Council Member Chandler seconded by Council Member Marshall, and noting no
Hearing objections, the Mayor closed the public hearing.
Motion A motion was made by Council Member Chandler, seconded by Council Member Segal and carried on roll call
vote, to certify the Final environmental Impact Report, and adopt Resolution No. 6464 - a Resolution of the
City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for
the Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map No. 51941 and adopting environmental findings
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
Roll Call Ayes: Council /Agency Members Chandler, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Kovacic
Noes: None.
Council Deliberation Council Member Marshall noted that she is in opposition to this project.
Council Member Wuo noted that he is in opposition to this project.
Council Member Chandler noted that he supports the Planning Commission and city staffs recommendation to
deny this project.
Motion A motion was made by Council Member Chandler, seconded by Council Member Wuo and carried on roll call
vote, to deny the Highland Oaks Specific Plan, and direct staff to prepare the appropriate resolution
incorporating the Council's decision and specific findings
Roll Call Ayes: CounciVAgency Members Chandler, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Kovacic
Noes: None.
02 -15-05
47:0018
Motion A motion was made by Council Member Chandler, seconded by Council Member Marshall and carried on roll
call vote, to deny Tentative Tract Map No. 51941, based on the specific findings Dl, D2, D3, D4, D5, D6, and
D8, excluding items D7 and D9, as referenced in the staff report, and deny the subdivision.
Roll Call Ayes: Council /Agency Members Chandler, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Kovacic
Noes: None.
b. Proposed Fees - Arcadia Fire Department
Staff Report David Lugo, Fire Chief, provided the facts of the report; he noted that the proposed fees will generate
approximately $250,000 dollars in annual revenue so that General Funds can be reallocated to other
programs; Kurt Norwood, Battalion Chief, noted that the fees were developed utilizing the city-wide cost
allocation study.
In response to a question from Council Member Marshall, Chief Norwood commented that Arcadia's proposed
fees were comparable to fees charqed by other iurisdicbons.
Public Testimony
None.
Motion to Close Public A motion was made by Council Member Chandler seconded by Council Member Wuo and noting no objections,
Hearinq
the Mayor closed the public hearinq.
Council Deliberation
Council Member Marshall remarked on whether the fees were commensurate with the cost of providing the
particular fire service.
Motion
A motion was made by Council Member Segal seconded by Council Member Wuo and carried on roll call vote
to adopt certain fees pertaining to the fire department.
Roll Call
Ayes: Council /Agency Members Chandler, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Kovacic
Noes: None.
AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION - (S minutes per person)
None.
REPORTS FROM ELECTED OFFICIALS
CHANDLER None.
MARSHALL Thanked the Rotary for their gift of a clock to the city; congratulated the Rotary on their 100th birthday;
noted that the new City directional signage is very attractive; congratulated Jim and Margaret Barrows on
their volunteer efforts; her "thought for the week" was from John Wooden, "A man may make mistakes, but
he isn't a failure until he starts blaming someone else."
SEGAL Commented on his recent trip to South America and Antarctica; noted that the Council had received several
anonymous letters and requested that people identify themselves when addressing the Council in order to
provide accurate follow -up on issues.
WUO Noted that the Arcadia Chinese Association recently hosted a lunch for seniors in Arcadia and separately,
hosted a lunch for all city employees.
KOVACIC Congratulated Jim and Margaret Barrows for their recent volunteer recognition; wished a Happy New Year
and thanked all organizations who are celebrating the Chinese New Year; he noted the upcoming Community
Art Project which will include 200 tiles on the west wall of the public library; he invited members of the public
to attend the Annual State of the City Address on March 16 and the 31st annual Mayor's Prayer Breakfast on
March 25.
BARROWS Noted that he recently attended an event benefiting the City of Hope
02 -15-05
47:0019
2. CONSENT CALENDAR - ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
a.
Minutes of the February 1. 2005 Regular Meeting,
Recommendation: Approve
Motion
A motion was made by Agency Member Chandler seconded by Agency Member Segal and carried on roll call
vote to approve item I.a. on the Consent Calendar.
Roll Call
Ayes: Council /Agency Members Chandler, Wuo, and Kovacic
Noes: None.
Abstain: Council /Agency Members Marshall and Segal
CONSENT CALENDAR - CITY COUNCIL
b.
Minutes of the February 1. 2005 Regular Meeting_
Recommendation: Approve
C.
Waiver of normal purchasing procedures and appropriate $958,475 from the Eauioment Acauisition Fund for
the "emergency" purchase of two (2) Triple Combination Fire Pumpers from Pierce Manufacturing for the
Arcadia Fire Department.
Recommendation: Approve
d.
Resolution - Annual Weed Abatement Protest Hearing Date
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 6458
e.
Professional Services Agreement with John L Hunter and Associates Inc for a contract extension the amount
of 457.170 for Municipal Storm Water and Industrial Waste Program support services
Recommendation: Approve
f.
Renewal of Local Emergency Proclamation
Recommendation: Approve
g.
Resolution No 6462 approving submittal of the Fiscal Year 04 -05 Transportation Develooment A - Article 4
Claim Form to receive operating funds for Arcadia Transit
Recommendation: Adopt
h.
Contract with SOL Construction Inc in the amount of $101,014 for the Orange Grove Plant Block Wall
Reconstruction - West Wall Proiect
Recommendation: Approve
L
Purchase - One (1) 2004 Vactor Hydro- Excavation unit from Hakker Eauioment in the amount of $143,865.33
for the Public Works Services Department
Recommendation: Approve
j.
Classification specifications and compensation levels for Human Resources Administrator Senior Code
Services Officer, and Economic Development Manager
Recommendation: Approve
k.
Appropriation of $70.000 for personnel legal services and authorize additional services in excess of $15,000
under current letter agreements with Liebert Cassidy Whitmore and Jackson Lewis LLP
Recommendation: Approve
Motion
A motion was made by Council Member Chandler, seconded by Council Member Segal and carried on roll call
vote to approve items 2b - 2k. on the Consent Calendar, with Council Members Marshall and Segal abstaining
from voting on item 2b.
02 -15 -05
47:0020
Roll Call Ayes:
Council /Agency Members Chandler, Marshall, Segal, Wuo, and Kovacic
Noes:
None.
Abstain:
Council Members Marshall and Segal on item 2b only.
3. CITY MANAGER
a. Recommendations of the Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority's Draft Proiect Definition
Report
Staff Report Phil Wray, City Engineer, provided the facts of the report; he noted that this item focuses on the Metro Gold
Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority's Draft Project Definition Report (PDR) which includes the
critical elements of the Gold Line project; these include grade crossings, station and parking location, and
traction power substation locations; he further noted that the PDR will become the baseline document for the
Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), and the Advanced
Conceptual Engineering.
Motion A motion was made by Council Member Marshall seconded by Council Member Segal and carried on roll call
vote to accept the recommendations of the Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority's Draft
Project Definition Report including station and parking location, grade crossings, and location of traction
power substations with the additional staff recommendations for Santa Anita Avenue grade separation and
station parking location.
Roll Call Ayes: Council /Agency Members Chandler, Marshall, Segal, Wuo, and Kovacic
Noes: None.
b. Federal Legislative Advocacy Priorities
Staff Report Mr. Kelly provided the facts of the report which included staffs recommendations for advocacy priorities for
Ferguson Group, the City's formal lobbyist; he further noted that the projects recommended included the
Santa Anita Corridor Improvements as well as a variety of water projects and a grade separation on Santa
Anita Avenue should such be needed for the Gold Line Project.
Motion A motion was made by Council Member Marshall seconded by Council Member Segal and carried on roll call
vote to direct the Ferguson Group to work on behalf of the City of Arcadia on the projects listed in the staff
report, and authorize staff to submit any paperwork or application forms for federal funding as may be
needed for each project.
Roll Call Ayes: Council /Agency Members Chandler, Marshall, Segal, Wuo, and Kovacic
Noes: None.
C. Resolution No 6465 approving the form of and authorizing the execution and delivery of a purchase and sale
agreement and related documents with respect to the sale of the seller's vehicle license fee r ceivable from
the state: and directing and authorizing certain other actions in connection therewith
Staff Report Tracey Hause, Administrative Services Director, presented the facts of the report regarding VLF funding; she
noted that a program instituted by the California Statewide Communities Development Authority will enable
cities to sell their respective Vehicle License Fee Gap Repayments for an upfront fixed purchase price; staff is
recommending the City of Arcadia participate in this program and secure the VLF funding in their current fiscal
year.
Motion A motion was made by Council Member Chandler, seconded by Council Member Marshall, and carried on roll
call vote to adopt Resolution No. 6465 approving the form of and authorizing the execution and delivery of a
purchase and sale agreement and related documents with respect to the sale of the seller's vehicle license fee
receivable from the state; and directing and authorizing certain other actions in connection therewith.
Roll Call Ayes: Council /Agency Members Chandler, Marshall, Segal, Wuo, and Kovacic
Noes: None.
02 -15 -05
. I .
47:0021
ADJOURNMENT
The City Council adjourned this meeting at 10:42 p.m. to Tuesday, February 22, 2005, 7:00p.m. in the Temple City City
Hall Community Room, 9701 Las Tunas Drive, Temple City, CA.
James H. Barrows, City Clerk
by:
Vida Tolman
Chief Deputy City Clerk/Records Manager
ii � "EUNP ill!l!]
12 4 Rlipifli! iiiij�
.2 — �Qi , E
02-15-05
1 , 0� t
AeYUUt f'�1991
1 °f � °m`e STAFF REPORT
Development Services Department
February 15, 2005
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Don Penman, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Director
Donna L. Butler, Community Development Administrator
By: Corkran W. Nicholson, Planning Services Manager
SUBJECT: Consideration of the Final Environmental impact Report (FEIR),
Specific Plan S.P. 2003 -001 and Tentative Tract Map No. 51941 for
the Highland Oaks Specific Plan Proiect
Recommendation: Certify the FEIR, and deny Specific Plan S.P.
2003 -001 and Tentative Tract Map No. 51941
SUMMARY
Nevis Construction, Inc. has submitted applications for a Specific Plan (S.P. 2003 -001)
and Tentative Tract Map (T.M. No. 51941) to allow for the construction of a seven -lot
residential hillside development located in the northeast portion of the City.
On the basis of the initial study prepared by staff, it was determined that an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was necessary; therefore, an EIR was prepared in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The Planning Commission at a public hearing on November 23, 2004, reviewed the
Final EIR, as well as the specific applications, and voted 4 -0, with one member absent
to recommend to the City Council certification of the FEIR, and denial of Specific Plan
S.P. 2003 -001 and Tentative Tract Map No. 51941. Since the Planning Commission is
required to make a written recommendation in Resolution form on the proposed Specific
Plan to the City Council, the Commission directed staff to prepare the appropriate
resolution. On December 14, 2004, the Planning Commission voted 5 -0 to adopt
Resolution 1717 ratifying the Commission's findings and actions of November 23
denying the Specific Plan.
The City Council is the final decision making body for the purpose of certifying the Final
Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and approving or denying the Specific Plan and
Tentative Tract Map.
The staff report has been divided into the following sections:
Highland Oaks Specific Plan Project
February 15, 2005
Page 1
Page No.
Section 1 Project Description (including an aerial photo with zoning 3
designations)
Section 2 Environmental Impact Analysis and Final EIR 5
Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program 9
Section 3 Applications S.P. 2003 -001 and T.M. No. 51941 including 11
Staff and Planning Commission Recommendations
Section 4 City Council Public Hearing Process and Motions 15
Attachments:
1. Table Summarizing Potential Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Level
of Significance
2. Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program
3. City Council Resolution No. 6464
4. Planning Commission Resolution 1717
5. Planning Commission Minutes of November 23, 2004
6. Initial Study
7. City Council Resolution 5289
8. Final EIR (attached under separate cover)
9. Highland Oaks Specific Plan (attached under separate cover)
10. Highland Oaks Specific Plan Review by TRG Land, Inc. (attached
under separate cover)
Approved by:
William R. Kelly, City Manager
Highland Oaks Specific Plan Project
February 15, 2005
Page 2
SECTION 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
T3612(el:00]OIW
The applicant previously submitted an application on April 10, 2001, for a proposed 11-
lot hillside residential development for the subject site; however, the application was
withdrawn prior to completing the environmental review phase of the project. Since that
time the site, which is approximately 83.15 acres, has continued to remain as a relatively
undisturbed hillside area.
Existina Zonina & General Plan Designation
The project site is zoned "Residential Mountainous Single Family (R -M)" with an
"Architectural Design (D)" overlay. The overlay requires design and architectural review
of each single - family residence by the Highland Homeowners' Association, as
established by City Council Resolution 5289 (see attachment no. 8), which was adopted
on April 1, 1986.
The General Plan designation for the site is "Single- family Residential (0 -4 dwelling units
per acre) ".
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning
North of the project site are steep undeveloped slopes within the Angeles National
Forest.
The more moderate hillside topography to the south of the project site is developed with
single - family residential homes. This area is zoned R -1 & D, and is located within the
Highland Homeowners' Association.
East of the site are the unzoned Upper Canyon Reservoir sites, single - family residential
homes within the Highland Homeowners' Association area, and the Arcadia Wilderness
Park. The homes are zoned R -1 & D and the park is zoned R -M.
Properties to the west consist of undeveloped hillside open space areas, and single -
family residential neighborhoods within the City of Sierra Madre, which are within a
Hillside Management zone.
Developer's Proposal
The proposed project is the Highland Oaks Specific Plan (SP 2003 -001) and Tentative
Tract Map No. 51941 for a seven -lot residential hillside development located north of the
terminus of Vista Avenue and northwest of Canyon Road in the City of Arcadia.
According to the Specific Plan the proposed development would occur within a 13.04 -
acre portion of an approximate 83.15 -acre project site. The remaining 70.11 acres
would be, according to the applicant, "dedicated to the public" as open space.
Highland Oaks Specific Plan Project
February 15, 2005
Page 3
A single entrance cul -de -sac street, approximately 620 feet long, would be constructed
off of Canyon Road to provide access to the seven -lot subdivision. The proposed street
grade would range from 15 to 18 %, as shown on the submitted tentative map.
The project has a western canyon area that would be filled with approximately 117,070
cubic yards of excess earth material from the proposed grading of the site to minimize
the off -site transport of material. For the exact location of the proposed project and
other proposed design details, please refer to Figures 1 thru 8 in the EIR.
CONTINUED ON PAGE 5
Highland Oaks Specific Plan Project
February 15, 2005
Page 4
•F.
decitic Plan F
SECTION 2
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS AND FINAL EIR
Prior to taking any action on a project, the Lead Agency must certify the adequacy of the
Final EIR and certify that the decision - making body reviewed and considered the
information contained in the final EIR prior to approving a project. In regards to this
project, the City of Arcadia is the Lead Agency and the City Council is the decision
making body.
The environmental review process began with the filing of applications for a Specific
Plan (S.P. 2003 -001) and Tentative Tract Map (T.M. No. 51941) to allow for the
construction of a seven -lot residential hillside development located in the northeast
portion of the City. The application for the Tentative Tract Map was deemed complete
on February 26, 2004.
Based on an initial study, it was determined that an Environmental Impact Report was
necessary. The EIR has been prepared to examine potentially significant environmental
impacts that could result from the development of the proposed project, to identify
mitigation measures that would either avoid or substantially reduce those impacts, and
to identify unavoidable impacts. Included in this report, as attachment No. 1, is the table
from the FEIR (pages 4 thru 31) that summarizes the Potential Impacts, Mitigation
Measures, and Level of Significance after Mitigation.
The Draft EIR was available for review from August 11, 2004 to September 23, 2004,
and both the Notice of Completion and the Notice of Public Hearing listed locations
where copies of the EIR were available for public review.
Notice of the City Council hearing was published in the paper, and on January 20, 2005,
notices were mailed to all property owners within a 1,000 -foot radius of the entire site,
and adjacent cities, as well as interested persons.
The Panning Consortium under contract with the City and under the City's direction
prepared the EIR. The City conducted its own independent evaluation and analysis of
the EIR prior to releasing the document for public review.
PURPOSE OF AN EIR
Pursuant to Section 15121 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) the EIR
is an information document that informs the decision - makers and the public of the
following:
• Significant environmental effects of a project;
• Identifies possible ways to minimize the significant effects; and
• Describes reasonable alternatives to the project
Highland Oaks Specific Plan Project
February 15, 2005
Page 5
The City Council shall consider the information in the EIR along with other information
that may be presented to the Council.
As noted in CEQA, Section 15121(b), while the information in the EIR does not control
the City's ultimate discretion on the project, the City must respond to each significant
effect identified in the EIR, by making findings under Section 15091 and, if necessary,
by making a statement of overriding considerations under Section 15093.
The information in an EIR may constitute substantial evidence in the record to support
the agency's action on the project if its decision is later challenged in court.
It is important to note that the EIR provides information to assist the City in making
decisions on the project, but does not control the City's exercise of discretion.
Set forth below is a summary of the EIR.
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
The FEIR identifies the following "potential impacts" that can be mitigated to a less than
significant level (see the attached Table Summarizing Potential Impacts, Mitigation
Measures, and Level of Significance for details):
• Geology and Soils
• Hydrology and Flood Control .
• Land Use and Planning
• Air Quality
• Aesthetics and View Analysis
In addition, the FEIR identifies the following "unavoidable significant impacts ", as
defined by CEQA that would result from the implementation of the proposed project:
• Seismicity
• Biological
• Noise (short term)
• Traffic and circulation (short term)
• Public services.
Section 21002.1[c] of the Government Code states that "If economic, social or other
conditions make it infeasible to mitigate one or more significant effects on the
environment of a project, the project may nonetheless be carried out or approved at the
discretion of a public agency if the project is otherwise permissible under applicable laws
and regulations."
If the City, as the Lead Agency, determines that an unavoidable significant adverse
impact will result from the project, in order to approve the project the City must adopt a
"Statement of Overriding Considerations ". The Statement of Overriding Considerations
states that the decision making body has balanced the benefits of the proposed project
against its unavoidable significant environmental effects and has considered the
adverse effects to be acceptable.
Highland Oaks Specific Plan Project
February 15, 2005
Page 6
Alternatives
The CEQA guidelines state that an Environmental Impact Report must address "a range
of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which could
feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of
the alternatives." Not every conceivable alternative needs to be addressed, nor do
infeasible alternatives need to be considered.
The Guidelines further state that the discussion of alternatives must focus on
alternatives capable of either eliminating any significant environmental effects of the
project or reducing them to less than a significant level while achieving major project
objectives. The following six Alternatives have been discussed in the EIR:
• Alternative 1: No Project (mandatory CECA alternative). Under the "No Project"
alternative the approximately 83.15 acre project site would remain as a relatively
undisturbed hillside area, and as such could be preserved in perpetuity if it were
dedicated or purchased by a public conservancy organization or a public agency.
The "No Project" alternative would avoid the potential biological, noise, traffic and
circulation, and public services impacts when compared to the proposed hillside
project. Seismic, hydrology and flood control impacts would still occur due to the
site's location and steep hillside topography. Since this alternative would involve
fewer environmental impacts, this alternative is considered environmentally
superior to the proposed project.
• Alternative 2: Current General Plan /Zoning Regulations. This alternative is
based on what the current General Plan designation and the applicable zoning
regulations would allow.
Due to the site's environmental constraints it is highly unlikely that the current
General Plan Designation for the area, which allows up to four dwelling units per
acre, could be maximized. Therefore, this alternative assumes a maximum of
eleven residential lots for amore realistic comparison to the proposed project, as
analyzed in Section 7.2 of the EIR. There would be similar grading, drainage,
and biological impacts between the proposed project and this alternative;
however, an eleven -lot project would likely result in a greater level of impacts
over the proposed project. Specifically, an increase in construction noise, air
quality, traffic and circulation, public services and aesthetics would be
anticipated. Since this alternative would involve a greater level of environmental
impacts, it is not considered an environmentally superior alternative to the
proposed project.
• Alternative 3: Two Residential Units. Under this alternative two residential units
could be constructed at the base of the site's east - facing slope i.e., in the vicinity
of.the proposed access road entrance to the site. The home sites would be
similar to the three neighboring residences that exist to the north of this location
along Canyon Road. There would be a minimal amount of grading required; and
the major landform features of the site as well as the majority of the natural
vegetation would be retained. Also, with fewer units there would be a lower level
of impacts under this alternative than the proposed project with regards to
grading, drainage, biological resources, noise, air quality, traffic and circulation,
Highland Oaks Specific Plan Project
February 15, 2005
Page 7
public services, and aesthetics. Since this alternative involves fewer
environmental impacts, this alternative is considered environmentally superior to
the proposed project.
• Alternative 4: Seven Residential Units with a maximum 15% access roadway
grade. This alternative is similar to the proposed project with the exception that
a greater amount of grading would be necessary within the 13.04 -acre portion of
the site to maintain a maximum access roadway grade of 15 %. Although this
alternative is an improvement over the proposed project's 15 to 18% street
grades, it would not be in compliance with the City of Arcadia Fire Code that
requires no more than a maximum access roadway grade of 12% for new
residential subdivisions. The primary purpose of such a requirement is to
provide a safe and adequate access roadway for the operation of emergency
vehicles. Therefore, Alternative 4 is not an environmentally superior alternative
to the proposed project because of the non - compliance with the City Fire Code,
and the additional on -site grading.
• Alternative 5: Seven Residential Units with a maximum 12% access roadway
grade. Alternative 5 is also similar to the proposed project with the exception
that in order to maintain a maximum access roadway grade of 12% an even
greater amount of grading would be necessary within the 13.04 -acre portion of
the site. Approximately 63% more earth material would be graded and
approximately 378% more excess earth material would be transported off the
site — see Table 19 of the EIR. Although a 12% access roadway grade
alternative would be in compliance with the City Fire Code, it is not an
environmentally superior alternative because it requires a substantially greater
amount of grading and off -site transport of earth material; and it disturbs more
natural hillside area compared to the proposed project.
• Alternative 6: Proposed Project Grading without filling of Western Canyon. This
alternative would have the same impacts as the proposed project with the
exception that the truck trips to export the excess graded material from the site
would substantially increase due to not filling the canyon. This alternative would
retain the canyon in its natural state. The truck trips would increase
approximately 347% over the proposed project as shown in Table 19 of the EIR.
Alternative 6 is not an environmentally superior alternative because it involves a
greater level of exporting earth material from the site in addition to the initial
impacts of the proposed project.
CEQA requires that a Lead Agency identify the "environmentally superior alternative ".
Based on the analysis in the EIR (see Table 20) the environmental superior alternatives
are the "No Project" alternative and the "Two Residential Units' alternative.
The "No Project" alternative does not achieve the project's objectives. Under this
alternative the site would be undeveloped, and left in its natural state.
The "Two Residential Units' alternative would meet most of the project objectives with a
lower level of impacts, and provide two home sites that would be similar to the
neighboring residences to the north along Canyon Road.
Highland Oaks Specific Plan Project
February 15, 2005
Page 8
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission at a public hearing on November 23, 2004, reviewed the
Final EIR, as well as the specific applications, Specific Plan S.P. 2003 -001 and
Tentative Tract Map No. 51941, and voted 4 -0 with one member absent to forward the
Final EIR to the City Council and recommend certification of the document. The
Planning Commission recommended denial of Specific Plan S.P. 2003 -001 and
Tentative Tract Map No. 51941, and their actions are included in Section 4 of this report.
FINAL EIR (FEIR)
In accordance with the CEQA process public review is required only at the draft EIR
stage. The Final EIR can be submitted directly to the decision - making body of an
agency for consideration.
Section 15089 of the CEQA guidelines states:
"The Lead Agency [City of Arcadia] shall prepare a final EIR before approving
the project.
Lead Agencies may provide an opportunity for review of the final EIR by the
public or by commenting agencies before approving the project. The review of a
final EIR should focus on the responses to comments on the draft EIR."
Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR are included in the FEIR (under separate
cover).
FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
After considering the Final EIR in conjunction with making findings, the City may not
approve the project if the project will have a significant effect on the environment after
imposition of feasible mitigation or alternatives unless the City finds that the benefits of a
proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environment effects. If the City
Council determines that the project should be approved, the City is required by CEQA to
prepare a Statement of Overriding Considerations explaining why the City is willing to
accept each significant effect. This allows the decision -maker to balance the benefits of
a proposed project against the unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether
to approve the project. The statement setting forth the overriding considerations,
supporting the City's decision, must be based on substantial evidence in the Final EIR or
elsewhere in the record.
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
CEQA requires that for each significant impact identified in the EIR, the EIR must
discuss feasible measures to avoid or substantially reduce the project's significant
environmental effect.
A lead agency must adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (see
attachment No. 2) for mitigation measures that are adopted or made conditions of
project approval to mitigate significant effects. It is the responsibility of the lead agency
Highland Oaks Specific Plan Project
February 15, 2005
Page 9
to ensure that the implementation measures occur in accordance with the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program.
The objectives of environmental monitoring are:
To insure implementation of mitigation measures during project implementation.
To provide feedback to agency staff and decision - makers about the
effectiveness of their actions; and
To identify the need for enforcement action before irreversible environmental
damage occurs.
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program identifies:
Who will be responsible for monitoring the progress of the mitigation measures
adopted by the City.
When and how often the monitoring shall be done, and
A discussion of monitoring and reporting procedures.
The City Council must find that the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, as
prepared by the EIR consultant and staff, complies with the requirements of CEQA, and
adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program if the City Council votes to
approve the project.
CONTINUED ON PAGE 11
Highland Oaks Specific Plan Project
February 15, 2005
Page 10
SECTION 3
APPLICATIONS S.P. 2003 -001 and T.M. 51941
Development Services Department's and Planning Commission's
Recommendations
The following is a complete summary of the applicant's requests for the Specific Plan
and Tentative Tract Map along with staff's and the Planning Commission's
recommendations, and the appropriate action and findings required for each application
by the City Council.
SPECIFIC PLAN (S.P. 2003 -001)
Request
The applicant is requesting the adoption of the Highland Oaks Specific Pan (S.P. 2003-
001) to establish development and maintenance regulations for the project's seven
residential lots, access roadway, and the slope drainage system. Such regulations are
set forth in the attached Specific Plan document which, if adopted, would replace the
current R -M zoning requirements for the subject property.
Staff's Recommendation
The Development Services Department is recommending denial of the Highland Oaks
Specific Plan because of the following unavoidable environmental issues that are
associated with the project:
Compliance with the General Plan Hillside Management Strategies Preservation
of the hillside areas. Due to the environmental significance of the remaining
natural hillside areas, it is our desire to optimize the balance between
preservation and the potential development of such areas by assuring that new
development specifically complies with the City's General Plan Hillside
Management Strategies. The strategies are as follows:
CD -17 Maintain the visual character of hillsides, recognizing both the
importance of the exposure of hillside development to off -site public
views and the importance of providing panoramic views from hillsides.
CD -18 Minimize the alteration of existing landforms and maintain the natural
topographic characteristics of hillside areas, allowing only minimal
disruption.
CD -19 Protect the natural character of hillside areas by means of contour
grading to blend graded slopes and terraces with the natural
topography.
CD -20 Avoid mass graded pads within hillside areas. Smaller steps or grade
changes should be used over single large slope banks to the greatest
extent possible.
Highland Oaks Specific Plan Project
February 15, 2005
Page 11
In order for the City of Arcadia to approve this project the subject development
would have to be found to be in compliance with the City's General Plan's goals,
policies, and standards, including the above Hillside Management Strategies.
The Development Services Department obtained the services of TRG Land, Inc.
to assist staff by providing a technical review of the applicant's proposal, since
they are a highly qualified consulting firm in the field of hillside development.
Based on the environmental analysis in the EIR and the review by the hillside -
consulting firm, the implementation of the applicant's Specific Plan would
necessitate mass grading of the subject property to the extent that, in staff's
opinion, the proposed project would not be in compliance with the City's General
Plan Hillside Management Strategies.
Biological Resources: The preservation of oak trees. Based on the applicant's
submitted "Oak Tree Survey" of the subject property 158 oak trees exist on the
13.04 -acre portion of the site to be developed, 22 of the trees were found to be
under the protection of the City's Oak Tree Ordinance. The proposed hillside
project requires the removal of at least 110 oak trees within the 13.04 -acre
portion of the site, which includes 20 of the 22 protected oaks.
In TRG's report (copy attached) it is noted that the Specific Plan document does
not adequately address how the remaining oak trees will be preserved; and that
the largest oak tree (i.e., a 74 -inch diameter oak) which exists in the vicinity of
the project's access road entrance, is not likely to survive due to the amount of
construction that would occur around the base of the tree. Figure 8 on page 12
of their report provides a section drawing to illustrate the extent of the proposed
alteration of the natural hillside area around the subject tree. The EIR also
confirms that the proposed development will create significant impacts to the 74-
inch diameter oak tree.
Land Use and Planning Compatibility with adjacent and surrounding land uses.
In staff's opinion, the proposed Highland Oaks Specific Plan is not compatible
and inadequate. In addition to the above - mentioned issues, if adopted, it would
establish modified development standards that could potentially encourage the
new homes to be substantially larger than the neighboring and surrounding
homes within the Highland Oaks Homeowners' Association area. The floor
areas of the existing homes in the vicinity of the proposed hillside project
typically range from approximately 2,000 to 3,500 square feet. Under Section
"5.0 . Development Standards and Regulations" of the Specific Plan the lot
coverage requirement provides for proposed dwelling units not to exceed 65% of
the total pad area of a lot. Therefore, the new homes could exceed 6,000
square feet based on the proposed building pad sizes that range from
approximately 10,147 to 13,224 square feet. Such homes would require
architectural review and approval from the Highland Oaks Homeowners'
Association, and therefore may create a difficult design issue for the Association
in terms of addressing "compatibility ". This issue is addressed in the EIR on
pages 162 -163.
Highland Oaks Specific Plan Project
February 15, 2005
Page 12
The Specific Plan, as written, does not adequately address several further
issues:
• First, the proposed development standards and regulations should be
consistent with the more restrictive R -1 zoning requirements that currently
apply to the Highland Homeowners Association's area, specifically the
building setbacks, and height requirements, as summarized on pages 159-
161 of the FEIR.
• Second, the Specific Plan does not require a minimum building setback from
top of slope areas, which is necessary to prevent unsightly stem wall or post
and beam construction upon the slopes; and
• Third, a maximum pad area requirement needs to be provided that prohibits
any expansion of the approved pad configurations and areas, as established
by the final grading plan for slope preservation purposes.
Plannin Commission Recommendation
The Planning Commission concurred with staff's recommendation and on December 14,
2004, voted 5 -0 to adopt Resolution 1717 ratifying the Commission's findings and
actions of November 23 denying the Specific Plan.
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (T.M. NO. 51941)
Re uest
The applicant is requesting the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 51941 to subdivide
two existing hillside parcels totaling approximately 83.15 acres into the proposed seven
residential lots and a large open space lot. The lot sizes would range from a minimum
of 33,678 square feet to a maximum of 192,511 square feet; and the building pad sizes
would range from approximately 10,147 square feet to 13,224 square feet.
Staffs Recommendation
The Development Services Department is recommending denial of Tentative Tract Map
No. 51941 because of the following unavoidable public safety and environmental issues
that are associated with the project:
Public Services: Emergency fire equipment access. Tentative Tract Map No.
51941 proposes a single entrance cul -de -sac street off of Canyon Road to
provide access to the seven -lot subdivision. The street would be approximately
620 feet long, which exceeds the current Municipal Code Right of Way
requirement for such a street not to exceed a maximum length of 500 feet [Sec.
9114.2. (c)]. In addition, the street grade would range from 15 to 18 %, as shown
on the submitted tentative map, which exceeds the maximum 12% grade
standard under the City's Fire Code. The Arcadia Fire Department has
requested that the 12% standard be observed because the subject property is in
Highland Oaks Specific Plan Project
February 15, 2005
Page 13
a high fire hazard area that increases the need to provide a safe and adequate
access roadway for the operation of emergency vehicles.
Although the Fire Code does allow the Fire Chief to consider alternatives to the
maximum 12 % street grade standard, Chief Lugo of the Arcadia Fire Department
has determined that in order to ensure the optimum operation of fire equipment
and greater safety to firefighters in their operations, no exception should be
made to this standard.
Compliance with the General Plan Hillside Management Strategies: Preservation
of the hillside areas. It is estimated that approximately S acres (62 %) of the
13.04 -acre portion of the site to be developed will be substantially altered by the
proposed grading operations. Approximately 151,000 cubic yards of cut earth
material and approximately 120,000 cubic yards of fill would be moved to create
the building pads, roadway access, and the slope drainage system that is shown
on Tentative Tract Map No. 51941. In order to accomplish the site grading the
applicant is proposing to fill an on -site natural canyon area with approximately
117,000 cubic yards of earth material, and transport approximately 33, 800 cubic
yards of excess earth material off the site. Based on the environmental analysis
contained throughout the EIR and the review by the hillside consulting firm (TRG
Land, Inc.) it is staff's opinion that the proposed tentative tract map, if approved,
would involve mass grading of the subject property, and therefore would not be
in compliance with the City's General Plan Hillside Management Strategies.
Planning Commission Recommendation
The Planning Commission concurred with staff's recommendation, and on November
23, 2004, voted 4-0 with one member absent to recommend to the City Council denial of
Tentative Tract Map No. 51941.
CONTINUED ON PAGE 15
Highland Oaks Specific Plan Project
February 15, 2005
Page 14
SECTION 4
CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS AND MOTIONS
Although the California Environmental Quality Act does not require a public hearing on
the Final EIR, public participation is an essential part of the CEQA process. Tonight's
public hearing affords the public an opportunity to comment on the project's Specific
Plan, Tentative Tract Map as well as the Final EIR.
Staff recommends that the City Council proceed as follows:
1. Receive the report from City staff and the consultant.
2. Open the public hearing.
3. Take public testimony from all interested parties, including the applicant on the
Final EIR and the related applications.
4. Close the public hearing; and
5. City Council discussion
CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS AND MOTIONS
FINAL EIR
Prior to considering approval or disapproval of a project, the City Council must certify
that the Final EIR:
• Has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA);
• Has been reviewed and considered by the City Council; and
• Represents the City's independent judgment and analysis.
Motion
The City Council should move to certify the Final Environmental Impact Report,
and adopt Resolution No. 6464 •- a Resolution of the City Council of the City of
Arcadia, California, certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report Prepared for
the Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map No. 51941 and adopting
environmental findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.
If the proposed applications for the Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map are to be
approved the Council must direct staff to prepare the appropriate resolution to set forth
a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program.
Highland Oaks Specific Plan Project
February 15, 2005
Page 15
HIGHLAND OAKS SPECIFIC PLAN
The City Council may approve, approve with modification, or disapprove the proposed
Specific Plan. If the Council approves the Specific Plan with modifications, a Final
Specific Plan document must be submitted to the City within thirty (30) days of the first
reading of the required ordinance adopting the Specific Plan.
The City Council may approve a specific plan only if all of the following findings of fact
can be made in an affirmative manner:
1. The proposed specific plan is consistent with the General Plan including the
goals, objectives, policies, and action programs if the City's General Plan.
2. The proposed specific plan will not adversely affect the public health, safety,
welfare or result in an illogical land use pattern.
3. The Specific Plan is a desirable planning tool to implement the provisions of the
City's General Plan.
Approval
If the City Council intends to approve the project, the Council should move for
approval upon the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration and
subject to the Mitigation Monitoring Program identified in this report, and direct
staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance for introduction at its next meeting.
Denial
If the City Council concurs with staff's and the Planning Commission's
recommendation to deny the Highland Oaks Specific Plan, the Council should
move for denial, and direct staff to prepare the appropriate resolution
incorporating the Council's decision and specific findings.
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 51941
Approval
If the City Council intends to approve Tentative Tract Map No. 51941, the Council
should move for approval upon the adoption of a Statement of Overriding
Consideration, and subject to the Mitigation Monitoring Program identified in this
report.
Denial
If the City Council concurs with staff's and the Planning Commission's
recommendation to deny Tentative Tract Map No. 51941, the Council should make
specific findings based on the evidence presented and move to deny the
subdivision. The Council may wish to consider the following findings, any one of
Highland Oaks Specific Plan Project
February 15, 2005
Page 16
which is adequate for a denial, but which must be expanded upon with specific
reasons to support the denial:
D.I. That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific
plans as specified in the Subdivision Map Act.
D.2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent
with applicable general and specific plans.
D.3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development.
D.4. That the site is not physically suitable for the density of development.
D.5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to
cause substantial environmental damage.
D.6. That the design of the subdivision or the types of improvements are likely to
cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure
fish or wildlife or their habitat.
D.7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements are likely to
cause serious public health problems.
D.8. That the proposed subdivision injuriously affects the neighborhood wherein
said property is located.
D.9. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict
with easements acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of
property within the proposed subdivision. In connection with this, the
legislative body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements for
access or for use, will be provided and that these will be substantially
equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This provision shall
apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment
of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a
legislative body to determine that the public at large has acquired easements
for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.
Attachments:
1. Table Summarizing Potential Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Level
of Significance
2. Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program
3. City Council Resolution No. 6464
4. Planning Commission Resolution 1717
5. Planning Commission Minutes of November 23, 2004
6. Initial Study
7. City Council Resolution 5289
8. Final EIR (attached under separate cover)
9. Highland Oaks Specific Plan (attached under separate cover)
10. Highland Oaks Specific Plan Review by TRG Land, Inc. (attached
under separate cover)
Highland Oaks Specific Plan Project
February 15, 2005
Page 17
TABLE SUMMARIZING
POTENTIAL IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES,
AND LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER
MITIGATION FROM THE FINAL EIR
Highland Oaks Specific Plan Project
February 15, 2005
� � o
d E
m •• n •`�
< ° 'w r
y T 7 9 w 3.0 .5.5 > C 5 G a a
CK, 00 bb
o ° c 0 m E d C«
m m O m T �•• m U •O L U O O m m >' 0. G. d
.c Feu 'Eo�m. cK�yv °u.�S
,nr� Eia �j v °. •p c ' -'
7 a m P. •m-� y y m 'O ¢
CF t; � 0.' S �tCi W U C v U
•- O> G m y� '° w c°i ° C m °� 0. � C G m •J
dd�L 'm.m+•eEomm�r e
a m N C m 1 `°.' 6 O m M1� C V •O .S 0
wl ~x� Em1'Em: n�:vm rimes
—
co acmoE
T y
� � C
> m n m
On
•O �b � m u
3 m 'e3 o >
a °'� yam• ^'^'
y Y Vl a
m = °
e 40� d T«
m
v° E W , E
m ^ « q r r!
m £ z y
V s y • m 0 > q w •5 o m,
u
r
Q
h
i
dQ
e�
a,
r U
Q
N J
� O v
W � C
r 'n
h it
� � E
—
6 V G 7 U u 9
w
l
q =J9
Sam °s
i5 5 c
sXma�
_oy
oo�m
Iq
dV y a
y d U
tw E•°'
•O a� .5 a0
' 5
v °'
r0
�w•5'E
•��.d
o o
pq '� a
E
9 v d a
. u m
5 0
o
o
y d — ° q
P
m
m�
5 m O
yy q
u
q
0 U L
6 ""
•5 0
Q .T. .�y. N
.d..
y d G O o
° d y
e0 C m ?
L 9
CO, y
�
Q
O m CU
T d
m
——
3
E d
..
co
c
a c
g
eso�
rte
n y
O c 0
° m °.5
E — q
m
o v m d
y a
Q m•o bj)o
6b� aE q
a
;;mow v
e � .5
�
o U
M a H m
E E 5 y°
r d c Zb 6
o E ES
fn
ey >Ea
Qo E�eE
<�ao�a
dEyo�
d
9
0
S
O
W
CL
C
O
H
v
c
E
°r'
s
C
W
°
E
V
in
e
o\
ti
h
i
C�
C
ti 4
d ��
V
� O v
Z 00 Z�
�%�U
d
0
a
m
EJ:
u
a
N
d
w
$�•o 0
d a
b m y g U
W C
S U ° U OUp
m
y
a> eo W
to y U
= oE�d
e'ocx
45dv
on
O v C d E
m o o m
m O q
[� b0 7y O O
d
F O
2 „s
a
C 1F-
L Op m C O E a1 d
m.5 o`mp
�•ead°'' dW
U o x •� c
� Y
U� Y� °° W o 3
A CCC +
U Y OD
J y U y K d
4 N v
<eosa,caa'�io�c
a
bD C U
N h N U 3 w
L
� • E
o v E U b
4yowd
u y°' ov e4
moD;,o�5
y
��od'paa
m
Gti ,L�J w +'S• � v 6
v w
L1
a
a
[ h
i [r
C�
d �
U Q
Qa
IQ
� r �
W ti o
r s
eo
q a E
m u
d
m� •E o
Y P
d
0
a
m
EJ:
u
a
N
d
w
$�•o 0
d a
b m y g U
W C
S U ° U OUp
m
y
a> eo W
to y U
= oE�d
e'ocx
45dv
on
O v C d E
m o o m
m O q
[� b0 7y O O
d
F O
2 „s
a
C 1F-
L Op m C O E a1 d
m.5 o`mp
�•ead°'' dW
U o x •� c
� Y
U� Y� °° W o 3
A CCC +
U Y OD
J y U y K d
4 N v
<eosa,caa'�io�c
a
bD C U
N h N U 3 w
L
� • E
o v E U b
4yowd
u y°' ov e4
moD;,o�5
y
��od'paa
m
Gti ,L�J w +'S• � v 6
v w
L1
a
a
[ h
i [r
C�
d �
U Q
Qa
IQ
� r �
W ti o
r s
eo
0
m
u
O C
m OD
y �
m N
Q
d
L
N
d
0
Ej
9
a
e
w
G.
d
0
e
0
0
'O
C
N
h
oD
w y o m w
o
• oe ��
a on
_.5c���
m m 'm y U
7 Q p
to
ea.. �aom
x
O m.
omc3c
- +mmN.53
m T O
m o6
CL
s o�
Ewa q .
noa3,,,b 8 R
5 m no fn .S $ l w�
am
d ffia�i� -3 3
m
Ls 's�o °o ' S m
asp. "5
'n m c
.�i
< a a t9 3 u$
G m r
m � o �
E N v o
m—
C � v
�ys5
U N
° m o l
rj 3
—
s.
R
o�ra o,Q
L 0.0 U m
OD
°0 5 R A
O O N
Z W ❑ N t �
' m o m �naw
C ❑
e o r < U
r
a
a
[ h
�Q
Q �
Q
= C
� O Q
� r
w� o
U
U o
sa
Kmda
U
m
u m
> ° om
a °. C
v o
C m T L
y
3
• N W N r
oD
w y o m w
o
• oe ��
a on
_.5c���
m m 'm y U
7 Q p
to
ea.. �aom
x
O m.
omc3c
- +mmN.53
m T O
m o6
CL
s o�
Ewa q .
noa3,,,b 8 R
5 m no fn .S $ l w�
am
d ffia�i� -3 3
m
Ls 's�o °o ' S m
asp. "5
'n m c
.�i
< a a t9 3 u$
G m r
m � o �
E N v o
m—
C � v
�ys5
U N
° m o l
rj 3
—
s.
R
o�ra o,Q
L 0.0 U m
OD
°0 5 R A
O O N
Z W ❑ N t �
' m o m �naw
C ❑
e o r < U
r
a
a
[ h
�Q
Q �
Q
= C
� O Q
� r
w� o
U
y
i�t C G
� m c
m Y
m O — m • i� ttl
¢ • E VI W N N CU
xooL] -
�• a
N
W
d N t
2 �
y G
?��
te°i W
V
"_
O E
�•'
'L 3 m w N
ae N N G O. O
.S
O y O U •O
op
° o��yE�o
p
� w 3 CUs �v a�
Ka °u c 3
Q d N
" o a°3 • -� °° E a
W °
o
'
u r �
01)
VE ° o Ey " w mo 33
E. � _aL
v q°d'e 5 p
m .5 a s =>
.di m
en
a o a cW
g
N
O
m
CL
a
�
E
..
m
Y
01
°
N
O
y
cc
°
0
C7
00
tl•
Q
h
1
O �
aQ
Q �
0.
F
ti
Q �
O
W ti O
=
fi,xU
� � L
d
m •p pm F' m y
� 00 Cam„ C
'a 's •�° w •m'� sn
c � ° m 0
o
m° m
5 du�
e «tom
m W
o q uC
a �
�4't � � N
� �
0
Tm�'�
ao 55
s
u W rA mo ss
.0
1 b s q M
d
� ° ' 0
'
�•
o � o o m
o a �., � a� u m
� � .°.
� � rs ` o as
•C � w V ^ m
p — m m C� t p L 'O
W��
5 C
V
m 7 d
W 5 m
O r
• G�i C
b°
— O C O m 7
a
L
° a, o v d
a
a 9 _
d �J
o 5 >
y •S y c fi
°° o
eo
�, a
17- °mho
0
in M
Ns MD.--
3
,1,'
m
• p.,�
V to
'.
a .' ] '
OD 00 F
'O
C y
p� � rn G
fV • F + mo m r V ii G
e7 w O a� • oD
ti C y � � 4 'g 't�
� T c Q.
� C m • O
eo > >cw
ea❑ >.5c
�y
C
C
6
C
v
E
..
«,
T
�
• u
d
E
0.
h
C
m
3
e
d
C7
R2
v
a
h
0.�
d C
V C
4�
Q U
O C �
i Q Q
W
a r o
�i E4
V .+
G lu
o
d
V N V N
7 6' m
_ - 0 M
Em!.r =E
.e •N w ' N q �
•O N
i
E _E a:
E '
C .h
Q
>' v
> -o
bo o
r '0 w y .5 eU
^�
g �
r o u, 5 .
m V Q W
7W ttl �y °' Z a `m O a '0 w o
m �>' • T 9 �\
a
odm
p,$m >od'°�.d$c�
* > c a
_;5 .5s�
coo
V1 N T
_
•�, m
�' � raK
U
W N m
N c
r0, h a O O "' N .0
o ° p 3 0 3 m^ o
R
�y'o��r
m >,.— .
3C��3 ad
d�.4eo5d3�o
Ole 0. wo-, c
d
Ca � � O
o
�' V Ct1 � . Q V ^ E � t0 m � �
�r�
6 m
� i3 m
Ca m nZ d 9
° p N p yE�
co
N�
.«_rn� > �a
wj w
�? o Y 9
'�
a E ,Z G C G °� N .°. .•1 V N� 0
V a ❑
fV Y V O O S c N m
0 . 2 w 0
� i o q
c ,ls
7
yy f� u
1.. lyymp
V t^ U N N C d
S E
.5 g0 0 - m
^ a
.3m>
m3
7
C6 aeo a
WO
V
m
0 0
acN
v°
m a Ada
�
N
Q. rJ am
O
s
d r^ 60'r a0+
m
a
€O
N
e
.:
1
Q
h
L o
Z
m O
Q=
C
e v
�C
� O �
� L
C'
W � O
z �
O
C
u ++
omm
C m L
N m
'
O
U p UO
U
Qr •� W
Ob
o om
og cr
> oo
dco)
=
r�'eov�i 0 h
mad
M ddb
a
on 5
G
be o°
u '$ Q=
..
-°°
off° d��
�
V" •� o .Y
o °
� �ee
y o m
6`. a • y w
= g �.5
a °
o
m 5 � r a�i m c ° i$
c�3'��
�'22 ^�mw9d�
E N
Q O
O
a b
C
U
C
N e • F4
b0
O O
O
N t °
Qo.
yCL
7
d
7
C
�
C
�
e
L
�
C
w
U
P.
'O
e
m
rk
fV
ti
v
a
h
O
a
V Z
o v
'LS
i � O
•> a
r � �
w O O
i
�L `�V
d=
�
G �
C
zi
0
7
C
0
m
a
m
a
e
d
a
N
N
� d
U W d
a� v
V q
m
9 c �
o "
fl N
C
6
O
V O N y
nn d E
o � e
VJ G m U
Oy b O m
c
vGI °�,v
m V y
• ci � q E � a a�
a>
°mrj��oE>
_O = y y d y G ✓i
d N q
5 9 9 q Z' L
O Q U O U y y
u .°.
C
ffi •
> � w
� c O 0 E �
Nt
ri
y v r
o m E
.� � � $ a S d � •e
N ❑
� 0 3—
° N •� J •-, N G L�
0. •2 p q O O � y
v ie
rJ' CW C OD d zp
e c.=ras o. 3a tU
a
ON
h
i
O .
y! C
�z
e
o �
°p n
W� o
�i�U
a
i
d � �i
C U
C
i � Q
W o
_ �2:
fi,xU
1 -9 O
O q
T t •Z v o> b •O •O
fi
n. o 0
•O
�0 3
0 d g m a� �—000�
U�U f dgr780
d
0
O •p L'_'
p U y � m
' U
0 tl1 yy C q S
•� y .fi
my
L
U V
1p O
W N C N m ^ U N
3 S 8 0 c W Q...r
alb y oa•,. > '.i> c� ° d
ai
° y
y ;S a S N U
s w 7$ a m S Q S p rn C Q
a.5
-S
m=
a
C > , �CdE
°° q o
t+
C . �
5 m
C
tit ;
n 3 c uv Z
O1 9 ° °
�
_
_S _O W � m U �
act m y
n t d
h 3 o g o E $ c Z$ c
'C 5L � m
S ��"' 'l'J
n L
C G7 O � S = « S
q
v 0 o
a L
In
•fie
L 0 E •CS q N �
m ie ie w > > .... •�+
a 3$
b ��lz3ys
n
O S
y
-5 k'
5 a 5
m m•
O .� � • �ri fi y °
r
O q7 U W� O 0
W
W °
U
> .7
5 — 2 q e '$ o
9
• W h 12,
' pp
yy
�
,r � •� 'O N
a
i
d � �i
C U
C
i � Q
W o
_ �2:
fi,xU
o
Y a
� L
a
K o Y E s h
d m d r vi m U
b
m '� ltl 7 �• m r y
E �G c.3 aE
o5�0
m us a � o•ova
t3 N .$ w m
Q m
�
E � d
f° o.
O
Y d
m a s 'e a
m CW o 0
b •° y y V
E
Cs m m
a m
m 5 o E
p o
°
o $ o ° m
m
8 -9
w
o
��,'O_e -off
m m
s 0 V L Q
�
V e� h >>@ O t U C
m SD
w Ud
d � E Y�ttl U
O U O W q
•O G m ,� a '. m 47
a
CL
_
e a =3 au
m� m 3 d> y y
E E _ c
O m d � Y N •^ 7
� � P y �" y L s Y C G
ea °U�� awG3y°
a aaYO
0
v = c m c o
o � °
ow ' � u � m Tio
'm
to H .m lJ' a V '� •�
m iY .m
=_� y o y v ���5 �•3 E t�� d
E
w
OJ
u Z � -at °y'S•Seoa
m
a o o U o m
e
0 E o o
$ N
�•V.. -. -RwL 2
C >
x n °o m m m•3?
m
m V ♦
go
ri
F�'�E.9 2 E. �� o2 m�
b'
Q
O
U
� V
i Q �
I r ��
�i�U
�a
o m
E
d
0
m
d
D
E
a
6
e
d
O '
A.
2
0
C
�i
d m • m
Si m
A TE EA S2
E o 15 g $?�5
3o'C 3my - y
a e d
•5
u•O �, y W b�� TG
v
R. a.. �•c E dim'
tr C M. V
e aC o v Q m
6 U'
v En s a? 3 0
' " m
0
m a >•o ob o� o 0
3 s a
d y
•� .fl m d
y d•5 °' of
bb of .D p,'O pD O d
v
y d d C d m U E d
z 9 o t
d bL ¢.�' C a'L N
0
. o ' > o
•O C 4
d C d C O� m
e d o 'm s y d cmi E
Q d V d to 11 w d
a
h
i
C�
m O
K
ti
C U
z Q :Q
0
i O °
v
k,t�U
u
..� h
m .5 .5a.5
y
co 5 oa
� w• ^G u `�
C w
'o .� °' 2 'o - '� °
C m N U N O y Y N U 00 m
'° 1 d
� •�
m
'°
'
�m
a
'O
u N L d m y
u uo
•�
E
m N d
a g c
N 5. -M >,
qm' - S N
�C
_
m
m�
4 4 80 0 � 5v
U�
a eon
�eo�
°
m�c
ti W'00 O y m
N m
�
R 00 « r7
.> "
e bN
'� w
sM
v�N
wi o f
e��
mv [r
u *0 >1
t
c -5
y
3 3
=
P:
0 o y w d gg
o
°
a
• �'
r N
a O N P O O e-0
O O O r J Oy .N
u > y 0
O. tom.
O �= m
G O. •-
C
E m
y
O
'O P °� > 4 u
O N 0
E
d O
o, E E
7
d u y ad
°
QT U
NU . O r J'
00 U
v 5
V
ad a,5
....�' T U
c.5 �i
00
1
a
h
i
m o
Q
4
E
� G
d
e
i � Q
w ti O
��U
r C W
rl O
W Z�•'
.p v� O d '� .OW-D V G •O• pp i p '�
0. > C
R G'^00 y 9 G.w W w G
a w G O
C Q m� 'O V d � v d . U F O `� bi
Q•o c �d m Q.9 d._ c c
m
�^
•�
�1
d .�
'� c W
Nd
rib
oy o
�5•
�a
•> a
%
o 0 m
N E J co
`�, O W E
4�, O Q
pp >
v v h
N
�.
v ie N o
Cv
3NO
m
aei=
>�
`s
m=
00 M.5
�•�
S_9
<� « y
o
3
en a
v
o� m
w
QOO� u
W
4�
Owo °
c a
E
Q o
u
oF-
. �
3> o
N
m -
4
TW
W
- E
E C d
N
N
m
y r
L W
_ • N U
° m
O
_
E c
CUB
° u H
A�u 9 a
0
Vi
e
m
�i
wi
�i
wi
e
<
<
e
e
s
e
e
v
W
u
CL
r
9
'
W
V
O
r'
O
a
e
c
W
'a
'c
G
W
7
C
I�
e
a
a
h
i�
C�
v c
1
Q G
o�
l O Q
I `
W
Q .Q O
N
V
u'
a h
0,
gi
o !:= 0 8
0 3� L , .p ° a a0 0 o
b d 'O O N t
OK - do.5m e
F a :; c 'm e �
m
�
5 � �
�
��
>
eb•s
��
e°� >
a
yo�'S�wam�
= o
4
Y N
m
N 0�0
C L N
in E O
N
d
b0 .� GC.
a w pv
an
y
'N7 O N
.e N •.^. G.�
al Q � V
� - a °1 i
al
C
on O G
7
` .b m . J
'. w m
N O
b H O
a �, o md,E�
ffiE
• aD
o b
m �
�
m
�
o b
N �
m d
� �
OD Y O tl
0 � y �
■ 7 d N
� •� V
IC d O�
R U
DO Y O
0 0
0
�
000
N OD
noLox>
O U« N
bD N N O
W N OD
O
N
_
N1
M1
Al
M1
O
Q
?
Q
R
?
R
O
a
e
E
�
m
o
u
d
bi
O
G
H
a
o
0
W
a
e
a
e
Q
a
ti
E h
\ h
O .
r
a
C
Q U
..
� Q
0
� � o
00
`0
in�
�wcv�� ecb • - 30 � >`�
m
�•5 a� �'q m� � p �'m� QU�;o
c ° u
u °
v
3
d
a`�i '80 v
0
c
m
'O + .C' I• �
�
V. C
Q �'a 'aL 4
d0
0.C.
C
m d u
Q m�o y o e � o � w
u42
��?T
_m
� o_ �
A m a� " m
e� s
b
y
u C 1° c m
•E '�
e m
o•aa
d °
3t
G
o mw � °
�•.. o
C6
o u
e
w
to
wi
14
e
<
d
v
R
d
E
m
o
C
O
�
O
a
'
0.
a
m
7
a
a
a
e
ti
R
a
1
F h
1 tr
O �
Q
C
ti
� U
d Uj�
a
> � a
c
w r o
iL V
r d
��
G. r U 1 ttl
E mw o v
C E
a
w
O O
p C a v T
E O c
W � p
a.
ti�
EA
Z =m
lQ o y G
$ 004 G �u b o.
aC F a 0 0
o°'U `°
V.-
'3
ora C
y G ,5
b oo�
m
QS�Hd`o
o
dEoT
p
m
7
o Q E
•O m m
U otw CO�fn f%
.0
o
G v� 0. C
^'
Z . E 0. C
N O
C E 0
= �. O O r= O
O
.>. •. V OO ¢ � L
d Oi O �D y p
M p
r 0
V d a��a a
zw °� d oac a
,.
N
e
s
e
e
O m V
y C o m
N G W N G- 1 . VI
y U �
I N •
� �
y m y � � �
G d C p Np I N R N
O 0 O U
m
a y G y
E
eo o
G
_
7
m
Qg•om 84
°
a g CL v
0
r
d c •= •° E Q
E
.5
o a o
G G C
ao a�
9
z
0
N
Q
1
V
i
4�
� C
0.
ti
u
Q
.. m
m �
o O C
W ti O
w�U
C
W U
u.l
y
tt
4 y
QE'�
d N
p� � d•
4 d U W E • �p
E•
mw y s > °
QE'
N T C
t o
o %
m ti�v °
>
° a
w •`� o
3 ov ��
�_ y � E• ° •a.a o � � v
%
to
% G M
Y • U O 6 •'i t
y
3
o 3
m
m
$�cp
n 0 0 Q a? an °� m
_ c d a
d 0 4� ° o,1�aW s g �
o �
% O 5
C 4 5 b O o0
'� • O
a t
p
W
Q E m
F� 6b m o ' a 6 aui
E
a 3
� .0 1Q
E
� 6
Q m o, b� o t w c Lt1
E • ry a +
o w '
€ c •—
a $06
Qao J UE
v.5: O= %Eaae
°
m�
❑
o W y
C,$�
e o.
Z % a m P u
S
ear
ew
ad�a °
ao.9
rl
o-
5 a
3 c
m c.�_ ,�
�� .o m £ � �« 'O m o
•y
0.9.0-S N N p m E E
�' ' ED
y
Y
Y %
•�
�
y
y
O W� N .� % y
5'
�
o
'o ^v 3,
..
u o •-.s
C
d Y % m d m a d
d
E"
v
�
N
a
• 1
d Q
C
a
Q y
�a
C
� O �
W e �
s
v
� G
O .
d�
d
V
m
d
C
O
i`
G
u
6
e
m
0
a
0
m
e
a
m
m N V X 2 4
m e m o ml' y
a q � w w E �•_
'¢ • E ' N CJ d � U
o �
� � V
N
dzp�t �
C'097�
m
Q•gy o � T m
N O t`'. 6•� m
F •o ° u m • •o a
9
s
c -3 v is
44 N g E.1
L O N
OD • aC m
:
t
w m �
R C N
7 m m
u 0 " U
s a
m C > F W
yoa
Yav°a
N
O R .0
mde�da
W Z O
O m
G O W
be o d
C. 2 To 0 3
N N U d >
R L' t C
n ;t. � a9 U
U �
t3 y O
€� m
a. o
00 O N
5 --
:o w •o`
U y �
_ r G
r •y
O y
N
o a • v
Q�•
pp N O G
e = .S •C
� ry 00
3 c
5 0 0
d
v v 0 •� � j
m Q • . r r 3 � V
• a e m
m y 3 •- y
O N y y 7
yv�
° w
V N • N d
m�N
p ' v C a
r
be
O
�
Q 0.Y O • ,m-.
m U
9
C u �
oa �
•L y rw
y � m
a �
d � N
3 0
w �+
O m �•+ m
m H
Fmy�
q
a
1
[
i H
O �
� O
o�
ti
ti
O v
v
O
Q
ti
N
N
O G W
0
Q
a m
C •� Y P. � Y \°
Q • 5 � v � v .� ° v
Y Y
�'o•oaa�i�� «ma�.v
m Y Y L
�Yao ^�
L
5 Y F
p
Y 0.
'00 '«a
w y R�
L
m
Y O
•'
m tq
OD ° C
p '
Y 'C
pT W
vi
C y d Y G .
m Y {aO • 'YO N O - 0. 0
m '.�O -'+ Lt
y �,
o m
o o c Z
b W 4 U m
• p m p
❑ � aEi
N a Y y
N 0
d
b V O •`�' q O
p �`
w p .sue. y
to
Gp
.. L
°
Y R
PC
9 �.�� «�uo
• �
aabb�
V
�G°i •O
o o
w
OG Y N� 7 U .7 C y N y Q
eZ E.
00 O 'YOS
ewR�m.5®
�mw� La L R
m a
m Y
^ b
3 > o
o m n c o 0
q O Y
y
6 L Y
�p
m
p Y Y Y « ttl
C ' C
> 3 - O
VJ
N V Y a
a Y a
u
. 51 ttl
Y
Y
� O
a a w N q
eo m o
• Y �
i
Y G� ri y m
G
u
4
�
m
m
0
M
N
a
tn
[ h
i Cr
4�
m o
u t
C
Q U.
4
� O v
C B
OO Zl
O
m
Y
e
�j
a
a
fi
W
d
O
dl
9
d N
d'
�b O yy o. m Q m
m ?�
y
r °0 3 w
r 9 0 d y v
O . m c 4
a
m a� a d
v
wQ3 d m7u1
e
0
r
E
a
C
C
m
Rio
L
w p a
3 w
G
T
a U y d
T
y
° m�E e ye a�
7 b y d Q
x $
w p •O .O y A
m pp
�aA„
C w y
W A N N
y r
Tip C
a
° fi . to1
0. d 7
W m N A
` C C
m
N L
Ugs
�v
m prn mA m
V1 E < O O
a o °� c
m
u
'O OD O y
� SoQ
C N
o �
0
o •-
a y 3 h
a i A 7
'O
b C L O
a?_— a
ad ' � L E
a A y a
a
a
h
i
O 'Q
K� o
z
U C
C �
ti
Q V
m vi
z c :Q
a
`O v
rz
c
N
m
W C m
d
•� Fi
0_ D
i�
� . C 0 A V ,D OD
h�
fi mw ao o 3 m
m U
O
m
Y
e
�j
a
a
fi
W
d
O
dl
9
d N
d'
�b O yy o. m Q m
m ?�
y
r °0 3 w
r 9 0 d y v
O . m c 4
a
m a� a d
v
wQ3 d m7u1
e
0
r
E
a
C
C
m
Rio
L
w p a
3 w
G
T
a U y d
T
y
° m�E e ye a�
7 b y d Q
x $
w p •O .O y A
m pp
�aA„
C w y
W A N N
y r
Tip C
a
° fi . to1
0. d 7
W m N A
` C C
m
N L
Ugs
�v
m prn mA m
V1 E < O O
a o °� c
m
u
'O OD O y
� SoQ
C N
o �
0
o •-
a y 3 h
a i A 7
'O
b C L O
a?_— a
ad ' � L E
a A y a
a
a
h
i
O 'Q
K� o
z
U C
C �
ti
Q V
m vi
z c :Q
a
`O v
rz
c
N
o
L
�
d
NO ^'J
Q •P qD N 7
N •°'o
N�� N
on
N N 7 O
•
•� O
�j-
A t
�.3 O m Y w
fZ
5
O
m E y
W m Y r Fy
m
CD U
. N.
mw
OE
=ao0i5�°o
hes
oo 0
'Y
y�
W
• U
�
N �l".. � 00
� •O U p
0rz;
:.J O
U N t C
`(per'
G
F.
a
Y'n N
} W
r
op 0 U p_
d• n' oO S 'd
C
4
oD d¢l W N
E a � �
p
m md
U m,'o,N��S¢13
d :
a m°
Oo
`a
o
' oo m 5d5ii E V E
�..
1y
Q aw'J 1205 w•m04 A
or
�
a
E
c
nl
u
N
C
�
p
.
t
L
O
G
> U 1
L
W
u
Y
d
g+
E
rn
a
• u.
9
10
0
w
00
In
N
R
a
rAl
h
i
C �
V
Q
m v
O � �
i 0 U
r �
e
W ^ c
r a
oo
��U
O L . W
Jv
55 j=
55 m d
r p N e
tb 00
N
S U
v d
b
d•o3
N
ob
G
•C
V
•D
m�
N Y
W U
O
4� O 1�1
Icy.,
s
d
w�
y
G y
0.0
a y
c o o
m
-c E
. 0.
4C
W
N'
�
�
� M
G_
y
t0 �
� y y •p �
bo
C
L
3
2 C
O 2
y
m.'fi. C
• C p s 'O
E p 9 �
O 0.'n
O F.
an
•° E
G C
� �
F N
° �
G U
r � V
G U G
� 'D � C N
x
a O G
r y o L E E
x ° e
o
a$ =°-
w a v
u
ap
�
C
a
nn
D
v
W
9
N
u
�
C
�
D
�
u
u
N
u
^p
�
a
a
°
m
o
a
�
w
N
a
h
d Q
� e
Q a
� U
Q
r Q
�O v
W+ o
fi,�U
n
N
a
h
i
4�
d Q �i
c '-
C
F
ti
a �
t3
Q
O t3
Q � O
w � U
e
o
C p t0
U +
F
s
m
N N
U u m
y �
9
m
r
0 g
R
G
N D
N q G
'O V
eq D
U G
y �? o
U C y
d s d
N W OO
N N
N
Oa
9 O
y E B
>T m
Q 'C R
O.
O
E«
E N N>
y
...
9
7
4 y
Q
9
i
T to s
p
R
. of
N
� r d .0
r j - a •
T
RU u t ,
= -
• m
e H
o d G«
a-
c N cr+
a3..
•°-°
T
t° m`
=_ c q
rj)
O
'>
O
��d
T s d
'O V N
Cj
d G
U
>
�
C
C
J
O
lC m
N ttl 0
'QO�
N p d
>5�
a . ttl
oO��
W
3s�
O�
Ow
GO
�• €�
m
a
is
06 o
a3
.:
U
h 3
> e
d v
•� 3
3 �
u
d d
7
C
a
C
m
C
s
Q'
p
• - m R
d «
p
=
3
fwd
n
N
a
h
i
4�
d Q �i
c '-
C
F
ti
a �
t3
Q
O t3
Q � O
w � U
s
yy
q
a 's •h
d y� L N•U"
r y '
.. �w
m� > �° •� o
N ° ° y
€ N i
`oo`�¢�
e`bm0N
Emo�
q
O C
Mo
y
�.5 ` �� T
V OD C C
N•� C L
ce
N
N a O
y N
C
N q
• C T a
c N
N L'
t
.. m
•G fa. m
1 0
N n
°� —L
tC
0 NC ,
N y
�dO o r
m
a, p c, Q d a o
•„ M 0
a'
1 0_ a — ° v E
'�
G y n N w y
° �
'y
U
�
p. O N
6 g m
O •� y�
r V
O •G q � QQ
y
C C C
L eo 9
� m
i � G �
7 •N G � �
�° ¢ .0 C �
oo
dyodc7
m W • U r
N
Q .0
N
� � r
N}U
n "'
'y
OD N G O R `,° qpp
A
O y
N>
U G N Ct
Q r N
Q O N
N
.
N b v N N
ODD >
m p T
L M •� U N
q
N i m�L
CL
oyo$
8
G
G y m�
a
c
°
VA
z' C
• O L i
� � � d U
d �
gy 3 NN m o
u m o
96
oc
M° I 3d�o$.
1
Q
h
i
W„ Q
Q r
�
r
Q U
d Vj
Q
L Q Q
00
N
e
C
Ud
v Q
W
s
m
E m-
• E 'm
a
z �
a
z m
V m N
m
¢ .� 'N
d
d
u m W
b
L'• 'O m O ¢ C
OD � b
to
C� C .y N
' m m m O O
�g�w'S
Wo�3�E
`
o
1O U to
o
° a
•�, a ai i
'
� c N V
� z o a •o ��
�mw 7 >
c
.
'$ n•
Q
o� m EG3 0
m ..
a
0 00
v
6L C
O q
m
m
N y
�aoE�°
.O
�
pp O G d ❑
O
O
� O N V
N_
cn
d 3 >
�•
N
Y W • N
m O h
yvNi
y bD
N N
p
¢ G d • q
O
0
O d
L S
r
U
U
m q 0
•+
O
O
N O
'°
d � C �
•p
b
G � �
0
E
•3
a
Y r�
o •O N
Vo
rn
N
a
kn
h
tj
`a
R �
w S
� S
Q ^
a y
o v]
O O Q
S
S
W Q o
�i�U
o r
e
C
E E
o 5
Q 9 > aaE
d
C m U N d
on.
E y 5 c$ y E o
a.$
'fl
to
a
O I d O 'O U d
.o � oD i e= 0. � 's
'O N c N
m�
> c u m
a
.9b
cww mCZ E 6.0, m
gA C � `'
A
v �
an V.,w
o 3
^ q � N F�
�r� •d �.
x Q
y
a •o
> t o
a � R� W w N L � �' O
y
.
m 8'0
y y.. $ v d to y
m • o ai
a>
o v rn
s E C m
m
o d. y 5«
o` eo 0 U
°
In
" p
r °
m y 3
d N and 5 d
d N
�; 0 E„
3An m c
n« p
E m�'
•p o
to t m
•- v
CLs
= a m °- °° a
'E
m
e�1 J
Q
._
� N G
Q
o�mma
o d a Z
y fn
O y
O 5
•�
h F •O OD C '3 W 'G N • y m �' ?'' p t y
d
Or
a
7 O pp O B
a O L V 7 V > W
`p•
w v v �.� C a m �� c 3� i o : w
>oa
O d'O$37ye C o; ° 'y
ob
a
«w O$�p�
o03 og�s"„ as qv�a«
°'
°j° «_oE 'o.
y
oal
«C7d .E3,
o.O. w N d o v d y C K .°. FJ u.0
C.
wr s� y °� s,a�h °� d
a
a
of
1
a
ti
[ h
O
a 'y
ti v
a
m va'
O �
� v
O
M
ti
Q
[
i [r
4�
C �
a=
rQ 0
`O v
w O O
z
o
m
T d L � E
00 p d
ap y m W
d> i
Y
d m d
U Q y T•dC
m d h
T d O d
T b D O N d
U >
�
y
d
o •a a �-
�.. o m� c
u
m
E L y O O. 0
•d 6 d .y ❑
'd 'O d d O
p" N W O d O d
G.
L .
G
Cp J7
U .x u
^ i
0— O C ._. L) bo ^m
a'c d' E�
° y m
° q E
P
N SE d
°' ,�
"� 0. •r-t 'y d
. 3 w s
° 3
n
3 d
e —
y d tl '�
y •o
bO d^
� �+ ❑
Q Cr •C m Q
Q d Q > ."J' .G N N
R OI! F. O�
N
u
a
e
d
=
d
a
a
_
m
U
d
t
d
d
M
ti
Q
[
i [r
4�
C �
a=
rQ 0
`O v
w O O
z
PROPOSED FINAL
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
FOR THE
HIGHLAND OAKS SPECIFIC PLAN
AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 51941
SCH #2001051034
LEAD AGENCY:
City of Arcadia
Development Services Department
Community Development Division/Planning Services
240 West Huntington Drive
P.O. Box 60021
Arcadia, California 91066 -6021
Contact Person: Corkran Nicholson, Planning Services Manager
(626) 574 -5422
E -mail: cnicholson @ci.arcadia.ca.us
PROJECT PROPONENT:
Nevis Construction, Inc.
255 East Santa Clara'Street, Suite 210
Arcadia, California 91106
Contact Person: Jeff Lee, Project Manager
(626) 255 -7438
PREPARED BY:
The Planning Consortium
Land Planning and Environmental Services
627 North Main Street
Orange, California 92868
Contact Person: John Bitterly
(714) 769 -2510
February 2, 2005
PROPOSED FINAL
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
FOR THE
HIGHLAND OAKS SPECIFIC PLAN AND
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 51941
The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the proposed Highland Oaks
Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941 project identifies the significant
adverse environmental effects of the proposed project. The FEIR also identifies
mitigation measures or alterations to the project which, if incorporated into the
proposed project, would avoid or reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
For a description of the proposed project, and anticipated adverse impacts, please
refer to the Final Environmental Impact Report for the proposed project.
This Mitigation Monitoring Program provides a framework for the
implementation, monitoring and documentation of the individual mitigation
measures as required by California Resources Code Section 21081.6. The City of
Arcadia City Council has incorporated these measures into the Final
Environmental Impact Report for the proposed project.
The purpose of this Mitigation Monitoring Program is to insure that each
mitigation measure is fully implemented in a timely manner and, where
necessary, to monitor performance of the implemented mitigation measure to
ensure its success. The City of Arcadia will maintain a compliance file tracking
information of the Mitigation Monitoring Program and containing the records of
mitigation measure compliance with this Program.
The Mitigation Monitoring Program is organized under the same topic structure
and order contained in the FEIR and consists of individual pages for each
mitigation measure in the FEIR. For each mitigation measure that is being
incorporated into the proposed project, the Mitigation Monitoring Program page
specifies the following information:
■ Mitigation Measure: Provides the identification number from the FEIR
and the text of the mitigation action.
■ Impact to be Mitigated: Describes the impact that triggers the mitigation
action.
■ Agency /Individual Responsible for Mitigation Implementation: Identifies
the party or agency responsible for implementing the mitigation action.
■ Implementation Timing: Indicates at which approval or development stage
the mitigation action shall be performed.
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
1
• Mitigation Specifications: Details the specific steps required to fulfill
mitigation requirements. Mitigation specifications are organized, where
appropriate, according to pre - implementation phase, implementation phase
and post - implementation phase or monitoring phase.
• Agency/Individual Responsible for Monitoring: Identifies the party or
agency responsible for verifying and enforcing compliance with the
mitigation action.
• Action by Monitor: States the specific actions required of the monitoring
party/agency to ensure compliance with the mitigation action.
• Monitoring Timing: Specifies when actions by the monitoring shall be
performed.
• Monitor Completion and Sign -Off Signature: Identifies the date the
mitigation measure /action was implemented and the authorized monitor
signature.
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
2
4.1 GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
Mitigation Measure:
4.1.3.1 Site Preparation: Prior to initiating grading
operations, any existing vegetation, trash, debris,
over -sized materials (greater than 6 inches) and
other deleterious materials within construction
areas shall be removed from the site.
Impact to be Mitigated:
Unstable grading and/or slope failure
Agency/Individual
Project Developer and Geotechnical Field Monitor
Responsible for
Implementation:
Implementation
Pre - implementation: Prepare Grading Plan
Timing:
Implementation: Implement during the Grading Phase
Mitigation
As per the City grading and construction standards and
Specifications:
requirements reflected in the Grading Plan
Agency/Individual
City of Arcadia City Engineer and Public Works Services
Responsible for
Department
Monitorin
Action by Monitor:
Review and monitor the implementation of the Grading
Plan
Monitor Timing:
Ensure compliance during Grading Phase
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date
Signature
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
4.1 GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
Mitigation Measure:
4.1.3.2 Surficial Soil Removals: Prior to placing fill
material on the project site, unsuitable surficial
materials, including existing loose fill, residual
soil/slopewash and colluvium in areas designated
to receive fill materials and other improvements
such as building pads and fill slopes, shall be
removed to expose competent bedrock as directed
by the project geotechnical field consultant. The
actual removal depths shall be determined in the
field as conditions are exposed. Visual inspection
and/or field- testing shall be used to define removal
requirements.
Impact to be Mitigated:
Unstable grading and/or slope failure
Agency/Individual
Project Developer and Geotechnical Field Monitor
Responsible for
Implementation:
Implementation
Pre - implementation: Prepare Grading Plan
Timing:
Implementation: Implement during the Grading Phase
Miti gation
As per the City grading and construction standards and
Specifications:
requirements reflected in the Grading Plan
Agency/individual
City of Arcadia City Engineer and Public Works Services
Responsible for
Department
Monitorin
Action by Monitor:
Review and monitor the implementation of the Grading
Plan
Monitor Timing:
Ensure compliance during Grading Phase
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date Signature
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
4
4.1 GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
Mitigation Measure:
4.1.3.3 Treatment of Removal Bottoms: Prior to placing
fill material on the project site, soils exposed
within areas approved for fill placement shall be
scarified to a depth of six inches, conditioned to
near optimum moisture content and compacted in-
place to minimum project standards.
Impact to be Mitigated:
Unstable grading and/or slope failure
Agency/Individual
Project Developer and Geotechnical Field Monitor
Responsible for
Implementation:
Implementation
Pre - implementation: Prepare Grading Plan
Timing:
Implementation: Implement during the Grading Phase
Mitigation
As per the City grading and construction standards and
Specifications:
requirements reflected in the Grading Plan
Agency/Individual
City of Arcadia City Engineer and Public Works Services
Responsible for
Department
Monitorin
Action by Monitor:
Review and monitor the implementation of the Grading
Plan
Monitor Timing:
Ensure compliance during Grading Phase
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date Signature
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
4.1 GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
Mitigation Measure:
4.1.3.4 Structural Backfill: Prior to placing fill material
on the project site, the on -site soils from cut slopes
shall be used as compacted fill, provided they are
inspected and found free of organic materials and
debris by the project geotechnical field monitor
with written documentation to the City. Fills shall
be placed in relatively thin lifts, brought to near
optimum moisture content to obtain at least 90
percent relative compaction based on laboratory
standard ASTM D- 1557 -91. All areas to receive
fill, including processed areas, removal areas and
toe of fill benches shall be observed and approved
by the project geotechnical field monitor prior to
the placement of fill materials. Fill materials shall
then be properly placed and compacted until
design grades are attained.
Impact to be Mitigated:
Unstable grading and/or slope failure
Agency/Individual
Project Developer and Geotechnical Field Monitor
Responsible for
Implementation:
Implementation
Pre - implementation: Prepare Grading Plan
Timing:
Implementation: Implement during the Grading Phase
Mitigation
As per the City grading and construction standards and
Specifications:
requirements reflected in the Grading Plan
Agency/Individual
City of Arcadia City Engineer and Public Works Services
Responsible for
Department
Monitorin
Action by Monitor:
Review and monitor the implementation of the Grading
Plan
Monitor Timing:
Ensure compliance during Grading Phase
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date Signature
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map, 51941
City of Arcadia
4.1 GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
Mitigation Measure:
4.1.3.5 Fill Slopes: During the grading operation,
permanent fill slopes shall be constructed no
steeper that 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) and keyed
and benched into approved soil/bedrock materials.
Fill materials shall be placed and compacted in
accordance with the text of the geotechnical report
dated February 21, 2001, October 1, 2003 and
January 29, 2004. Besides fill slopes, fill material
would also be deposited and compacted behind the
proposed maximum six -foot high retaining walls
to level the building pads.
Impact to be Mitigated:
Unstable grading and /or slope failure
Agency/Individual
Project Developer and Geotechnical Field Monitor
Responsible for
Implementation:
Implementation
Pre - implementation: Prepare Grading Plan
Timing:
Implementation: Implement during the Grading Phase
Mitigation
As per the City grading and construction standards and
Specifications:
requirements reflected in the Grading Plan
Agency/Individual
City of Arcadia City Engineer and Public Works Services
Responsible for
Department
Monitorin
Action by Monitor:
Review and monitor the implementation of the Grading
Plan
Monitor Timing:
Ensure compliance during Grading Phase
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date
Signature
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
7
4.1 GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISNIICITY
Mitigation Measure:
4.1.3.6 Fill Keys: If found by the Project geotechnical
field monitor to be required during the grading
operation phase, fill keys shall be a minimum of
12 feet wide (or H12) and shall extend a minimum
of three feet into competent bedrock materials. All
fill keys shall be observed and approved by the
project geotechnical field monitor prior to placing
fill.
Impact to be Mitigated:
Unstable grading and/or slope failure
ndividual
Project Developer and Geotechnical Field Monitor
nsible for
= . Imp lementation:
Implementation
Pre- implementation: Prepare Grading Plan
Timing:
Implementation: Implement during the Grading Phase
Mitigation
As per the City grading and construction standards and
Specifications:
requirements reflected in the Grading Plan
Agency/individual
City of Arcadia City Engineer and Public Works Services
Responsible for
Department
Monitorin
Action by Monitor:
Review and monitor the implementation of the Grading
Plan
Monitor Timing:
Ensure compliance during Grading Phase
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date Signature
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
4.1 GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
Mitigation Measure:
4.1.3.7 Benching: During grading operations, any fills
placed on slopes steeper than 5:1 shall be keyed
and benched into competent bedrock materials as
the fill is placed. Keys and benches shall be
observed by the project geotechnical engineer
and engineering geologist. Removal and deep
benching on sidehill slopes will be necessary prior
to placement of fills on slopes where creep or
slopewash exist.
Impact to be Mitigated:
Unstable grading and/or slope failure
Agency/Individual
Project Developer and Geotechnical Field Monitor
Responsible for
Implementation:
Implementation
Pre - implementation: Prepare Grading Plan
Timing:
Implementation: Implement during the Grading Phase
Mitigation
As per the City grading and construction standards and
Specifications:
requirements reflected in the Grading Plan
Agency/Individual
City of Arcadia City Engineer and Public Works Services
Responsible for
Department
Monitorin
Action by Monitor:
Review and monitor the implementation of the Grading
Plan
Monitor Timing:
Ensure compliance during Grading Phase
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date
Signature
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
9
4.1 GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISNIICITY
Mitigation Measure:
4.13.8 Subdrainage: Subdrains shall be required for all
of the major drainages and side canyons and the
need for any subdrains shall be determined during
the grading operation phase by the project
geotechnical field monitor.
Impact to be Mitigated:
Unstable grading and/or slope failure
Agency/Individual
Project Developer and Geotechnical Field Monitor
Responsible for
Implementation:
Implementation
Pre - implementation: Prepare Grading Plan/Drainage Plan
Timing:
Implementation: Implement during the Grading Phase
Mitigation
As per the City grading and construction standards and
Specifications:
requirements reflected in the Grading Plan
Agency/Individual
City of Arcadia City Engineer and Public Works Services
Responsible for
Department
Monitorin
Action by Monitor:
Review and monitor the implementation of the Grading
Plan/Drainage Plan
Monitor Timing.
Ensure compliance during Grading Phase
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date Signature
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
10
4.1 GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
Mitigation Measure:
4.1.3.9 Testing and Reporting: Fill soils shall be tested
by the project's geotechnical field monitor at the
time of placement to ascertain that the necessary
moisture and compaction is achieved. The results
of observation and testing services shall be
presented in the compaction report prepared by the
project's geotechnical field monitor (submitted to
and approved by the City) after the completion of
the rough grading of the site.
Impact to be Mitigated:
Unstable grading and/or slope failure
Agency/Individual
Project Developer and Geotechnical Field Monitor
Responsible for
Implementation:
Implementation
Pre - implementation: Prepare Grading Plan
Timing:
Implementation: Implement during the Grading Phase
Mitigation
As per the City grading and construction standards and
Specifications:
requirements reflected in the Grading Plan
Agency/Individual
City of Arcadia City Engineer and Public Works Services
Responsible for
Department
Monitorin
Action by Monitor:
Review and monitor the implementation of the Grading
Plan
Monitor Timing:
Ensure compliance during Grading Phase
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date Signature
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
11
4.1 GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
Mitigation Measure:
4.13.10 Cut Pads: Cut pads shall be observed by
the project geotechnical field monitor during the
grading operation to determine the need for
overexcavation and replacement with fill. This
may be necessary to reduce water infiltration into
highly fractured bedrock or other permeable zones,
and/or due to differing expansion characteristics of
foundation materials. If excavation is necessary, a
revised grading plan shall be submitted to the City
Engineer for review and approval prior to
proceeding with grading.
Impact to be Mitigated:
Unstable grading and/or slope failure
Agency/Individual
Project Developer and Geotechnical Field Monitor
Responsible for
Implementation:
Implementation
Pre - implementation: Prepare Grading Plan
Timing:
Implementation: Implement during the Grading Phase
Mitigation
As per the City grading and construction standards and
Specifications:
requirements reflected in the Grading Plan
Agency/Individual
City of Arcadia City Engineer and Public Works Services
Responsible for
Department
Monitorin
Action by Monitor:
Review and monitor the implementation of the Grading
Plan
Monitor Timing:
Ensure compliance during Grading Phase
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date Signature
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
12
4.1 GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
Mitigation Measure:
4.1.3.11 Foundation Setback: Prior to the issuance
of building permits, all settlement - sensitive
foundations shall be located a minimum of 20
horizontal feet from the descending natural slope
face and shall be in conformance with applicable
building codes.
Impact to be Mitigated:
Unstable grading and/or slope failure
Agency/Individual
Project Developer and Geotechnical Field Monitor
Responsible for
Implementation:
Implementation
Pre - implementation: Prepare Grading Plan
Timing:
Implementation: Implement during the Grading Phase
Mitigation
As per the City grading and construction standards and
Specifications:
requirements reflected in the Grading Plan
Agency/Individual
City of Arcadia City Engineer and Public Works Services
Responsible for
Department
Monitorin
Action by Monitor:
Review and monitor the implementation of the Grading
Plan
Monitor Timing:
Ensure compliance during Grading Phase
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date Signature
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
13
4.1 GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
Mitigation Measure:
4.1.3.12 Foundation Bearing Value: Prior to the
issuance of building permits, an allowable bearing
value of 2,000 pounds per square foot shall be
used for design of shallow continuous footings 12
inches wide and 18 inches deep and shallow pad
footings at least 24 square inches and 18 `inches
deep. This value shall be increased by one -third
when considering short duration seismic or wind
loads.
Impact to be Mitigated:
Unstable grading and/or slope failure
Agency/Individual
Project Developer and Geotechnical Field Monitor
Responsible for
Implementation:
Implementation
Pre - implementation: Prepare Grading Plan
Timing:
Implementation: Implement during the Grading Phase
Mitigation
As per the City grading and construction standards and
Specifications:
requirements reflected in the Grading Plan
Agency/Individual
City of Arcadia City Engineer and Public Works Services
Responsible for
Department
Monitorin
Action by Monitor:
Review and monitor the implementation of the Grading
Plan
Monitor Timing:
Ensure compliance during Grading Phase
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date Signature
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
14
4.1 GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
Mitigation Measure:
4.1.3.13 Lateral Resistance: During the grading
design phase and prior to the issuance of any
grading permit, the active earth pressure to be
utilized for retaining wall design shall be
computed as an equivalent fluid pressure of 35
pound per cubic foot (pcf) when the slope of the
backfill behind the wall is level. When the slope of
the backfill is 2:1, an equivalent fluid pressure of
45 pcf shall be used, assuming free - draining
conditions. Passive earth pressure shall be
computed as an equivalent fluid pressure of 300
pounds per cubic foot, with a maximum earth
pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot. An
allowable coefficient of friction between soil and
concrete of 04.0 shall be used with the dead load
forces.
Impact to be Mitigated:
Unstable grading and/or slope failure
Agency/Individual
Project Developer and Geotechnical Field Monitor
Responsible for
Implementation:
Implementation
Pre - implementation: Prepare Grading Plan
Timing:
Implementation: Implement during the Grading Phase
Mitigation
As per the City grading and construction standards and
Specifications:
requirements reflected in the Grading Plan
Agency/Individual
City of Arcadia City Engineer and Public Works Services
Responsible for
Department
Monitorin
Action by Monitor:
Review and monitor the implementation of the Grading
Plan
Monitor Timing:
Ensure compliance during Grading Phase
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date
Signature
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
15
4.1 GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
Mitigation Measure:
4.1.3.14 Foundation Construction: During the
construction phase, all footings for structures and
walls shall be founded in approved compacted fill
or competent natural materials and shall be
founded on at least 18 inches below the lowest .
adjacent ground surface. All continuous footings
shall have a minimum of one No. 4 reinforcing bar
placed at the top and one No. 4 reinforcement bar
placed at the bottom of the footing. A grade beam
reinforced as recommended above for footings and
at least 12 inches square shall be utilized across the
garage entrance. The base of the reinforced beam
shall be at the same elevation as the bottom of the
adjoining footings.
Impact to be Mitigated:
Unstable grading and/or slope failure
Agency/Individual
Project Developer and Geotechnical Field Monitor
Responsible for
Implementation:
Implementation
Pre - implementation: Prepare Grading Plan
Timing:
Implementation: Implement during the Grading Phase
Mitigation
As per the City grading and construction standards and
Specifications:
requirements reflected in the Grading Plan
Agency/Individual
City of Arcadia City Engineer and Public Works Services
Responsible for
Department
Monitorin
Action by Monitor:
Review and monitor the implementation of the Grading
Plan
Monitor Timing:
Ensure compliance during Grading Phase
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date Signature
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
16
4.1 GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISNIICITY
Mitigation Measure:
4:1.3.15 Concrete Slabs: During the construction
phase, concrete slabs in moisture sensitive areas
shall be underlain with a vapor barrier consisting
of a minimum of six - millimeter polyvinyl chloride
membrane with all laps sealed. A minimum of one
inch of sand shall be placed over the membrane to
aid in uniform curing of concrete. Concrete slabs
shall be at least 4- inches thick and reinforced with
a minimum 6 x 6 — 10 /10 welded wire mesh or its
equivalent. All slab reinforcement shall be
supported to ensure proper positioning during
placement of concrete.
Impact to be Mitigated:
Unstable grading and/or slope failure
Agency/Individual
Project Developer, Project Architect(s) and Geotechnical
Responsible for
Field Monitor
Implementation:
Implementation
Pre - implementation: Prepare Grading Plan
Timing:
Implementation: Implement during the Grading Phase
Mitigation
As per the City grading and construction standards and
Specifications:
requirements reflected in the Grading Plan
Agency/Individual
City of Arcadia City Engineer and Public Works Services
Responsible for
Department
Monitorin
Action by Monitor:
Review and monitor the implementation of the Grading
Plan
Monitor Timing:
Ensure compliance during Grading Phase
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date Signature
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
17
4.1 GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
Mitigation Measure:
4.1.3.16 Trench Excavations: During the grading
operation phase, all trench excavations shall
conform to CAL -OSHA and local safety codes as
evidenced through written documentation
submitted to the City. All utility trench backfill
shall be brought to near optimum moisture content
and then compacted to obtain a maximum relative
compaction of 90 percent of ASTM D- 1557 -91.
Impact to be Mitigated:
Unstable grading and/or slope failure
Agency/Individual
Project Developer and Geotechnical Field Monitor
Responsible for
Implementation:
Implementation
Pre - implementation: Prepare Grading Plan
Timing:
Implementation: Implement during the Grading Phase
Mitigation
As per the City grading and construction standards and
Specifications:
requirements reflected in the Grading Plan
Agency/Individual
City of Arcadia City Engineer and Public Works Services
Responsible for
Department
Monitorin
Action by Monitor:
Review and monitor the implementation of the Grading
Plan
F _- Monitor Timing:
Ensure compliance during Grading Phase
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date Signatu
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
18
4.1 GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
Mitigation Measure:
4.1.3.17 Seismic Design: Prior to the issuance of
any building permit, and during the dwelling unit
design phase, the housing shall be designed to
comply with the most current Uniform Building
Codes applicable to seismic safety.
Impact to be Mitigated:
Primary and secondary earthquake hazards
Agency/Individual
Project Developer, Project Architect(s) and Geotechnical
Responsible for
Field Monitor
Implementation:
Implementation
Pre - implementation: Prepare Grading Plan
Timing:
Implementation: Implement during the Grading Phase
Mitigation
As per the City grading and construction standards and
Specifications:
requirements reflected in the Grading Plan
Agency/Individual
City of Arcadia City Engineer and Public Works Services
Responsible for
Department (City Building Official)
Monitorin
Action by Monitor:
Review and monitor the implementation of the Grading
Plan
Monitor Timing:
Ensure compliance during Grading Phase
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date Signature
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
19
4.1 GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
Mitigation Measure:
4.1.3.18 Seismic Zone Design: Prior to the issuance
of any building permit, and during the dwelling
unit design phase, the Uniform Building Code
design shall be observed to accommodate
horizontal accelerations up to 0.5 to 0.7g for the
appropriate Seismic Zone. The proposed structures
shall be designed to accommodate this acceleration
at a minimum. The project structural engineer shall
be made aware of the information above to
determine if any additional structural strengthening
is warranted, as reviewed and approved by the
City.
Impact to be Mitigated:
Primary and secondary earthquake hazards
Agency/Individual
Project Developer, Project Architect(s) and Geotechnical
Responsible for
Field Monitor
Implementation:
Implementation
Pre - implementation: Prepare Grading Plan
Timing:
Implementation: Implement during the Grading Phase
Mitigation
As per the City grading and construction standards and
Specifications:
requirements reflected in the Grading Plan
Agency/Individual
City of Arcadia City Engineer and Public Works Services
Responsible for
Department (City Building Official)
Monitorin
Action by Monitor:
Review and monitor the implementation of the Grading
Plan
Monitor Timing:
Ensure compliance during Grading Phase
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date Signature
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
20
4.1 GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
Mitigation Measure:
4.1.3.19 Contour Grading: Prior to the issuance of
any grading permit, the cut and fill slopes shall be
designed in the project grading plan to follow the
contours of the existing hillside with both vertical
and horizontal undulations.
Impact to be Mitigated:
The slopes shall be intermittently varied to break up the
constant grades and the horizontal lines shall provide more
curvature.
Agency/Individual
Project Developer and Geotechnical Field Monitor
Responsible for
Implementation:
Implementation
Pre - implementation: Prepare Grading Plan
Timing:
Implementation: Implement during the Grading Phase
Mitigation
As per the City grading and construction standards and
Specifications:
requirements reflected in the Grading Plan
Agency/Individual
City of Arcadia City Engineer and Public Works Services
Responsible for
Department
Monitorin
Action by Monitor:
Review and monitor the implementation of the Grading
Plan
Monitor Timing:
Ensure compliance during Grading Phase
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date Signature
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
21
4.1 GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
Mitigation Measure:
4.1.3.20 Access to Drainage Facilities: Prior to the
issuance of any grading permit, the grading plan
shall include the grading necessary to accom-
modate access to drainage facilities as submitted to
and approved by the City.
Impact to be Mitigated:
Unstable grading and/or slope failure due to inadequate
drainage
Agency/Individual
Project Developer and Geotechnical Field Monitor
Responsible for
Implementation:
Implementation
Pre - implementation: Prepare Grading Plan
Timing:
Implementation: Implement during the Grading Phase
Mitigation
As per the City grading and construction standards and
Specifications:
requirements reflected in the Grading Plan
Agency/Individual
City of Arcadia City Engineer and Public Works Services
Responsible for
Department
Monitorin
Action by Monitor:
Review and monitor the implementation of the Grading
Plan
Monitor Timing:
Ensure compliance during Grading Phase
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date Signature
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
22
4.1 GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
Mitigation Measure:
4.1.3.21 Retaining Walls: Prior to the issuance of
any grading permit, the retaining walls shall be
designed in such a way to create minimal visibility
using methods to either incorporate landscaping
into the wall material or to add dense landscaping
to screen the retaining walls facilities as submitted
to and approved by the City.
Impact to be Mitigated:
Unstable grading and/or slope failure
Agency/Individual
Project Developer and Geotechnical Field Monitor
Responsible for
Implementation:
Implementation
Pre - implementation: Prepare Grading Plan
Timing:
Implementation: Implement during the Grading Phase
Mitigation
As per the City grading and construction standards and
Specifications:
requirements reflected in the Grading Plan
Agency/Individual
City of Arcadia City Engineer and Community
Responsible for
Development Division
Monitorin
Action by Monitor:
Review and monitor the implementation of the Grading
Plan
Monitor Timing:
Ensure compliance during Grading Phase .
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date Signature
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
23
4.1 GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
Mitigation Measure:
4.1.3.22 Uniform Building Code: Prior to the
issuance of any grading permit, all grading and
drainage shall be designed in conformance with
the Uniform Building Code.
Impact to be Mitigated:
Unstable grading and/or slope failure due to inadequate
drainage
Agency/individual
Project Developer and Geotechnical Field Monitor
Responsible for
Implementation:
Implementation
Pre - implementation: Prepare Grading Plan
Timing:
Implementation: Implement during the Grading Phase
Mitigation
As per the City grading and construction standards and
Specifications:
requirements reflected in the Grading Plan
Agency/individual
City of Arcadia City Engineer and Public Works Services
Responsible for
Department (City Building Official)
Monitorin
Action by Monitor:
Review and monitor the implementation of the Grading
Plan
Monitor Timing:
Ensure compliance during Grading Phase
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date Signature
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
24
4.1 GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
Mitigation Measure:
4.1.3.23 Slope Design and Stability: Prior to the
issuance of any grading permit, any cut slopes
steeper than 2:1 shall be designed in conformance
with a soils engineering or engineering geology
report reviewed and approved by the City stating
that the site has been investigated and determined
to be stable and not create a hazard to public or
private property.
Impact to be Mitigated:
Unstable grading and/or slope failure
Agency/Individual
Project Developer and Geotechnical Field Monitor
Responsible for
Implementation:
Implementation
Pre - implementation: Prepare Grading Plan
Timing:
Implementation: Implement during the Grading Phase
Mitigation
As per the City grading and construction standards and
Specifications:
requirements reflected in the Grading Plan
Agency/Individual
City of Arcadia City Engineer and Community
Responsible for
Development Division
Monitorin
Action by Monitor:
Review and monitor the implementation of the Grading
Plan
Monitor Timing:
Ensure compliance during Grading Phase
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date Signature
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
25
4.2 HYDROLOGY
Mitigation Measure:
4.2.4.1 Drainage Plan: Prior to the issuance of any
grading permit, the Project Applicant/Developer shall
demonstrate compliance with the NPDES requirements
through an approved Standard Urban Stormwater
Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) for the project design and
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (S WPPP) and a
Notice of Intent (NOI) for the construction. These plans
must include Best Management Practices (BMP) to reduce
potential pollution during construction and over the long
term. All drainage plans and improvements shall be
reviewed and approved by the City of Arcadia Public
Works Services Department and, as appropriate, the Los
Angeles County Flood Control District. Manufactured
slopes shall be re- vegetated with native deep- rooted plants
and trees and treated with soil binders within 90 days from
completion of grading operations. During the rainy season
(defined as annually between October 15 through April
15), graded slopes shall be landscaped within 30 days of
the completion of grading. Said slopes shall be covered
with impervious tarping /cover until all landscaping work
is completed, to avoid any and all sediment run -off. All
slopes greater than ten feet (10') in height require jute
netting to minimize erosion. Driveways shall drain to
lawns and/or be constructed of a pervious material. The
construction of the retaining walls shall be concurrent with
the grading operation. The drainage plan must include the
design and installation of efficient irrigation systems for
both residential lots and common slopes /landscaped areas
(e.g., drip irrigation, soil moisture sensors and automatic
irrigation systems) which minimize runoff and
evaporation and maximize the water that will reach the
plant roots.
Impact to be Mitigated:
Construction and operational phase flooding and erosion.
Agency/Individual
Project Applicant/Developer
Responsible for
Implementation:
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
26
Implementation
Pre - implementation: Prepare Drainage Plan
Timing:
Implementation: Implement Drainage Plan during the
construction phase
Mitigation
As per the specifications recommended by the City
Specifications:
Engineer and Public Works Services Department
Agency/Individual
City of Arcadia City Engineer, Public Works Services
Responsible for
Department and Los Angeles County Flood Control
Monitoring
District
Action by Monitor:
Review and monitor the preparation and implementation
of the Drainage Plan and on going monitoring as to its
operational effectiveness.
Monitor Timing:
Review and monitor the compliance during construction
phase
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date Signature
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
27
4.2 HYDROLOGY
Mitigation Measure:
4.2.4.2 Regional Water Quality Control Board
Standards: Prior to the issuance of any grading permit,
the Project Developer shall comply with applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board standards during
the construction phase and continue said compliance
throughout occupancy.
Impact to be Mitigated:
Construction phase flooding and erosion.
Agency/Individual
Project Applicant/Developer
Responsible for
Implementation:
Implementation
Pre - implementation: Prepare Drainage Plan
Timing:
Implementation: Implement Drainage Plan during the
construction phase
Mitigation
As per the specifications recommended by the City
Specifications:
Engineer and Public Works Services Department
Agency/Individual
City of Arcadia City Engineer and Public Works Services
Responsible for
Department
Monitoring:
Action by Monitor:
Review and monitor the preparation and implementation
of the Drainage Plan and on going monitoring as to its
operational effectiveness.
Monitor Timing:
Review and monitor the compliance during construction
phase
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date
Signature
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
28
4.2 HYDROLOGY
Mitigation Measure:
4.2.4.3 Runoff Storage Area(s): Prior to the issuance of
any grading permit, the Project Developer shall design a
drainage facility to collect and store runoff on the site in
accordance with the SUSMP. The runoff storage area(s)
shall be designed located such that it collects as much
runoff from the site as possible and shall be with a
vegetated, pervious surface area for runoff storage and
treatment (sized at 1,200 square feet of area for every one
acre of impervious areas with a minimum width of ten
feet).
• Minimum capture /treatment criteria is either 85`
percentile 24 -how storm (if calculating by volume)
or 0.2 inches per how (if calculating by continuous
flow).
• Runoff from roadways must be included in the
capture /treatment system.
• A Homeowners' Association (HOA) or equivalent
must be established for the purpose of future
maintenance of communal treatment systems.
Impact to be Mitigated:
Construction phase flooding and erosion.
Agency/Individual
Project Applicant/Developer
Responsible for
Implementation•
Implementation
Pre - implementation: Prepare Drainage Plan
Timing:
Implementation: Implement Drainage Plan during the
construction phase
Mitigation
As per the specifications recommended by the City
Specifications:
Engineer and Public Works Services Department
Agency/Individual
City of Arcadia City Engineer and Public Works Services
Responsible for
Department
Monitoring:
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
29
Action by Monitor:
Review and monitor the preparation and implementation
of the Drainage Plan and on going monitoring as to its
operational effectiveness.
Monitor Timing:
Review and monitor the compliance during construction
phase
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date Signature
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
30
4.2 HYDROLOGY
Mitigation Measure:
4.2.4.4 BMP Maintenance Covenant: Prior to the
issuance of any grading permit, the Project Developer
shall prepare a Best Management Practices (BMP)
Maintenance Covenant. The document shall include a
detailed description of the maintenance program for all
storm drains, slope drains, catch basins and other
proposed drainage devices. The program shall address
maintenance measures, methods of maintenance,
frequency, access to all facilities and the estimated costs
of services.
Impact to be Mitigated:
Construction phase flooding and erosion.
Agency/Individual
Project Applicant/Developer
Responsible for
Implementation:
Implementation
Pre - implementation: Prepare Drainage Plan
Timing:
Implementation: Implement Drainage Plan during the
construction phase
Mitigation
As per the specifications recommended by the City
Specifications:
Engineer and Public Works Services Department
Agency/Individual
City of Arcadia City Engineer and Public Works Services
Responsible for
Department
Monitoring:
Action by Monitor:
Review and monitor the preparation and implementation
of the Drainage Plan and on going monitoring as to its
operational effectiveness. -
Monitor Timing:
Review and monitor the compliance during construction
phase
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date Signature
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
31
4.2 HYDROLOGY
Mitigation Measure:
4.2.4.5 Mudflow/Erosion: Prior to the issuance of any
grading permit, the Project Applicant/Developer shall
prepare and submit a drainage plan that lessens any on or
off site flood/mudflow /erosion impacts to a less than
significant level. This drainage plan could include a runoff
holding basin in the western canyon, improvements to the
proposed riprap design in conjunction with the runoff
holding basin and/or an underground storm drain from the
foot of the western canyon fill slope connected to an
acceptable drainage facility to the south. The latter will
require an easement across private property.
Impact to be Mitigated:
Construction phase flooding and erosion.
Agency/Indiv417mplem"t
roject Applicant/Developer
Responsib
Implementation:
Implemenre
- implementation: Prepare Drainage Plan
Tientation:
Implement Drainage Plan during the
nstruion phase
Mitigation
As per the spe cifications recommended by the City
Specifications:
Engineer and Public Works Services Department
Agency/Individual
City of Arcadia City Engineer and Public Works Services
Responsible for
Department
Monitoring:
Action by Monitor:
Review and monitor the preparation and implementation
of the Drainage Plan and on going monitoring as to its
operational effectiveness.
Monitor Timing:
Review and monitor the compliance during construction
phase
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date
Signature
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
32
4.2 HYDROLOGY
Mitigation Measure:
4.2.4.6 Grading Plan: Prior to the issuance of any
grading permit, the grading plan shall include the grading
necessary to accommodate access to drainage facilities.
Compliance with this Mitigation Measure shall be the
responsibility of the Project Applicant/Developer.
Compliance with the Mitigation Measure shall be
reviewed and enforced by the City Engineer and Public
Works Services Department.
Impact to be Mitigated:
Construction phase flooding and erosion.
Agency/Individual
Project Applicant/Developer
Responsible for
Implementation:
Implementation
Pre - implementation: Prepare Drainage Plan
Timing:
Implementation: Implement Drainage Plan during the
construction phase
Mitigation
As per the specifications recommended by the City
Specifications:
Engineer and Public Works Services Department
Agency/Individual
City of Arcadia Community Development Division, City
Responsible for
Engineer and Public Works Services Department
Monitorin
Action by Monitor:
Review and monitor the preparation and implementation
of the Drainage Plan and on going monitoring as to its
operational effectiveness.
Monitor Timing:
Review and monitor the compliance during construction
phase
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date Signature
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
33
4.2 HYDROLOGY
Mitigation Measure:
4.2.4.7 Uniform Building Code: Prior to the issuance of
any grading permit, all grading and drainage shall be
designed in conformance with the Uniform Building
Code.
Impact to be Mitigated:
Construction phase flooding and erosion.
Agency/Individual
Project Applicant/Developer
Responsible for
Implementation:
Implementation
Pre - implementation: Prepare Drainage Plan
Timing:
Implementation: Implement Drainage Plan during the
construction phase
Mitigation
As per the specifications recommended by the City
Specifications:
Engineer and Public Works Services Department (City
Building Official)
Agency/Individual
City of Arcadia City Engineer and City Building Official
Responsible for
Monitoring:
Action by Monitor:
Review and monitor the preparation and implementation
of the Drainage Plan and ongoing monitoring as to its
operational effectiveness.
Monitor Timing:
Review and monitor the compliance during construction
phase
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date Signature
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
34
4.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Mitigation Measure:
4.3.4.1 Prior to the start of grading and in the designated
flowering season for potential sensitive plant species or
habitats, the project proponent shall conduct an additional
dedicated survey for sensitive plant species and habitats
on the development parcel. This survey would also
establish whether or not Braunton's milk vetch
(Astragalus brauntonii) is present within the proposed
development area. If any sensitive species are present on
site (including the Braunton's milk vetch), a mitigation
plan shall be developed and approved by the State
Department of Fish and Game (DFG) and/or US
Department of Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), as
necessary.
Impact to be Mitigated:
Impacts to sensitive biotic resources, including Oak
Woodland habitat
Agency/Individual
Project Applicant/Developer
Responsible for
Implementation:
Implementation
Prior to the start of grading or construction
Timing:
Mitigation
As per the USFWS and DFG standards and requirements
Specifications:
Agency/Individual
City of Arcadia Development Services Department, State
Responsible for
Department of Fish and Game and /or US Department of
Monitoring
Fish and Wildlife Service, as necessary.
Action by Monitor:
Review mitigation plan and monitor implementation
Monitor Timing:
Review and monitor compliance during the grading phase
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date Signature
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
35
4.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Mitigation Measure:
4.3.4.2: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a
California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica) survey in
compliance with the protocol survey requirements of the
California State Office of Fish and Game and United State
Fish and Wildlife Service shall be conducted by a
qualified biologist on the proposed project site area of
disturbance. If this species is present on site, a mitigation
plan shall be developed and approved by the State
Department of Fish and Game and /or US Department of
Fish and Wildlife Service, as necessary.
Impact to be Mitigated:
Impacts to sensitive biotic resources
Agency/Individual
Project Applicant/Developer
Responsible for
Implementation:
Implementation
Prior to the start of grading or construction
Timing:
Mitigation
As per the USFWS and DFG standards and requirements
Specifications:
Agency/Individual
City of Arcadia Development Services Department, State
Responsible for
Department of Fish and Game and /or US Department of
Monitoring
Fish and Wildlife Service, as necessary.
Action by Monitor:
Review mitigation plan and monitor implementation
Monitor Timing:
Review and monitor compliance during the grading phase
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date
Signature
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
36
4.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Mitigation Measure:
4.3.4.3: Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, the
Project Applicant/Developer shall have a certified arborist
prepare and submit an Oak Tree Mitigation Plan. The
proposed project's Oak Tree Mitigation Plan shall adhere
to the requirements and standards of the City's Oak Tree
Preservation Ordinance and shall be prepared by a
certified arborist under the review and approval of the
City of Arcadia Development Services Department. The
Project Applicant/Developer shall attempt to avoid
impacts to Oak Trees through minor changes in the
grading plans. If the trees cannot be avoided, then an
investigation of moving these trees to other locations on
the proposed project site shall be accomplished. Trees
shall be moved only short distances on site using state -of-
the -art techniques for on -site tree re- location. Any trees
that cannot be avoided or moved will be replaced at a two -
to -one (2:1) ratio within the approximately 13.04 -acre
development portion of the proposed project site by the
Project Applicant/Developer. A qualified arborist shall
determine appropriate soils and locations for these
replacement trees prior to planting. The Project
Applicant/Developer shall clump trees adjacent to existing
trees in order to create or expand Coast Live Oak
woodlands. The minimum replacement oak tree size shall
be 36 -inch boxed. Monitoring would occur for a period of
five years on all trees relocated and/or planted by the
project proponent. Any trees that die during this
monitoring period will be replaced on the site by the
Project Developer and/or the HOA.
Impact to be Mitigated:
Impacts to oak trees
Agency/Individual
Project Applicant/Developer and the future HOA
Responsible for
Implementation:
Implementation
Pre - implementation: Prepare Oak Tree Mitigation Plan
Timing:
Implementation: Implement Oak Tree Plan
Mitigation
As per the City Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance
Specifications:
I standards and requirements
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
37
Agency/Individual
City of Arcadia Development Services Department
Responsible for
Monitorin
Action by Monitor:
Review plan and monitor the implementation of the plan
Monitor Timing:
Review and monitor compliance during the construction
phase
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date Signature
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
38
4.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Mitigation Measure:
4.3.4.4: Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, the
preservation plan for the 74" diameter oak tree shall be
prepared by a certified arborist and submitted for review
by the Development Services Department. Under this
plan, the tree shall be retained in place and the drainage
patterns and crown/dripline area shall not be altered to
ensure the tree's long -term survival. If the tree cannot be
retained in place, it shall be considered a significant
adverse unavoidable impact associated with the
implementation of the proposed project. Compliance with
this Mitigation Measure shall be the responsibility of the
Project Applicant/Developer.
Impact to be Mitigated:
Impacts to oak trees
Agency/Individual
Project Applicant/Developer
Responsible for
Implementation:
Implementation
Pre - implementation: Prepare Oak Tree Mitigation Plan
Timing:
Implementation: Implement Oak Tree Plan
Mitigation
As per the City Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance
Specifications:
standards and requirements
Agency/Individual
City of Arcadia Development Services Department
Responsible for
Monitorin
Action by Monitor:
Review plan and monitor the implementation of the plan
Monitor Timing:
Review and monitor compliance during the construction
phase
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date Signature
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
39
4.4 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY
Mitigation Measure:
4.4.3.1 Prior to the consideration of project approval, the
project shall be redesigned to comply with the
goals, policies and strategies contained in the
Community Development, Municipal Facilities
and Services, Environmental Resources and
Environmental Hazards Elements of the Arcadia
General Plan.
Impact to be Mitigated:
Land use compatibility
Agency/Individual
City of Arcadia Development Services Department
Responsible'for
Implementation:
Implementation
Project approval by City Council
Timing:
Mitigation
As per the City Council findings
Specifications:
Agency/Individual
City of Arcadia Development Services Department
Responsible for
Monitorin
Action by Monitor:
Review and monitor compliance
Monitor Timing:
Review and monitor compliance during the construction
phase
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date Signature
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
40
4.4 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY
Mitigation Measure: 4.4.3.2 Prior to the consideration of project approval, the
project shall be redesigned to comply with the
following City requirements:
a. The proposed location, size, design and
operating characteristics of the
development allowed by the Highland
Oaks Specific Plan is in accordance with
the General Plan Hillside Management
Strategies (CD -17 through CD -20);
b. The project maximizes the retention of
natural open spaces through clustering and
implementation of General Plan Hillside
Management Strategies (CD -31);
C. Adequate utilities are available that meet
required service standards (FS -17);
d. The proposed development, which contains
"Moderate Value Wildlife Habitat"
maintains the habitat value of the site (ER-
17);
e. The project provides adequate buffers and
setbacks that avoid significant impacts to
riparian and other biological sensitive
habitats (ER -18);
f. The project's grading recreates a natural
hillside appearance to the greatest extent
feasible (EH -6);
g. The project incorporates adequate
mitigation measures to achieve an
acceptable level of risk from flooding and
slope failures (EH -1 & EH -6);
h. The project, which is located within an
Extremely High Fire Hazard Area,
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
41
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date Signature
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
42
incorporates adequate mitigation measures
to achieve an acceptable level of risk from
wildland fires (EH -25);
i. The project has been designed to facilitate
adequate access by firefighting equipment
and maintains adequate evacuation routes
for residents (EH -26);
j. The project has demonstrated that there is
adequate water pressure and/or fire flow
(EH -26).
Impact to be Mitigated:
Land use compatibility
Agency/Individual
City of Arcadia Development Services Department
Responsible for
Implementation:
Implementation
Project approval by City Council
Timing:
Mitigation
As per the City Council findings
Specifications:
Agency/Individual
City of Arcadia Development Services Department
Responsible for
Monitorin
Action by Monitor:
Review and monitor compliance
Monitor Timing:
Review and monitor compliance during the construction
phase
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date Signature
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
42
4.4 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY
Mitigation Measure:
4.43.3 Prior to the consideration of project approval, the
project shall be redesigned to comply with the
Highland Oaks Specific Plan Development and
Design Regulations, and with the goals, policies
and strategies contained within the Arcadia
General Plan.
Impact to be Mitigated:
Land use compatibility
Agency/Individual
City of Arcadia Development Services Department
Responsible for
Implementation:
Implementation
Project approval by City Council
Timing:
Mitigation
As per the City Council findings
Specifications:
Agency/Individual
City of Arcadia Development Services Department
Responsible for
Monitorin
Action by Monitor:
Review and monitor compliance
Monitor Timing:
Review and monitor compliance during the construction
phase
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date Signature
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program.
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
43
4.4 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY
Mitigation Measure: 4.4.3.4 Prior to the consideration of project approval,
project shall be redesigned to comply with the
following City - required findings:
a. The location, size,
characteristics of the
the Highland Oaks
compatible with and
or be detrimental to
buildings, structures,
to:
design and operating
development allowed by
Specific Plan will be
will not adversely affect
adjacent uses, residents,
with consideration given
• Density, coverage, scale and bulk;
• Views to and from the proposed residences,
and to and from adjacent and surrounding
residences;
The effects on desirable neighborhood
character;
b. The Specific Plan and proposed development
will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety and welfare, or materially injurious to
properties or improvements adjacent to, or in
the in the vicinity of the project site.
C. Building height - The maximum building
height shall be 30 feet in compliance with the
Zoning Code.
d. Building Placement — Units on Lots I through
4 units shall have staggered front yard
setbacks.
e. Rear Yard Setback — The rear yard setback for
Lots 1 through 4 shall be measured from the
pad retaining wall, and not from the rear
property line.
Manufactured slopes — All manufactured slopes
shall be modified to remove sharp edges and
curves. Grading shall be smoothed and rounded
to provide a more nat ural appearance where it
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
44
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date Signature
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
45
transitions into natural terrain.
g. Crib Walls — Retaining walls around proposed
building pads shall be replaced with "crib wall'
designs wherever feasible, that allow for
plantings to soften their visual impact. They
shall be curvilinear to provide a more natural
appearance.
h. Retaining Walls — All retaining walls visible
from Canyon Road or from adjacent/
surrounding land uses shall incorporate a
combination of decorative facings, color,
texture relief, landscaping and curvilinear
design to minimize visual impacts to the
greatest extent feasible.
Impact to be Mitigated:
Land use compatibility
Agency/Individual
City of Arcadia Development Services Department
Responsible for
Implementation:
Implementation
Project approval by City Council
Timing:
Mitigation
As per the City Council findings
Specifications:
Agency/Individual
City of Arcadia Development Services Department
Responsible for
Monitorin
Action by Monitor:
Review and monitor compliance
Monitor Timing:
Review and monitor compliance during the construction
phase
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date Signature
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
45
4.5 NOISE
Mitigation Measure:
4.5.4.1 Grading and Construction Equipment Noise:
The most effective method of controlling grading and
construction noise is through limiting construction hours.
The proposed project shall be subject to grading and
building permits. All noise generating construction
activities shall be restricted to 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM
Monday through Friday and 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM
Saturdays unless otherwise permitted by the Development
Services Department. Construction is prohibited on
Sundays and major (national) holidays
Impact to be Mitigated:
Grading and construction phase noise
Agency/Individual
Project Applicant/Developer
Responsible for
Implementation:
Implementation
Grading Phase
Timing:
Mitigation
As per City ordinance
Specifications:
Agency/Individual
City of Arcadia Public Works Services Department,
Responsible for
Development Services Department and City Building
Monitoring
Official
Action by Monitor:
Review and monitor the grading and construction phases
Monitor Timing:
Review and monitor compliance during the grading and
construction phases
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date
Signature
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
46
4.5 NOISE
Mitigation Measure:
4.5.4.2 Noise and Vibration Associated with the Transport
of Excess Earth Materials: The most effective method of
controlling project truck transport noise and vibration is
through limiting construction hours. The off -site transport of
excess earth materials shall be restricted to 7:00 AM to 5:00
PM Monday through Friday and 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM
Saturdays unless otherwise permitted by the Development
Services Department. Construction is prohibited on Sundays
and major (national) holidays. However, residents living
adjacent to the haul route might still experience short-term
significant adverse noise and vibration impacts from heavy
trucks passing their home every ten minutes Monday through
Friday between 7:00 AM and 5:00 PM and Saturdays 8:00 AM
to 5:00 PM. This mitigation will lessen the anticipated impact,
but it cannot lessen the impact to a less than significant level
due to number of required truck trips and the length of time
needed for the off -site transport of excess earth material
Impact to be Mitigated:
Grading and construction phase noise
Agency/Individual
Project Applicant/Developer
Responsible for
Implementation•
Implementation
Grading Phase
Timing:
Mitigation
As per City ordinance
Specifications:
Agency/Individual
City of Arcadia Public Works Services Department,
Responsible for
Development Services Department and City Building
Monitoring
Official
Action by Monitor:
Review and monitor the grading and construction phases
Monitor Timing:
Review and monitor compliance during the grading and
construction phases
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date Signature
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
47
4.6 AIR QUALITY
Mitigation Measure:
4.6.4.1 Fugitive Dust: The project contractor shall water
the grading site and clean the equipment morning and
evening to comply with the AQMP Fugitive Dust
Measures BCM -03 and BCM -06 and the City's General
Plan. This is not an optional mitigation measure, but a
SCAQMD requirement and is already included in the
particulate emission projections in this section. As part of
the conditions of grading permit approval, the project shall
water the construction site and unpaved haul roads (with
use of reclaimed water or chemical soil binder, where
feasible) at least twice daily at a minimum.
Impact to be Mitigated:
Grading phase and excess earth material export transport
phase dust
Agency/Individual
Project Applicant/Developer
Responsible for
Implementation:
Implementation
Pre- implementation: prepare grading transport plan
Timing:
Implementation: Implement grading transport plan
Mitigation
As per AQMD standards and City of Arcadia
Specifications:
requirements
Agency/Individual
City of Arcadia Development Services Department
Responsible for
Monitorin
Action by Monitor:
Review plan and monitor implementation of the plan
Monitor Timing:
Ensure compliance during grading and construction
phases
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date Signature
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
48
4.6 AIR QUALITY
Mitigation Measure:
4.6.4.2 Cleaning of Trucks: The project contractor shall
wash off trucks leaving the site to comply with the AQMP
Fugitive Dust Measure BCM -01. This measure is also
required by the SCAQMD and complies with SCAQMD
Rule 403 which requires the "removal of particulate
matter from equipment prior to movement on paved
streets" to control particulate emissions. As part of the
conditions of grading permit approval, the project
contractor shall wheel wash construction equipment and
cover dirt in trucks during on -road hauling. This measure
was already considered in the particulate emissions
projections in this section. Haul trucks leaving the project
site are required to have a minimum freeboard distance of
12- inches or are required to cover payloads.
Impact to be Mitigated:
Grading phase and excess earth material transport phase
dust
Agency/Individual
Project Applicant/Developer
Responsible for
Implementation:
Implementation
Pre - implementation: prepare grading transport plan
Timing:
Implementation: Implement grading transport plan
Mitigation
As per AQMD standards and City of Arcadia
Specifications:
requirements
Agency/Individual
City of Arcadia Development Services Department
Responsible for
Monitorin
Action by Monitor:
Review plan and monitor implementation of the plan
Monitor Timing:
Ensure compliance during grading and construction
phases
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date
Signature
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
49
4.6 AIR QUALITY
Mitigation Measure:
4.6.4.3 Fugitive Dust from Temporary Roadways and
Parking Areas: The project contractor shall spread soil
binders on site, unpaved roads and parking areas everyday
of grading operations at least every 4 hours and at the end
of the workday. SCAQMD Rule 403 requires that "every
reasonable precaution (is taken) to minimize fugitive dust
emissions" from grading operations to control particulate
emission.
Impact to be Mitigated:
Grading phase and excess earth material export transport
phase dust
Agency/Individual
Project Applicant/Developer
Responsible for
Implementation:
Implementation
Pre - implementation: prepare grading transport plan
Timing:
Implementation: Implement grading transport plan
Mitigation
As per AQMD standards and City of Arcadia
Specifications:
requirements
Agency/Individual
City of Arcadia Development Services Department
Responsible for
Monitorin
Action by Monitor:
Review plan and monitor implementation of the plan
Monitor Timing:
Ensure compliance during grading and construction
phases
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date
Signature
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
50
4.6 AIR QUALITY
Mitigation Measure:
4.6.4.4 Inactive Construction Areas: The project
contractor shall apply chemical soil stabilizers according
to manufacture's specifications to all inactive construction
areas (previously graded areas which remain inactive for
96 hours).
Impact to be Mitigated:
Grading phase and excess earth material export transport
phase dust
Agency/Individual
Project Applicant/Developer
Responsible for
Implementation:
Implementation
Pre - implementation: prepare grading transport plan
Timing:
Implementation: Implement grading transport plan
Mitigation
As per AQMD standards and City of Arcadia
Specifications:
requirements
Agency/Individual
City of Arcadia Development Services Department
Responsible for
Monitorin
Action by Monitor:
Review plan and monitor implementation of the plan
Monitor Timing:
Ensure compliance during grading and construction
phases
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date Signature
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
51
4.6 AIR QUALITY
Mitigation Measure:
4.6.4.5 Revegetation of Graded Areas: The project
contractor shall re- establish ground cover within the
construction site through seeding and watering on portions
of the site that will not be disturbed for lengthy periods
(i.e.: two months or more). Revegetating graded areas
immediately after soil disturbance shall be required as a
condition of the grading permit approval.
Impact to be Mitigated:
Grading phase and excess earth material export transport
phase dust
Agency/Individual
Project Applicant/Developer
Responsible for
Implementation:
Implementation
Pre - implementation: prepare grading transport plan
Timing:
Implementation: Implement grading transport plan
Mitigation
As AQMD standards and City of Arcadia
Specifications:
requirements
Agency/Individual
City of Arcadia Development Services Department
Responsible for
Monitorin
Action by Monitor:
Review plan and monitor implementation of the plan
Monitor Timing:
Ensure compliance during grading and construction
phases
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date Signature
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
52
4.6 AIR QUALITY
n Measure:
4.6.4.6 Street Sweeping: The project contractor shall
sweep streets to prevent silt and other debris from being
carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares. This
7Impact
measures prevents and reduces emissions.
Mitigated:
Grading phase and excess earth material export transport
phase dust
Agency/Individual
Projec;Applicant/Developer
Responsible for
Im lementation:
Implementation
Pre - imtion: prepare grading transport plan
Timing:
Implementation: Implement grading transport plan
Mitigation
As per AQMD standards and City of Arcadia
Specifications:
requirements
Agency/Individual
City of Arcadia Public Works Services Department and
Responsible for
Development Services Department
Monitorin
Action by Monitor:
Review plan and monitor implementation of the plan
Monitor Timing:
Ensure compliance during grading and construction
phases
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date Signature
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City ofArcadia
53
4.6 AIR QUALITY
Mitigation Measure:
4.6.4.7 Truck Speeds: The project contractor shall reduce
on -site traffic speeds on all unpaved road surfaces to 15
miles per hour maximum.
Impact to be Mitigated:
Grading phase and excess earth material export transport
phase dust
Agency/Individual
Project Applicant/Developer
Responsible for
Implementation:
Implementation
Pre - implementation: prepare grading transport plan
Timing:
Implementation: Implement grading transport plan
Mitigation
As per AQMD standards and City of Arcadia
Specifications:
requirements
Agency/Individual
City of Arcadia Public Works Services Department and
Responsible for
Development Services Department
Monitorin
Action by Monitor:
Review plan and monitor implementation of the plan
Monitor Timing:
Ensure compliance during grading and construction
phases
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date
Signature
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
54
4.6 AIR QUALITY
Mitigation Measure:
4.6.4.8 Suspension of Work During Smog Alerts: The
project contractor shall suspend grading operations during
first and second stage smog alerts. This measure would
eliminate emissions contributed from the heavy equipment
used in grading activities during these time periods.
Impact to be Mitigated:
Grading phase emissions
Agency/Individual
Project Applicant /Developer
Responsible for
Implementation:
Implementation
Pre - implementation: prepare grading plan
Timing:
Implementation: Implement grading plan
Mitigation
As per AQMD standards and City of Arcadia
Specifications:
requirements
Agency/Individual
City of Arcadia Public Works Services Department and
Responsible for
Development Services Department
Monitorin
Action by Monitor:
Review plan and monitor implementation of the plan
Monitor Timing:
Ensure compliance during grading and construction
phases
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date Signature
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
55
4.6 AIR QUALITY
Mitigation Measure:
4.6.4.9 Suspension of Work During High Winds: The
project contractor shall suspend all grading operations
when wind speeds (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25
miles per hour. The suppression of grading activities
during periods of high winds will be included in the
project as a condition of the grading permit approval.
Impact to be Mitigated:
Grading phase emissions
Agency/Individual
Project Applicant/Developer
Responsible for
Implementation:
Implementation
Pre - implementation: prepare grading plan
Timing:
Implementation: Implement grading plan
Mitigation
As per AQMD standards and City of Arcadia
Specifications:
requirements
Agency/Individual
City of Arcadia Public Works Services Department and
Responsible for
Development Services Department
Monitorin
Action by Monitor:
Review plan and monitor implementation of the plan
Monitor Timing:
Ensure compliance during grading and construction
phases
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date Signature
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
56
4.6 AIR QUALITY
Mitigation Measure:
4.6.4.10 Maintenance of Construction Equipment: The
project contractor shall maintain construction equipment
engines by keeping them tuned to ensure that the air
quality impacts that are generated by construction
activities associated with the project are minimized and
consistent with the impacts that are projected in the air
quality report. If the actual equipment used during the
project's construction is not properly maintained, the
emissions produced by that equipment would exceed
projected emissions.
Impact to be Mitigated:
Grading phase emissions
Agency/Individual
Project Applicant/Developer
Responsible for
lementation.
Implementation.
Implementation
Pre - implementation: prepare grading plan
Timing:
Implementation: Implement grading plan
Mitigation
As per AQMD standards and City of Arcadia
Specifications:
requirements
Agency/Individual
City of Arcadia Public Works Services Department and
Responsible for
Development Services Department
Monitorin
Action by Monitor:
Review plan and monitor implementation of the plan
Monitor Timing:
Ensure compliance during grading and construction
phases
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date Signature
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
57
4.6 AIR QUALITY
Mitigation Measure:
4.6.4.11 Low Sulfur Fuel Requirement: The project
contractor shall use low sulfur fuel for stationary
construction equipment. This measure is required by
SCAQMD Rules 431.1 and 431.2.
Impact to be Mitigated:
Grading phase emissions
Agency/Individual
Project Applicant/Developer
Responsible for
Implementation:
Implementation
Pre - implementation: prepare grading plan
Timing:
Implementation: Implement grading plan
Mitigation
As per AQMD standards and City of Arcadia
Specifications:
requirements
Agency/Individual
City of Arcadia Public Works Services Department and
Responsible for
Development Services Department
Monitorin
Action by Monitor:
Review plan and monitor implementation of the plan
Monitor Timing:
Ensure compliance during grading and construction
phases
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date
Signature,
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
58
4.6 AIR QUALITY
Mitigation Measure:
4.6.4.12 Power Sources: The project contractor shall
utilize existing power sources (e.g., power poles) or clean
fuel generators rather than temporary power generators.
Impact to be Mitigated:
Grading phase emissions
Agency/Individual
Project Applicant/Developer
Responsible for
Implementation:
Implementation
Pre - implementation: prepare grading plan
Timing:
Implementation: Implement grading plan
Mitigation
As per AQMD standards and City of Arcadia
Specifications:
requirements
Agency/individual
City of Arcadia Public Works Services Department and
Responsible for
Development Services Department
Monitorin
Action by Monitor:
Review plan and monitor implementation of the plan
Monitor Timing:
Ensure compliance during grading and construction
phases
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date Signature
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
59
4.7 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
Mitigation Measure:
4.7.4.1 Noise and Vibration Associated with the
Transport of Excess Earth Materials: Prior to the
issuance of a grading permit, the following actions shall
be incorporated into the project grading plan:
a) Off -site truck hauling of excess earth material
from the proposed project site shall be limited
between the hours of 7:00 AM and 5:00 PM
Monday through Friday and 8:00 AM to 5:00
PM Saturdays and shall be limited to 15 trips
(30 trip ends) an hour maximum or 40 trips per
day, unless otherwise permitted by the City of
Arcadia Public Works Services and
Development Services Departments.
b) The preferred haul route shall be Canyon Road,
Elkins Avenue and Santa Anita Avenue to the
Foothill 210 Freeway subject to the review
and approval of the Cities of Arcadia and
Sierra Madre. Any modifications to this route
shall be approved by the affected agencies.
c) Construction is prohibited on Sundays and
major (national) holidays.
d) The Project Applicant shall be responsible for
the damage caused by the truck hauling export
material from the proposed project site by
posting a bond. The condition of the haul route
roadway shall be documented by a qualified
consultant approved by the City at the Project
Developer's expense before and after the
hauling activity to determine the damage
attributed to the proposed project.
Impact to be Mitigated:
Excess earth material off-site transport
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
60
Agency/Individual
Project Applicant/Developer
Responsible for
Implementation:
Implementation
Pre - implementation: prepare Grading Transport Plan
Timing:
Implementation: implement Grading Transport Plan
Mitigation
As per City standards and requirements
Specifications:
Agency/Individual
City of Arcadia Development Services Department/Public
Responsible for
Works Services Department and City of Sierra Madre
Monitoring:
Action by Monitor:
Review and monitor preparation and implementation
Monitor Timing:
Prior to and during the grading /construction phase
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date
Signature,
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
61
4.7 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
Mitigation Measure:
4.7.4.2 Ingress/Egress: Prior to the issuance of grading
permits, the intersection of the proposed project's access
roadway intersection with Canyon Road shall be
redesigned at a perpendicular angle with standard design
curb returns to provide for safer turning movements into
and out of the proposed project. The redesign shall be
subject to review and approval of the City Engineer.
Compliance with this Mitigation Measure shall be the
responsibility of the Project. Applicant. The Mitigation
Measure shall be reviewed and enforced by the City
Engineer.
Impact to be Mitigated:
Line -of -sight and circulation conflicts
AgencyAndividual
Project Applicant/Developer
Responsible for
Implementation:
Implementation
Pre - implementation: prepare Tentative Tract
Timing:
Map /Circulation Plan
Implementation: implement Tentative Tract
Map /Circulation Plan
Mitigation
As per City standards and requirements
Specifications:
Agency/individual
City of Arcadia City Engineer /Public Works Services
Responsible for
Department
Monitorin
Action by Monitor:
Review and monitor preparation and implementation
Monitor Timing:
Prior to and during the grading/construction phase
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
62
4.7 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
Mitigation Measure:
4.7.4.3 Sight Distance: Prior to the issuance of grading
permits, the applicant shall provide documentation to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer of adequate sight distance
for individual driveways to all building pads. Compliance
with this Mitigation Measure shall be the responsibility of
the Project Applicant. The Mitigation Measure shall be
reviewed and enforced by the City Engineer.
Impact to be Mitigated:
Line -of -sight and circulation conflicts
Agency/Individual
Project Applicant/Developer
Responsible for
Implementation:
Implementation
Pre - implementation: prepare Tentative Tract
Timing:
Map /Circulation Plan
Implementation: implement Tentative Tract
Map /Circulation Plan
Mitigation
As per City standards and requirements
Specifications:
Agency/individual
City of Arcadia City Engineer/Public Works Services
Responsible for
Department
Monitorin
Action by Monitor:
Review and monitor preparation and implementation
Monitor Timing:
Prior to and during the grading/construction phase
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date Signature
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
63
4.7 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
Mitigation Measure:
4.7.4.4 On- Street Parking: Prior to the issuance of
grading permits, the Project Applicant shall redesign the
proposed project to allow parking on the egress side of the
street with no parking allowed on the other side or on the
cul -de -sac terminus. Said plan shall be subject to the
review and approval of the City Engineer.
Impact to be Mitigated:
Insufficient on- street parking design
Agency/Individual
Project Applicant/Developer
Responsible for
Implementation:
Implementation
Pre- implementation: prepare Tentative Tract
Timing:
Map /Circulation Plan
Implementation: implement Tentative Tract
Map /Circulation Plan
Mitigation
As per City standards and requirements
Specifications:
Agency/Individual
City of Arcadia City Engineer and Community
Responsible for
Development Division
Monitorin
Action by Monitor:
Review and monitor preparation and implementation
Monitor Timing:
Prior to and during the grading /construction phase
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date Signature
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
64
4.7 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
Mitigation Measure:
4.7.4.5 Roadway Grade (also included in the Public
Service, Fire and Paramedic Services): The proposed
project access roadway grade shall be redesigned to a
maximum 12% in compliance with the City Fire
Department standards. Prior to the issuance of grading
permits, the Project Applicant shall redesign the project to
reduce the grade of the access roadway to comply with the
City Fire Code grade of 12% maximum.
Impact to be Mitigated:
Inadequate emergency vehicle access due to a roadway
grade in excess of Fire Code standards
Agency/Individual
Project Applicant/Developer
Responsible for
Implementation:
Implementation
Pre - implementation: prior to Grading Permits, prepare
Timing:
Tentative Tract Map /Circulation Plan
Implementation: implement Tentative Tract
Map /Circulation Plan
Mitigation
As per City Fire Code standards and requirements
Specifications:
Agency/Individual
City of Arcadia Fire Department and City Engineer
Responsible for
Monitorin
Action by Monitor:
Review and monitor preparation and implementation
Monitor Timing:
Prior to and during the grading /construction phase
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date Signature
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
65
4.8 PUBLIC SERVICES
Mitigation Measure:
4.5.4.1 Fire Protection: Prior to the issuance of any
grading permit, the Project Applicant shall demonstrate
that the proposed project meets the requirements for
adequate fire protection to reduce impacts to a less than
significant level. These requirements include, but are not
limited to the following: adequate fire flows, emergency
access, compliance with maximum street grades (12% as
per Fire Code), and limited exposure of persons or
property to wildfire conditions. The City of Arcadia Fire
Department maintains ultimate review and approval
authority over these aspects of the proposed development
that relate to fire protection, and may identify further
recommendations and /or requirements during detailed
review of the proposed project by the City's Fire
Prevention Bureau.
Impact to be Mitigated:
Impacts to fire protection services
Agency/Individual
Project Applicant/Developer
Responsible for
Implementation:
Implementation
Pre - implementation: Prepare fire service plan as per City
Timing:
Fire Code standards and requirements
Implementation: Implement fire service plan during the
construction phase
Mitigation
City of Arcadia Fire Code
Specifications:
Agency/Individual
City of Arcadia Fire Department and Public Works
Responsible for
Services Department (Water)
Monitoring:
Action by Monitor:
Review and monitor the preparation and implementation
of the fire service plan
Monitor Timing:
Pre - construction review and approval and compliance
monitoring during the construction phase
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
66
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date Signature
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
67
4.8 PUBLIC SERVICES
Mitigation Measure:
4.8.4.2 Access: Prior to the issuance of any grading
permit, the Project Applicant shall demonstrate that the
proposed project complies with applicable City, State and
County code and ordinance requirements associated with
the provision of adequate site vehicular access (County
Fire Code 10.207). This includes reducing the access
roadway grade to a maximum 12% grade in compliance
with the City Fire Code. For a discussion of the
environmental consequences of reducing the access
roadway grade to a maximum 12 %, see Section 7.5 of this
EIR.
Impact to be Mitigated:
Impacts to fire protection services
Agency/Individual
Project Applicant/Developer
Responsible for
Implementation:
Implementation
Pre- implementation: Prepare fire service plan as per City
Timing:
Fire Code standards and requirements
Implementation: Implement fire service plan during the
construction phase
Mitigation
City of Arcadia Fire Code
Specifications:
Agency/Individual
City of Arcadia Fire Department and Public Works
Responsible for
Services Department (Water)
Monitoring:
Action by Monitor:
Review and monitor the preparation and implementation
of the fire service plan
Monitor Timing:
Pre - construction review and approval and compliance
monitoring during the construction phase
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date Signature
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
68
4.8 PUBLIC SERVICES
Mitigation Measure:
4.8.4.3 Fire Flows: Prior to the issuance of any grading
permit, the Project Applicant shall demonstrate that the
proposed project, the proposed development shall provide
capacity for fire flows with sufficient gallons per minute
(gpm) at the required (psi) residual pressure for the
duration required for residential development located in
Fire Zone 1, Very High Fire Hazard Severity.
Impact to be Mitigated:
Impacts to fire protection services
Agency/Individual
Project Applicant/Developer
Responsible for
Implementation:
Implementation
Pre - implementation: Prepare fire service plan as per City
Timing:
Fire Code standards and requirements
Implementation: Implement fire service plan during the
construction phase
Mitigation
City of Arcadia Fire Code
Specifications:
Agency/individual
City of Arcadia Fire Department and Development
Responsible for
Services Department
Monitoring:
Action by Monitor:
Review and monitor the preparation and implementation
of the fire service plan
Monitor Timing:
Pre - construction review and approval and compliance
monitoring during the construction phase
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date Signature
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City ofArcadia
69
4.8 PUBLIC SERVICES
Mitigation Measure:
4.8.4.4 Fire Hydrants: Prior to the issuance of any
building permits and prior to the delivery of any
combustible materials for home construction, the Project
Applicant shall demonstrate that the required fire hydrant
system and fire flow is operational and has been tested and
approved by the City of Arcadia Fire Department.
Impact to be Mitigated:
Impacts to fire protection services
Agency/Individual
Project Applicant/Developer
Responsible for
Implementation:
Implementation
Pre - implementation: Prepare fire service plan as per City
Timing:
Fire Code standards and requirements
Implementation: Implement fire service plan during the
construction phase
Mitigation
City of Arcadia Fire Code
Specifications:
Agency/Individual
City of Arcadia Fire Department and Development
Responsible for
Services Department
Monitoring:
Action by Monitor:
Review and monitor the preparation and implementation
of the fire service plan
Monitor Timing:
Pre - construction review and approval and compliance
monitoring during the construction phase
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date Signature
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
70
4.8 PUBLIC SERVICES
Mitigation Measure:
4.8.4.5 Brush Clearance: Prior to the issuance of
building permits, the proposed project shall comply with
California Public Resources Code 4291, which specifies
standards for brush clearance and fuel modifications
around buildings or structures located in or adjoining areas
of brush or grasslands.
Impact to be Mitigated:
Impacts to fire protection services
Agency/Individual
Project Applicant/Developer
Responsible for
Implementation•
Implementation
Pre - implementation: Prepare fire service plan as per City
Timing:
Fire Code standards and requirements
Implementation: Implement fire service plan during the
construction phase
Mitigation
City of Arcadia Fire Code
Specifications:
Agency/Individual
City of Arcadia Fire Department and Development
Responsible for
Services Department
Monitoring:
Action by Monitor:
Review and monitor the preparation and implementation
of the fire service plan
Monitor Timing:
Pre - construction review. and approval and compliance
monitoring during the construction phase
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date Signature
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
71
4.8 PUBLIC SERVICES
Mitigation Measure:
4.8.4.6 Roadway Clearance: Prior to the issuance of
grading and building permits, all flammable vegetation or
combustible growth shall be removed and cleared within
10 feet on each side of the proposed roadway (Fire Code
27.327).
Impact to be Mitigated:
Impacts to fire protection services
Agency/Individual
Project Applicant/Developer
Responsible for
Implementation:
Implementation
Pre - implementation: Prepare fire service plan as per City
Timing:
Fire Code standards and requirements
Implementation: Implement fire service plan during the
construction phase
Mitigation
City of Arcadia Fire Code
Specifications:
Agency/Individual
City of Arcadia Fire Department
Responsible for
Monitoring:
Action by Monitor:
Review and monitor the preparation and implementation
of the fire service plan
Monitor Timing:
Pre - construction review and approval and compliance
monitoring during the construction phase
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date Signature
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
72
4.8 PUBLIC SERVICES
Mitigation Measure:
4.8.4.7 Lot Clearance: Prior to the issuance of grading
and building permits, all hazardous flammable vegetation
shall be cleared to the ground for a distance of 30 feet
from any lot, or flammable vegetation to a height of 18
inches for another 70 feet (Fire Code 27.301 and 302).
Impact to be Mitigated:
Impacts to fire protection services
Agency/Individual
Project Applicant/Developer
Responsible for
Implementation:
Implementation
Pre - implementation: Prepare fire service plan as per City
Timing:
Fire "Code standards and requirements
Implementation: Implement fire service plan during the
construction phase
Mitigation
City of Arcadia Fire Code
Specifications:
Agency/Individual
City of Arcadia Fire Department
Responsible for
Monitoring:
Action by Monitor:
Review and monitor the preparation and implementation
of the fire service plan
Monitor Timing:
Pre - construction review and approval and compliance
monitoring during the construction phase
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date Signature
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
73
4.8 PUBLIC SERVICES
Mitigation Measure:
4.8.4.8 Access Roadway: Prior to the issuance of
building permits, the access road shall be constructed
with all- weather materials (Fire Code 10.207).
Impact to be Mitigated:
Impacts to fire protection services
Agency/Individual
Project Applicant/Developer
Responsible for
Implementation:
Implementation
Pre - implementation: Prepare fire service plan as per City
Timing:
Fire Code standards and requirements
Implementation: Implement fire service plan during the
construction phase
Mitigation
City of Arcadia Fire Code and Development Code
Specifications:
Agency/Individual
City of Arcadia Fire Department and Development
Responsible for
Services Department
Monitoring:
Action by Monitor:
Review and monitor the preparation and implementation
of the fire service plan
Monitor Timing:
Pre - construction review and approval and compliance
monitoring during the construction phase
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date Signature
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
74
4.8 PUBLIC SERVICES
Mitigation Measure: 4.8.4.9 Fire Code Compliance: Prior to the issuance of
building permits, the Project Applicant shall demonstrate
compliance with the following Fire Zone 1 governmental
codes, guidelines, and programs that are aimed at
reducing the fire hazard potential. California Public
Resources Code 4291 specifies standards for brush
clearance around buildings or structures located in or
adjoining mountainous areas of forest, brush, or
grasslands. City of Arcadia codes related to development
within areas designated as Fire Zone 1 are specified in the
Fire Code and Building and Safety Code, and include, but
are not limited to the following:
• All roof coverings shall be of Fire Retardant Class
"A" as specified in Title 24, 3204 -a (Building
Code 1603 -b).
• Tile roof shall be fire - stopped at eave ends to
preclude entry of flame or embers under the tile
(Building Code 1603 -b).
• Provide spark arrester in chimneys of all
fireplaces with openings not to exceed 1 /2 inch
(Fire Code 11.111).
• Clearance of brush and vegetative growth will be
maintained (Fire Code 11.502 and 11.503).
• Exterior wall coverings shall be materials
approved for fire- resistive construction in
Building Code 1603 -i.
• Under -floor areas shall be enclosed to the ground
with construction as required for exterior walls
(Building Code 1603 -c).
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
75
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date Signature
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
76
■ Exterior balconies, decks, patios, and similar
appurtenances extending beyond the exterior wall,
when wood construction, shall be of lumber not
less than two inches nominal in width and depth
or of fire - retardant treated lumber (Building Code
1603 -d).
Impact to be Mitigated:
Impacts to fire protection services
Agency/Individual
Project Applicant/Developer
Responsible for
Implementation:
Implementation
Pre - implementation: Prepare fire service plan as per City
Timing:
Fire Code standards and requirements
Implementation: Implement fire service plan during the
construction phase
Mitigation
City of Arcadia Fire Code
Specifications:
Agency/Individual
City of Arcadia Fire Department and Development
Responsible for
Services Department
Monitoring:
Action by Monitor:
Review and monitor the preparation and implementation
of the fire service plan
Monitor Timing:
Pre - construction review and approval and compliance
monitoring during the construction phase
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date Signature
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
76
4.8 PUBLIC SERVICES
Mitigation Measure:
.8.4.10 Water Delivery/Fire Flows: Prior to the issuance
of building permits, the Project Applicant shall:
a) Design and install a looped 12" DIP system
(2 parallel 12" diameter pipelines) per City
Standards and Specifications connected to
the existing 12" discharge to Zone 6 at
Canyon Reservoir Site to satisfy 4,000
gallons per minute (GPM).
b) Design and install one compound meter (8"
Compact FireLine by Invensys Metering
Systems) and double check valve assembly
on each leg of the system at the property
line (2 each - meters, 2 each -meter vaults, 2
each - double check valve assemblies).
c) Design and install approximately 1,500
linear feet of 12" DIP connection between
existing 12" discharge to Zone 6 at Canyon
reservoir Site and 12" inlet pipeline to the
Upper Canyon Reservoir in Canyon Road.
Impact to be Mitigated:
Impacts to fire protection services
Agency/Individual
Project Applicant/Developer
Responsible for
Implementation:
Implementation
Pre - implementation: Prepare fire service plan as per City
Timing:
Fire Code standards and requirements
Implementation: Implement fire service plan during the
construction phase
Mitigation
City of Arcadia Fire Code and Development Code
Specifications:
Agency/Individual
City of Arcadia Fire Department, City Engineer and
Responsible for
Public Works Services Department
Monitoring:
Final Environmental Impact ReportlMitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
77
Action by Monitor:
Review and monitor the preparation and implementation
of the fire service plan and Tentative Tract Map
Monitor Timing:
Pre - construction review and approval and compliance
monitoring during the construction phase
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date Signature
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
78
4.8 PUBLIC SERVICES
Mitigation Measure:
4.8.4.11: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, final
plans for the proposed project are required to be submitted
to the City of Arcadia Police Department for review and
approval. The final plan shall address the issues pertaining
to security during construction, site access, street width,
pedestrian safety, visitor parking, runaway vehicles,
emergency evacuations, wildlife encounters, emergency
service calls, readability of street addresses, and other
safety considerations as required by the Arcadia Police
Department.
Impact to be Mitigated:
Impacts to police protection services.
Agency/Individual
Project Applicant/Developer
Responsible for
Implementation:
Implementation
Pre - implementation: prepare police service plan as per
Timing:
City standards and requirements
Implementation: implement police service plan during the
construction phase
Mitigation
As per City standards and requirements
Specifications:
Agency/Individual
City of Arcadia Police Department
Responsible for
Monitoring:
Action by Monitor:
Ensure preparation and implementation of the police
service plan
Monitor Timing:
Pre - construction review and approval and compliance
monitoring during the construction phase
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date Signature
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative. Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
79
4.8 PUBLIC SERVICES
Mitigation Measure:
4.8.4.12: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the
Project Applicant shall provide a lighting design to the
satisfaction of the Arcadia Police Department around and
throughout the development to enhance crime prevention
and enforcement efforts.
Impact to be Mitigated:
Impacts to police protection services.
Agency/Individual
Project Applicant/Developer
Responsible for
Implementation:
Implementation
Pre - implementation: prepare police service plan as per
Timing:
City standards and requirements
Implementation: implement police service plan during the
construction phase
Mitigation
As per City standards and requirements
Specifications:
Agency/Individual
City of Arcadia Police Department and Public Works
Responsible for
Services Department/City Engineer
Monitoring:
Action by Monitor:
Ensure preparation and implementation of the police
service plan
Monitor Timing:
Pre - construction review and approval and compliance
monitoring during the construction phase
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date Signature
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
80
4.8 PUBLIC SERVICES
Mitigation Measure:
4.8.4.13: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the
Project Applicant shall provide a project design plan that
provides clearly visible and illuminated address signs
and /or building numbers for easy identification during
emergencies.
Impact to be Mitigated:"
Impacts to police protection services:
Agency/Individual
Project Applicant/Developer
Responsible for
Implementation:
Implementation
Pre - implementation: prepare police service plan as per
Timing:
City standards and requirements
Implementation: implement police service plan during the
construction phase
Mitigation
As per City standards and requirements
Specifications:
Agency/Individual
City of Arcadia Police Department and Development
Responsible for
Services Department, Building Services
Monitoring:
Action by Monitor:
Ensure preparation and implementation of the police
service plan
Monitor Timing:
Pre - construction review and approval and compliance
monitoring during the construction phase
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date Signature
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program, .
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
81
4.8 PUBLIC SERVICES
Mitigation Measure:
4.8.4.14: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the
Project Applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the
Arcadia Unified School District mitigation fees plus
annual increases as set forth in the statutory school fee
requirements for residential development established
under Government Code Sections 65995 and 65996.
Impact to be Mitigated:
Impacts to school services.
Agency/Individual
Project Applicant/Developer
Responsible for
Implementation:
Implementation
Prior to the issuance of building permits
Timing:
Mitigation
As per the Arcadia Unified School District
Specifications:
Agency/Individual
Arcadia Unified School District
Responsible for
Monitorin
Action by Monitor:
Ensure mitigation compliance
Monitor Timing:
Prior to the issuance of a building permit
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date
Signature,
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
82
4.8 PUBLIC SERVICES
Mitigation Measure: 4.8.4.15: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the
Project Applicant shall comply with the City of Arcadia
and the County of Los Angeles requirements of the
Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 by
implementing a Waste Management Plan to the
satisfaction of the City and the County of Los Angeles
Department of Public Works, Waste Management
Division in conformance to the City and County- adopted
CIWMB Model Ordinance. This shall include reducing
the amount of project waste generated during
construction and operation and other actions listed below.
a) All future residences shall be designed with
space for a single 90- gallon solid waste bin and
two 65- gallon bins for greenwaste and
recycling pursuant to City solid waste
collection standards.
b) Separation bins shall be provided by the waste
hauler for each residential unit for recyclables.
c) The development of the single - family dwelling
units, wherever possible, shall utilize building
products made of recycled materials within the
specifications for the proposed home
construction.
d) During construction, all construction and/or
demolition debris shall be recycled. Proper
documentation or receipt(s) shall be provided
to the City Project Manager /Project Engineer
for verification that all construction and/or
demolition debris has been recycled and/or
diverted from the landfill.
All new residents shall be provided with a "new resident"
package of material to educate them on current solid
waste, recycling and hazardous waste services within the
City of Arcadia.
Final Environmental Impact Report/Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
83
IW Mitigated: :
Impacts to waste inanagement services.
al
Project Applicant/Developer
r
:
Implementation
Pre - implementation: prepare service plan aIthe
Timing:
standards and requirements
Implementation: implement service plan d
construction and operational phases
Mitigation
As per City of Arcadia Public Works Services Department
Specifications:
and the County of Los Angeles Public Works Department
standards and requirements
Agency/Individual
City of Arcadia Public Works Services Department and
Responsible for
the County of Los Angeles Public Works Department
Monitoring:
Action by Monitor:
Ensure preparation and implementation of the service
mitigation plan
Monitor Timing:
Pre - construction review and approval and compliance
monitoring during the construction phase
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date Signature
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
84
4.9 AESTHETICS
Mitigation Measure: 4.9.4.1 Compliance with General Plan Hillside
Management Strategies: Prior to project approval, the
project shall be redesigned to comply with the City's
General Plan's goals, policies and standards, including
the Hillside Management Strategies, either as the project
is currently proposed or the project modified in such a
way that the compliance findings can be made. The
approval action would determine the presence of a
significant impact based on the City's determination that
the proposed project is or is not in compliance with the
City's General Plan's goals, policies and standards,
including the Hillside Management Strategies. The
proposed change of approximately 8.0 acres in the
southwest portion of the proposed project site from
natural hillside open space to a seven home hillside
residential development could be a significant aesthetic
and viewshed impact based on the City's determination if
the proposed project is or is not in compliance.
a) The location, size, design and operating
characteristics of the development allowed by the
Highland Oaks Specific Plan will be compatible
with and will not adversely affect or be detrimental
to adjacent uses, residents, buildings, structures,
with consideration given to:
• Density, coverage, scale and bulk;
• Views to and from the proposed residences, and
to and from adjacent and surrounding
residences;
• The effects on desirable neighborhood
character;
b) The Specific Plan and proposed
development will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety and welfare, or materially injurious to
properties or improvements adjacent to, or in the in
the vicinity of the project site.
Prior to the consideration of the project's approval, the
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
85
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date Signature
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
86
Project Applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed
project does meet the City's General Plan's goals,
policies and standards, including the Hillside
Management Strategies or modify the proposed project in
such a way as directed by the City to be found in
compliance. If the Planning Commission and City
Council cannot make the necessary findings that the
proposed project design complies with the General Plan
Hillside Management Strategies, the implementation of
the proposed project would result in significant aesthetic
impacts through non - compliance with Hillside
Management Strategies.
Impact to be Mitigated:
Aesthetic impacts
Agency/Individual
Project Applicant/Development
Responsible for
Implementation:
Implementation
Pre - Implementation: prepare Hillside Management Plan
Timing:
Implementation: during the construction phase
Mitigation
As per Planning Commission and City Council findings
Specifications:
and approvals
Agency/Individual
City of Arcadia Development Services Department
Responsible for
Monitoring:
Action by Monitor:
Review and approve Hillside Management Plan
Monitor Timing:
Prior to the issuance of building permits
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date Signature
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
86
4.9 AESTHETICS
Mitigation Measure:
4.9.4.2 Slope Drains: Prior to the issuance of any grading
permit, the horizontal and vertical slope drains shall be
designed with a material to soften the visual impacts, such
as river rock and landscaping. The materials and locations
shall be subject to the approval of the Development
Services Director.
Impact to be Mitigated:
Aesthetic impacts
Agency/Individual
Project Applicant/Development
Responsible for
Implementation:
Implementation
Pre - Implementation: prepare Hillside Management Plan
Timing:
Implementation: during the construction phase'
Mitigation
As per Planning Commission and City Council findings
Specifications:
and approvals
Agency/Individual
City of Arcadia Development Services Department and
Responsible for
City Engineer
Monitoring:
Action by Monitor:
Review and approve Hillside Management Plan
Monitor Timing:
Prior to the issuance of building permits
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date Signature
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
87
4.9 AESTHETICS
Mitigation Measure:
4.9.4.3 Retaining Walls: Prior to the issuance of any
grading permit, the Project Developer shall design the
retaining walls to create minimal visibility using methods
to either incorporate landscaping into the wall material or
to add dense landscaping to screen the walls. The
materials and location shall be subject to review and
approval by the City Development Services Department.
Impact to be Mitigated:
Aesthetic impacts
Agency/Individual
Project Applicant/Development
Responsible for
Implementation:
Implementation
Pre - Implementation: prepare Hillside Management Plan
Timing:
Implementation: during the construction phase
Mitigation
As per Planning Commission and City Council findings
Specifications:
and approvals
Agency/Individual
City of Arcadia Development Services Department and
Responsible for
City Engineer
Monitoring:
Action by Monitor:
Review and approve Hillside Management Plan
Monitor Timing:
Prior to the issuance of building permits
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date Signature
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
88
4.9 AESTHETICS
Mitigation Measure:
4.9.4.4 Oak Tree Mitigation Plan: Prior to the issuance
of any grading permit, the Project Applicant shall prepare
an Oak Tree Mitigation Plan including identifying the on-
site relocation/replacement areas, the replacement of oak
trees landscape at a two to one (2:1) ratio (two 36 -inch
boxed trees for every tree lost) and replacement/
maintenance of the replaced/relocated oak trees for a five -
year time frame. The trees and their location shall be
subject to review and approval by the City Development
Services Department.
Impact to be Mitigated:
Aesthetic impacts due to the removal of oak trees
Agency/Individual
Project Applicant/Development and Homeowners
Responsible for
Association
Implementation:
Implementation
Implementation: during the construction phase
Timing:
Mitigation
As per City approved mitigation plan and the City Oak
Specifications:
Tree Preservation Ordinance
Agency/Individual
City of Arcadia Development Services Department
Responsible for
Monitoring:
Action by Monitor:
Review and monitor plan preparation and implementation
Monitor Timing:
Ensure compliance during construction phase and
operational phase
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date
Signature.
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
89
4.9 AESTHETICS
Mitigation Measure:
4.9.4.5 New Light Source: Prior to the issuance of any
grading permits, the Project Applicant shall prepare a
photo metric study that demonstrates that light sources
have been directed away from adjacent off -site uses and
adjacent on -site residential lots.
Impact to be Mitigated:
Nighttime lighting impacts
Agency/Individual
Project Applicant/Development and Homeowners
Responsible for
Association
Implementation•
Implementation
Implementation: during the construction phase and
Timing:
operational phase
Mitigation
As per the City approved lighting plan
Specifications:
Agency/Individual
City of Arcadia Development Services Department
Responsible for
Monitoring:
Action by Monitor:
Review and monitor preparation and implementation of
lighting plan
Monitor Timing:
Ensure compliance during construction phase and
operational phase
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date Signature
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941
City of Arcadia
90
4.9 AESTHETICS
Mitigation Measure:
4.9.4.6 Contour Grading: Prior to the issuance of any
grading permit, the cut and fill slopes shall be designed
by the Project Developer to follow the contours of the
existing hillside with both vertical and horizontal
undulations. The slopes shall be intermittently varied to
break up the constant grades and the horizontal lines shall
provide more curvature. Such contour grading shall be
shown on the final grading and drainage plans and shall
be subject to the review and approval of the City
Engineer.
Impact to be Mitigated:
Aesthetic impacts due to grading
Agency/Individual
Project Applicant/Development
Responsible for
Implementation:
Implementation
Pre - Implementation: prepare grading plan prior to the
Timing:,
issuance of grading permits
Implementation: during the construction phase
Mitigation
As per City standards and review by the City Engineer
Specifications:
Agency/Individual
City of Arcadia City Engineer and Development Services
Responsible for
Department, Planning Services
Monitoring:
Action by Monitor:
Review and monitor the preparation and implementation
of the grading plan
Monitor Timing:
Prior to the issuance of grading permits
Monitor Compliance
Completion Date Signature
Final Environmental Impact Report /Mitigation Monitoring Program
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941,
City of Arcadia
91
RESOLUTION NO. 6464
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR
THE HIGHLAND OAKS SPECIFIC PLAN AND TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP NO. 51941 PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
WHEREAS, the Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map No.
51941 propose the development of a seven -lot residential hillside development
located in the northeast portion of the City of Arcadia (the "City") off of Canyon
Road; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
( "CEQA ") (Public Res. Code §21000 et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines (14
CCR § 15000 et seq.), and the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, the City of Arcadia
is the lead agency for the Highland Oaks Specific Plan Project ( "Project ") as the
public agency with general governmental powers; and
WHEREAS, the City, as lead agency, determined that an Environmental
Impact Report ( "EIR ") should be prepared pursuant to CEQA in order to analyze
all potential adverse environmental impacts of Project development; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation of the Draft EIR was published on or
about May 22, 2003; inviting comments from responsible agencies, other
regulatory agencies, organizations and individuals pursuant to State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15082; and
i
WHEREAS, in order to define the scope of the investigation -of the EIR, the
City consulted with all responsible and trustee state agencies, local organizations
and interested individuals to identify concerns regarding potential impacts of the
Project on the Project site; and
WHEREAS, the City conducted a Public Scoping Meeting on May 21, 2003
to solicit input from the community regarding issues to be addressed in the EIR;
go
WHEREAS, approximately twelve (12) written comment letters were
received by the City in response to the Notice of Preparation, which assisted the
City in narrowing the issues and alternatives for analysis in the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was completed and the City initiated the public
comment period by filing a Notice of Completion and Availability with the State
Office of Planning and Research and the Clerk's Office of Los Angeles County on
August 11, 2004; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092, the City
also provided a Notice of Completion and Availability to all organizations and
individuals who had previously requested such notice in writing, and published the
Notice of Completion on or about August 12, 2004 in a newspaper of general
circulation in the Project area. Copies of the Draft EIR were provided to
approximately 44 public agencies, organizations and individuals. In addition, the
2
City placed copies of the Draft EIR at the Arcadia City Library and Arcadia
Development Services Department, Community Development Division; and
WHEREAS, during the 45 -day comment period, the City consulted with and
requested comments from all responsible and trustee agencies, other regulatory
agencies and others pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15086; and
WHEREAS, during the official public review period for the Draft EIR, the
City received approximately twelve (12) written comments, all of which the City
responded to in the Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, the City
provided copies of the Final EIR to all commentors on November 23, 2004; and
WHEREAS, as contained herein, the City has endeavored in good faith to
set forth the basis for its decision on the Project; and
WHEREAS, all the requirements of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and
the City's Local CEQA Guidelines have been satisfied in the EIR, which is
sufficiently detailed so that all of the potentially significant environmental effects
of the Project have been adequately evaluated; and
WHEREAS, the EIR prepared in connection with the Project sufficiently
analyzes both the feasible mitigation measures necessary to avoid or substantially
lessen the Project's potential environmental impacts and a range of feasible
3
alternatives capable of eliminating or reducing these effects in accordance with
CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, all of the findings and conclusions made by the City Council
pursuant to this Resolution are based upon the oral and written evidence presented
to it as a whole and not based solely on the information provided in this
Resolution; and
WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the City Council has heard, been
presented with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the
administrative record, including the Final EIR, and all oral and written evidence
presented to it during all meetings and hearings; and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City
Council and is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of
the Project; and
WHEREAS, no comments made in any public hearing or any additional
information submitted to the City have produced substantial new information
requiring recirculation or additional environmental review under State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15088.5; and
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution
have occurred.
F1
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1
CERTIFICATION OF THE EIR
The City Council finds that it has reviewed and considered the Final EIR in
evaluating the Project, that the Final EIR is an accurate and objective statement
that fully complies with CEQA, and the State CEQA Guidelines and that the Final
EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council.
The City Council declares that neither comments made in the public
hearings relating to the Project or any additional information submitted to the City
have produced substantial new information requiring recirculation or additional
environmental review under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, nor that the
minor modifications in the Final EIR required additional public review because no
new significant environmental impacts were identified, no substantial increase in
the severity of any environmental impacts would occur and no feasible project
mitigation measures as defined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 were
rejected.
The City Council hereby certifies the Environmental Impact Report based on
the following findings:
5
Findings
1. CEQA Compliance. As the decision - making body for the Proposed
Project, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in
the Final EIR and supporting documentation. The City Council determines that the
Final EIR contains a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts
and mitigation measures associated with the Proposed Project, as well as complete
and accurate reporting of the unavoidable impacts and benefits of the Proposed
Project. The City Council finds that the EIR was prepared in compliance with
CEQA and that the City Council complied with CEQA's procedural and
substantive requirements.
2. Independent Judgment of Lead Agency. The City Council finds
that the CEQA Documentation reflects the independent judgment of the City
Council.
3. Review of CEQA Documentation Prior to Project Decision. The
City Council reviewed and considered the information in the CEQA
Documentation prior to certifying the Final EIR and prior to making any decision
to approve or disapprove the Project.
ri
SECTION 2
CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS
The documents and materials that constitute the final record of proceedings
on which the certification of the Final EIR have been based are located at the City
of Arcadia, 240 West Huntington Drive, Arcadia, California 91066 -6021. The
custodian for these records is the City of Arcadia, Community Development
Division. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code
section 21081.6.
SECTION 3
CERTIFICATION OF ADOPTION
The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
Passed, approved and adopted this day of 2005.
Mayor of the City of Arcadia
ATTEST:
City Clerk of the City of Arcadia
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Stephen P. Deitsch
City Attorney
RESOLUTION NO. 1717
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
TO THE CITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF THE HIGHLAND
OAKS SPECIFIC PLAN (S.P. 2003 -001) FOR A PROPOSED
7 -LOT RESIDENTIAL HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT LOCATED
NORTH OF THE TERMINUS OF VISTA AVENUE AND
NORTHWEST OF CANYON ROAD IN THE CITY OF
ARCADIA.
WHEREAS, Nevis Construction, Inc. filed an application for a specific plan
to establish development and maintenance regulations for a proposed 7 -lot
residential hillside development, Community Development Division Case No. S.P.
2003 -001, to be located north of the terminus of Vista Avenue and Northwest of
Canyon Road, more particularly described in the attached Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on November 23, 2004, at which time
all interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present
evidence.
NOW THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARCADIA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the factual data submitted by the Community
Development Division of the Development Services Department in the attached
report, dated November 23, 2004, is true and correct.
SECTION 2. This Commission finds for the reasons set forth in the above
report:
1. That based on the environmental analysis contained throughout the
project's Final Environmental Impact Report, and the attached Specific Plan
Review by the hillside - consulting firm of TRG Land, Inc. the implementation of the
applicant's Specific Plan would necessitate mass grading of the subject property to
the extent that the proposed project would not be in compliance with the City's
General Plan Hillside Management Strategies CD -17 thru CD -20, as addressed in
the attached staff report.
2. That the proposed Specific Plan is inadequate because, if adopted, it
would establish modified development standards that would encourage the
potential size of the new homes to be substantially larger than the neighboring and
i
1717
surrounding homes within the Highland Oaks Homeowners' Association area,
which is inconsistent with the Land Use and Community Identity Strategy CD -21 of
the Arcadia General Plan.
SECTION 3. That for the foregoing reasons the Planning Commission
recommends to the City Council denial of the proposed Highland Oaks Specific
Plan as submitted by the applicant to the City as of the date of this Resolution.
SECTION 4. The decision and findings contained in this Resolution reflect
the Planning Commission's direction at its meeting of November 23, 2004, and the
following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Lucas, Olson, Wen, Baderian
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Hsu
SECTION 5. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution
and shall cause a copy to be forwarded to the City Council of the City of Arcadia.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the forgoing Resolution was adopted at a regular
meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 14 day of December, 2004 by
the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Hsu, Lucas, Olson, Wen, Baderian
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None
Q� � 1-11
Chairman, Planning Commission
City of Arcadia
APPROVED AS TO FOF M:
P.
Stephen P. Deitsch, City Attorney
City of Arcadia
2
1717
City of Arcadia
Commissioner Olson came at 7:45.
3. PUBLIC BEARING FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR),
Specific Plan SP 2003 -001, TM 51941
NE Portion of the City of Arcadia
Jeff Lee for Nevis Construction Co.
Consideration of the FEIR, specific plan and tentative map for a proposed 7 -lot hillside
subdivision.
The staff report was presented by Mr. Nicholson and by .John Bitterly, from Planning
Consortium, the consultant who prepared the EIR for the City.
In response to a question by Commissioner Lucas, Mr. Bitterly noted the one alternative would be
similar to the layout but it would lower the entire project to have a maximum grade of 12% and noted
that additional excavation would be needed to lower the lots. The consultant has been working with
staff to derive at these alternatives.
Mr. Deitsch explained that the Planning Commission's role is an advisory body and their
recommendations will be forwarded to City Council.
The public hearing was opened.
Fred Talarico, 1278 Glenneyre St. Laguna Beach, showed a Power Point presentation. He showed a
photo of the corner of Wilson Ave. and Virginia Ave. and how it looks now and how it would look in
five years. He indicated that only 2.77 acres will be developed from the total site, which is 83.15 acres.
80.38 acres will be dedicated to open space. 7 -lots are being proposed on this site and lot sizes will
range from 33,678 sq. ft. to 192,511 sq. ft. These will be very large lots. The Highland Homeowners
Association will govern the properties and they must approve all the proposed structures.
He went on to say that the exportation of the material has been the subject of tremendous discussion.
The street grade will range from 15 %-18 %, which is not much different than the rest of the community.
Canyon Rd. has a 15% grade. He illustrated how long it would take them to extract the material for the
.18% grade vs. the 15% and indicated that it would take more truck trips and longer length of time to
achieve the 15% grade. With regard to the oak trees he indicated that they will be replacing the oak
trees at a ratio of 2:1.
Ralph Bicker, 101 White Oak. Dr., in part stated that the basic design flaws of the development are not
satisfactorily addressed in the EIR, nor are they resolved or mitigated. His previous statements still
represent the position of their Homeowners Association. He indicated that the staff report indicates that
there are only two superior alteratives that could be considered in the future; a "no project" or one that
creates only two lots. In his opinion there is no way to satisfactorily mitigate the problems associated
with any of the other four possible alternatives suggested for this property. The Homeowners
Association strongly supports staffs recommendations in denying the project.
Arcadia City Yla®ing Commission 6 112314
Jeff Bowan, 1919 Wilson, President of the Highland Homeowner's Association, concurred with Mr.
Bicker and said that the project will not work. This is a piece of property that does not offer
opportunities.
Diane Palmer, 2073 Carolwood, said her home would be one of the 3 homes at the base of this
development. As a property owner she is very concerned about slippage of land. She is a teacher at
Highland Oaks School and she can see the damage that was caused by another development on the
hillside that has permanently scarred the hills. She did not believe the before and after photo that Mr.
Talarico showed in his presentation.
Bob Ruiz, 116 White Oak, was concerned about how fire trucks would get to these properties. He was
afraid that fire would travel quickly in the area and the Fire Department would not be able to get there
quickly due to the grade of the new streets.
John Murphy, 2234 Highland Vista, said his views have not changed since the Scoping meeting. He
believed in the property owner's right to develop the property as long as the development is consistent
with City codes and if there are variances, they should be minor so they are deemed to be insignificant.
He thought the project must comply with all the Homeowners Association regulations, should provide
public streets without private gates or restricted access. The 70 acres must become permanently
dedicated and the cut and fill must closely balance and the resulting traffic must be minimal. Extra care
should be taken so that the project is aesthetically pleasing and compatible. He could not support an ill -
conceived project.
Tony Palmer, 2073 Carolwood, was concerned about the drainage and how that would impact his
property.
Diane Supple, 2040 Carolwood, said her home is across the street from this development. They are
sitting on an earthquake fault. She was concerned about future erosion.
John Fee, 2152 Canyon, was concerned about fire hazards. He indicated that they have been evacuated
in the past due to fire. He thought there would be more chances of fire in future due to this
development. He was concerned about the access road. The photo that was shown is misleading
because the two-lane road quickly turns into one -lane but that was not depicted in the picture. The
proposed slope is almost double of what is currently there and he could not imagine how a fire truck
would get there during a fire. In some areas, it is only one way in and the same way out.
Wendy Yu, 2090 Vista Ave., said the homes will be very close to her property. Just this past weekend
there were bad winds and she was concerned about mudslides and the hill coming down onto her
property. What guarantee will she have that there won't be any mudslides or whose responsibility will it
be to clean it up?
Arthur Taus, 152 Elkins, wondered what would all those truckloads of dirt going back and forth on these
streets do to roads. There are many kids who are walking on these streets. The residents should not be
subjected to this inconvenience and all the truck traffic that will be generated from the development.
Linda Gandell, 2054 Oak Meadow, was surprised that they were having this meeting. She wondered
why the applicant invested in this property without first knowing that it could be developed or not. To
Arcadia City Plammg Commission 7 11123/4
claim that they will dedicate 70 acres of open space is ludicrous because the people are already enjoying
that benefit. They will be taking away wild life from the area. It is ridiculous that the residents are
being forced to defend their neighborhood for someone else's "get rich quick" scams.
Carl Segalos, 2226 Canyon Rd., said most of the homes in the area are single -story. These new homes
could set a precedent for huge homes in the area. He agreed with all of the other comments that have
already been made. The 70 acres of open space already exists so they are really not dedicating anything
to them.
Gwen Schuster, 1660 N. Santa Anita, could imagine the number of trucks that would be traveling their
streets. The current streets are not adequate for the roads. It would be difficult for the Fire Department
to get to these homes.
In rebuttal, Mr. Talarico said that many of the issues that have been raised have already been addressed.
The new streets will comply with conform with the public street standards. They will be retaining open
space and have tried to closely balance the project so it is aesthetically compatible with the area.
Constructing 2 homes on the site would not meet their objective and it is their right to develop the
property and he felt they have been very reasonable. This is not a simple project.
In answer to a question by Commissioner Lucas, Mr. Talarico stated that if they were to develop these
properties, the homes below would be safer because currently there are no catch basins and they would
redirect the drains so less water would be flowing down.
No one else spoke in favor of or in opposition to this item.
MOTION:
It was moved by Commissioner Wen, seconded by Commissioner Lucas to close the public
hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with no one dissenting.
Final EIR
MOTION:
It was moved by Commissioner Lucas, seconded by Commissioner Olson to forward the FEIR to
the City Council and recommend certification the document.
ROLL CALL:
AYES: Commissioners Lucas, Olson, Wen, Baderian
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Hsu
Specific Plan
MOTION:
Arcadia City Ple mg Comminioo 8 1123/4
It was moved by Commissioner Lucas, seconded by Commissioner Wen to recommend to the
City Council that the Specific Plan be denied due to its non - compliance with the Hillside
Management Strategies, and Land Use and Community Identity Strategy of the Arcadia General
Plan, and direct staff to prepare the appropriate resolution.
ROLL CALL:
AYES:
Commissioners Lucas, Olson, Wen, Baderian
NOES:
None
ABSENT:
Commissioner Hsu
Tentative Mao
MOTION:
It was moved by Commissioner Olson, seconded by Commissioner Wen to recommend to the
City Council denial of the Tentative Map to the City Council due to unavoidable public safety.
ROLL CALL:
AYES: Commissioners Lucas, Olson, Wen, Baderian
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Hsu
Arcadia City Planning Commission 9 11/23/4
File Nos.: SH zuu uu_1 6 1 m o ID
CITY OF ARCADIA
N 240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE
ARCADIA. CA 91007
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project Title:
Specific Plan Application No. SP 2003 -001 (Highland Oaks Specific Plan) and
Tentative Tract Map No. 51941
2. Project Address (Location):
An approximately 83.14 acre property generally north of the terminus of Vista
Avenue and northwest of Canyon Road (see accompanying location maps)
3. Project Sponsor's Name, Address & Telephone Number:
Mr, Jeff Lee, Project Manager
Nevis Construction Company
255 E. Santa Clara Street, #210
Arcadia, CA 91006
(626) 254 -0099
4. Lead Agency Name & Address:
City of Arcadia — Development Services Department
Community Development Division — Planning Services
240 W. Huntington Drive
Post Office Box 60021
Arcadia, CA 91066 -6021
5. Lead Agency Contact Person & Telephone Number:
Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator (626) 574 -5442
6, General Plan Designation: Single - Family Residential with a maximum density of
four dwelling units per acre (SFR -4)
7. Zoning Classification:
Existing: Residential Mountainous Single - Family (R -M)
Proposed: Highland Oaks Specific Plan
1 _ 4103
CEQA Env. Checklist Part 1
File Nos.: SP 2003 -001 & TM 51941
8. Description of Project:
(Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project and any
secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if
necessary.)
The residential development proposed under the Highland Oaks Specific plan
consists of 7 single- family residential lots ranging from a minimum size of 33,678
square feet to a maximum size of 192,511 square feet. Building pad sizes would
range from approximately 10,147 square feet to 13,224 square feet.
The proposed project site includes approximately 83.14 acres located in the
northeast hillside portion of the City of Arcadia and the proposed project is the
Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 51941, The 7 -lot residential
development proposed under the Highland Oaks Specific Plan would be located on
approximately 13.04 acres in the southwestern portion of the overall approximately
83.14 acres. The Highland Oaks Speck Plan would also establish development
and maintenance regulations for the 7 residential lots and a new private street.
Tentative Tract Map 51941 includes the entire approximately 83.14 acres and
proposes to subdivide the existing two parcels into 7 residential lots (totaling
approximately 524,094 square feet or approximately 13.04 acres) provide a private
street for access to the proposed residences and establish one remainder parcel
(totaling approximately 3,053,992 square feet or approximately 70. 10 acres).
Characterized by steep slopes covered with coastal sage scrub /chaparral
vegetation, the project site is located in the southern foothills of the San Gabriel
Mountains in an area that is partially developed with single - family residential hillside
neighborhoods and other portions that are left in their undeveloped natural hillside
state.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
(Briefly describe the project's surroundings.)
North: Angeles National Forest, consisting of undeveloped natural hillside and
mountainous terrain covered with relatively undisturbed native vegetation
that supports native animal species.
South: Existing hillside low- density residential neighborhoods in the City of Arcadia.
East: Existing hillside low- density residential neighborhoods in the City of Arcadia
and the Arcadia Wilderness Park.
West: Existing hillside low- density residential neighborhoods in the City of Sierra
Madre and undeveloped natural hillside that supports native plant and
animal species.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required:
(e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement)
None
CEQA Env. Checklist Part 1 -2- 4103
File Nos.: SP 2003 -001 & TM 51941
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.
[ X ]
Aesthetics
[ ] Agriculture Resources
[XI
Air Quality
[ X ] Biological Resources
[ ]
Cultural Resources
[ X ] Geology and Soils
[ ]
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
[ X ] Hydrology and Water Quality
[ X ]
Land Use and Planning
[ ] Mineral Resources
[XI
Noise
[ ] Population and Housing
[ X ]
Public Services
[ ] Recreation
[XI
Transportation/Traffic
[ ] Utilities and Service Systems
[ X ]
Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
[ ] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
[ ] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the
mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the
project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
[ X ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,
an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
[ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,
but that at least one effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document
pursuant to applicable legal standards and has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on that earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, and if
any remaining effect is a 'Potentially Significant Impact' or "Potentially Significant
Unless Mitigated," an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, , but it
only needs to analyze the effects that have not yet been addressed.
[ ] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all
potentially significant effects have been analyzed adequately in an earlier
Environmental impact Report pursuant to applicable standards and have been
avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation
measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Si F6ture /
James M. Kasama. Seni Planner
Printed Name
May 19, 2003
Date
Citv of Arcadia — Planning Services
For
CEQA Env. Checklist Part 1 -3- 4103
File Nos.: SP 2003 -001 & TM 51941
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact' answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each
question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show
that the impact simply does not apply to projects such as the one involved (e.g., the project is not
within 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 related as well as
operational impacts.
3. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is
significant. If there are one or more, 'Potentially Significant Impact' entries when the determination
is made, an Environmental Impact Report is required.
4. 'Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an effect from 'Potentially Significant Impact' to a "Less Than Significant
Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they
reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17 "Earlier
Analyses" may be cross - referenced).
5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program Environmental Impact Report,
or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative
Declaration {Section 15063(c)(3)(D) }. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the
checklist.
a) Earlier Analyses Used: Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identity 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.
Supporting Information Sources. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8. 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.
CEQA Env. Checklist Part 1 -4- 4103
File Nos.: SP 2003 -001 & TM 51941
_
Less Than
Significant
Potentially
With
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant No
impact
Incorporafion
Impact Impact
AESTHETICS — Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ®
❑
❑ ❑
The relatively undisturbed project site is located in the southern foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains and consists
of steep slopes covered by native coastal sage scrub /chaparral vegetation. The project site is dominated by a
generally north -south trending ridgeiine that can be viewed from adjacent hillside residential properties and other
properties. While some properties to the south and east of the project site have been developed with hillside single -
family residences, for the most part this area of the City is characterized by hillside views that blend into the
Angeles National Forest to the north and other undisturbed hillside properties to the east and west. The property
can also be viewed from the west and north from Santa Anita Canyon Road that winds north into the Angeles
National Forest to Chantry Flats Recreation Area.
The proposed project involves mass grading to prepare the approximately 13.04 acre Specific Plan project area for
the construction of single- family homes on 7 lots. Under the proposed grading plan, approximately 91,200 cubic
yards of cut and approximately 88,600 cubic yards of fill would be necessary to create the building pads and
access roadway for the project. This grading, vegetation clearing and site preparation would change existing views
of the project site from relatively undisturbed hillside to a low- density single - family residential development. The
aesthetic impacts of this alteration shall be examined in the EiR.
Source Nos. 4, 5, 9 & 15. — Sources are listed at the end of this Checklist.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited
to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state
scenic highway? ® ❑ ❑ ❑
See explanation for i.a above.
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of
the site and its surroundings? ® ❑ ❑ ❑
The project site's land use would change from natural open space to iow- density residential similar to the land use
to the east and south. The proposed project would alter the views of the property, which may result in a long -term
land use that could "substantially degrade" the existing visual character or quality of the site. The impacts of the
altered views will be examined by the EIR.
Source Nos. 1, 2, 4 & 5.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? ® ❑ ❑ ❑
Given the proximity of existing residential units in the area, as well as native wildlife, the introduction of light and
glare associated with the proposed residential project would create a new source of light and glare in the area. The
light and glare impacts of this proposed project shall be examined in the EiR.
Source Nos. 4, 5 & 8.
2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES — In determining whether impacts to agriculture resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment
Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts
on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide importance (Farmland) to non - agricultural use? (The
CEQA Checklist -5- 4 -03
I<31
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? ❑ ❑ ❑ C�J
The proposed project will be in compliance with the City's adopted General Plan and as such will not conflict with or
obstruct implementation of the region's Air Quality Management Plan developed by the South Coast Air Quality
Management District.
Source Nos. 1 & 2.
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation? ® ❑ ❑ ❑
The proposed project will be in compliance with the City's adopted General Plan and as such will not conflict with or
obstruct implementation of the region's Air Quality Management Plan developed by the South Coast Air Quality
Management District. However, the project has the potential to generate short-term construction phase air quality
impacts that should be analyzed in the EIR.
Source Nos. 1 & 2.
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including
releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)? ❑ ❑ ® ❑
See explanation f6r3.a above.
d) Create or contribute to a non- stationary source "hot spot"
(primarily carbon monoxide)? ❑ ❑ ❑
CEQA Checklist -6- 4-03
File Nos.: SP 2003 -001 & TM 51941
Less Than
Significant
_
Potentially
With
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Signfiwnt
No
Impact
Incorporation
Impact
Impact
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program in the California
Resources Agency to non - agricultural use?
❑
❑
❑
The project site is not Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance.
Source Nos. 1, 2 & 3.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract?
❑
❑
❑
The project site is not zoned for agricultural use and is not under a Williamson Act contract.
Source Nos. 1, 2 & 3.
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to
their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to
non - agricultural use?
❑
❑
❑
There is no farmland in the vicinity of the project site to be affected.
Source Nos. 1, 2 & 3.
I<31
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? ❑ ❑ ❑ C�J
The proposed project will be in compliance with the City's adopted General Plan and as such will not conflict with or
obstruct implementation of the region's Air Quality Management Plan developed by the South Coast Air Quality
Management District.
Source Nos. 1 & 2.
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation? ® ❑ ❑ ❑
The proposed project will be in compliance with the City's adopted General Plan and as such will not conflict with or
obstruct implementation of the region's Air Quality Management Plan developed by the South Coast Air Quality
Management District. However, the project has the potential to generate short-term construction phase air quality
impacts that should be analyzed in the EIR.
Source Nos. 1 & 2.
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including
releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)? ❑ ❑ ® ❑
See explanation f6r3.a above.
d) Create or contribute to a non- stationary source "hot spot"
(primarily carbon monoxide)? ❑ ❑ ❑
CEQA Checklist -6- 4-03
File Nos.: SP 2003001 & TM 51941
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
Due to its small scale, the proposed project will not result in the creation of or contribution to a non - stationary
source "hot spot'.
Source Nos. 1 & 2
e) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
❑
❑
concentrations?
❑
Due to its small scale and location away from sensitive receptors (e.g.,
schools,
hospitals,
etc.) the proposed
project will not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
Source Nos. 1 & 2.
f) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people?
❑
❑
❑
The proposed residential use will not generate objectionable odors
Source Nos. i & 2.
4.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES — Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse impact, 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 Califomia Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? ® ❑ ❑ ❑
The project site is located within the range of plant and animal species that are considered endangered, rare or
threatened by state and federal government agencies. The impact of the proposed project on these resources shall
be examined in the EIR.
Source Nos. 4, 5, 6 & 11.
b) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? ® ❑ ❑ ❑
The project site is located within the range of riparian and other habitats that are considered sensitive by state and
federal government agencies. The impact of the proposed project on these resources shall be examined in the EIR.
Source Nos. 4, 5, 6 & 11.
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, vemal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption or other means? ❑ ❑ ❑
There are no wetlands present on the project site.
Source Nos. 4, 5, 6 & 11.
CEQA Checklist -7- 4-03
File Nos.: SP 2003001 & TM 51941
Source Nos. 4, 5, 6, 11 & 15.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? ® ❑ ❑ ❑
The City of Arcadia has adopted an oak tree preservation ordinance (Ord. 1962). Under the previously proposed
project, approximately 110 oak trees would have been removed and it needs to be determined how many oaks
would be impacted under the current 74ot design. One large heritage oak tree is proposed to be retained near the
proposed entry road. While the Specific Plan has stated that as many of these trees as possible will be relocated or
replaced elsewhere on site, the overall impact of disturbances to oak trees and the project's compliance with the
City's oak tree preservation ordinance shall be examined in the EIR. In addition, the feasibility of retaining the one
large heritage oak tree as proposed shall also be examined in the EIR.
Source Nos. 4, 5, 6, 11 & 15.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved
local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
The project site is not within the boundaries or vicinity of an adopted or proposed biological habitat conservation
plan.
Source Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9 & 11.
CULTURAL RESOURCES — Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in §15064.5? ❑ ❑ ❑
Listed or eligible historical resources are not present on the project site. While there are a number of listed and
eligible historic resources within the City of Arcadia and the San Gabriel Valley area, such resources are not known
to be within the vicinity of the project site.
Source Nos. 1 & 2.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
izIll
Given the steep slopes and site conditions on the project site, it is highly unlikely that archaeological resources are
present, much less "unique" resources. Should any potential archaeological resources be detected during the
clearing /grading phase of the project, all ground disturbance activities shall be stopped and a qualified
archaeologist shall be called in to review the resources.
Source Nos. 1, 2, 9 & 15.
CEQA Checklist -8- 4 -03
Less Than
Significant
Potentially
With Less Than
Significant
Mitigation Significant No
Impact
Incorporation Impact Impact
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery
sites? ®
❑ ❑ ❑
Wildlife movement corridors are present throughout the southern foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains and within
the vicinity of the project site. The impact of the proposed project on wildlife movement corridors shall be examined
in the EIR.
Source Nos. 4, 5, 6, 11 & 15.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? ® ❑ ❑ ❑
The City of Arcadia has adopted an oak tree preservation ordinance (Ord. 1962). Under the previously proposed
project, approximately 110 oak trees would have been removed and it needs to be determined how many oaks
would be impacted under the current 74ot design. One large heritage oak tree is proposed to be retained near the
proposed entry road. While the Specific Plan has stated that as many of these trees as possible will be relocated or
replaced elsewhere on site, the overall impact of disturbances to oak trees and the project's compliance with the
City's oak tree preservation ordinance shall be examined in the EIR. In addition, the feasibility of retaining the one
large heritage oak tree as proposed shall also be examined in the EIR.
Source Nos. 4, 5, 6, 11 & 15.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved
local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
The project site is not within the boundaries or vicinity of an adopted or proposed biological habitat conservation
plan.
Source Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9 & 11.
CULTURAL RESOURCES — Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in §15064.5? ❑ ❑ ❑
Listed or eligible historical resources are not present on the project site. While there are a number of listed and
eligible historic resources within the City of Arcadia and the San Gabriel Valley area, such resources are not known
to be within the vicinity of the project site.
Source Nos. 1 & 2.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
izIll
Given the steep slopes and site conditions on the project site, it is highly unlikely that archaeological resources are
present, much less "unique" resources. Should any potential archaeological resources be detected during the
clearing /grading phase of the project, all ground disturbance activities shall be stopped and a qualified
archaeologist shall be called in to review the resources.
Source Nos. 1, 2, 9 & 15.
CEQA Checklist -8- 4 -03
File Nos.: SP 2003.001 & TM 51941
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or
site or unique geologic feature? ❑ ❑ ❑
Given the lack of suitable bedrock conditions, paleontological resources and unique geologic features are not likely
to be present on -site.
Source Nos. 1, 2, 10 & 15.
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries? ❑ ❑ ❑
Human remains, either formally or informally buried, are not known to be present on the project site.
Source Nos. 1, 2, 9 & 15.
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. ® ❑ ❑ ❑
The project site is within 0.2 miles of the active Sierra Madre - San Fernando fault zone and other faults are
located within 10 miles of the project site. The impacts associated with the presence of these faults shall be
examined in the EIR.
Source Nos. 1, 2 & 10.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ® ❑ ❑ ❑
See explanation for 6.a.i above
Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? ❑ ® ❑ ❑
See explanation for 6.a.i above
iv) Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudfiow? ❑ ® ❑ ❑
The project site is located within an area known for occasional mudflows during seasonal rainstorms. Potential
mudflow impacts to both on- and off -site dwellings shall be examined in the EIR. Due to its distance from any
large bodies of water, inundation by seiche or tsunami will not affect the project site.
Source Nos. 1, 2, 9 & 10.
v) Landslides? ❑ ® ❑ ❑
The project site is located within an area known for landslides. Potential landslide impacts to both on- and off -
site dwellings shall be examined in the EIR.
Source Nos. 1, 2, 9 & 10.
CEDA Checklist 9 4 -03
File Nos.: SP 2003 -001 & TM 51941
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Topsoil is present on -site in thin layers where the terrain is relatively level. Most of the topsoil within the
approximately 13 -acre Specific Plan area would be removed under the proposed project grading. However, this
impact is less than significant.
Source Nos. 1, 2, 6 & 10.
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? ® ❑ ❑ ❑
Under the proposed project, approximately 91.200 cubic yards of cut and 88,600 cubic yards of fill would be
necessary to implement the proposed project. The impact of the proposed grading on slope stability shall be
examined in the EIR.
Source Nos. 6 & 10.
d) Be located on expansive soil as defined in Table 18 -1 -6 of the
Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property? ❑ ❑ ❑
The soils are not expansive as per Table 18 -1 -B of the 1994 UBC.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal of waste water? ❑ ❑ ❑
The project would connect to the existing sewage system and wastewater impacts are not anticipated.
Source Nos. 4, 5 & 8.
Yl
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? ❑ ❑ ❑
The proposed project would not involve hazardous materials.
Source No. 4.
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? ❑ ❑ ❑
The proposed project would not involve hazardous materials.
Source No. 4.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
CEQA Checklist -10- 4-03
Less Than
Significant
Potentially
With
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant No
Impact
Incorporation
Impact Impac
Topsoil is present on -site in thin layers where the terrain is relatively level. Most of the topsoil within the
approximately 13 -acre Specific Plan area would be removed under the proposed project grading. However, this
impact is less than significant.
Source Nos. 1, 2, 6 & 10.
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? ® ❑ ❑ ❑
Under the proposed project, approximately 91.200 cubic yards of cut and 88,600 cubic yards of fill would be
necessary to implement the proposed project. The impact of the proposed grading on slope stability shall be
examined in the EIR.
Source Nos. 6 & 10.
d) Be located on expansive soil as defined in Table 18 -1 -6 of the
Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property? ❑ ❑ ❑
The soils are not expansive as per Table 18 -1 -B of the 1994 UBC.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal of waste water? ❑ ❑ ❑
The project would connect to the existing sewage system and wastewater impacts are not anticipated.
Source Nos. 4, 5 & 8.
Yl
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? ❑ ❑ ❑
The proposed project would not involve hazardous materials.
Source No. 4.
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? ❑ ❑ ❑
The proposed project would not involve hazardous materials.
Source No. 4.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
CEQA Checklist -10- 4-03
File Nos.: SP 2003 -001 & TM 51941
The proposed project would not involve hazardous emissions, materials substances or waste.
Source No. 4.
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? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
The proposed project is not located on a listed hazardous materials site.
Source Nos. 1, 2 & 4.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area? ❑ ❑ ❑
The proposed project is not within two miles of an airport and would not impact any airports.
Source Nos. 1 & 2.
a
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? ❑ ❑ ❑
The proposed project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip.
Source Nos. 1, 2 & 9.
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ® ❑ ❑ ❑
The project site is located in an area of very high fire hazard and the project's effects on .emergency response
plans shall be addressed in the Public Services /Fire Section of the ElR with regards to wildfire hazards.
Source Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & S.
h) Expose people or structures to a sigificant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed
with wildlands? ® ❑ ❑ ❑
The project site is located in an area of very high fire hazard and the project's effects on emergency response
plans shall be addressed in the Public Services/Fire Section of the EIR with regards to wildfire hazards.
Source Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 8.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY — Would the project:
a) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or . interfere
CEQA Checklist -1 _ 4 -03
Less Than
-
Significant
Potentially
With
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No
Impact
Incorporation
Impact
Impact
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school? ❑
❑
❑
The proposed project would not involve hazardous emissions, materials substances or waste.
Source No. 4.
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? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
The proposed project is not located on a listed hazardous materials site.
Source Nos. 1, 2 & 4.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area? ❑ ❑ ❑
The proposed project is not within two miles of an airport and would not impact any airports.
Source Nos. 1 & 2.
a
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? ❑ ❑ ❑
The proposed project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip.
Source Nos. 1, 2 & 9.
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ® ❑ ❑ ❑
The project site is located in an area of very high fire hazard and the project's effects on .emergency response
plans shall be addressed in the Public Services /Fire Section of the ElR with regards to wildfire hazards.
Source Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & S.
h) Expose people or structures to a sigificant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed
with wildlands? ® ❑ ❑ ❑
The project site is located in an area of very high fire hazard and the project's effects on emergency response
plans shall be addressed in the Public Services/Fire Section of the EIR with regards to wildfire hazards.
Source Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 8.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY — Would the project:
a) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or . interfere
CEQA Checklist -1 _ 4 -03
File Nos.: SP 2003.001 & TM 51941
The project proposes impervious surfaces for the street, driveways and residential structures that could interfere
with groundwater recharge on a portion of the 13.04 -acre development area. However, the 7 -lot subdivision does
not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ground water recharge resulting in a
net deficit in aquifer volume or lowering of the groundwater table.ievel in the local area. The project will not
adversely effect the production rate of any existing wells in the area and will not create a drop in well water
production rates to a level which would not support existing or planned land uses.
Source Nos. 4, 5 & 7.
b) 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? ® ❑ ❑ ❑
The project proposes grading that will alter drainage patterns on a portion of the 13.04 -acre project site above
existing residential areas. The project does not alter the course of a stream or river. Project grading and
manufactured slopes have the potential to increase erosion on- and off -site. Additional hydrology information and
documentation is necessary to ensure that altered drainage patterns do not adversely affect existing residential
areas below the project site.
Source Nos. 1, 2 & 4
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or
river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? ® ❑ ❑ ❑
The project alters existing drainage patterns of a portion of the site and may substantially increase the rate and/or
amount of surface runoff that could increase the potential for flooding, primarily off -site.
Source Nos. 1, 2, 5 & 6
d) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? ® ❑ ❑ ❑
The project proposes storm drains, catch basins and V- gutters on manufactured slopes per City and Los Angeles
County Flood Control District standards. implementation of the proposed drainage plan will control runoff water so
that it will not exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems.
Source Nos. 5 & 6.
e) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ® ❑ ❑
Project grading and construction could create the potential to violate regional water quality control board (RWQCB)
water quality standards. The project includes a conceptual storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). This
plan reduces potential impacts to RWQCB water quality standards to less than significant with implementation of
CEQA Checklist -12- 4-03
Less Than
Significant
Potentially
With
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant No
Impact
Incorporation
Impact Impact
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be
a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (i.e., 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)?
❑
®
❑ ❑
The project proposes impervious surfaces for the street, driveways and residential structures that could interfere
with groundwater recharge on a portion of the 13.04 -acre development area. However, the 7 -lot subdivision does
not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ground water recharge resulting in a
net deficit in aquifer volume or lowering of the groundwater table.ievel in the local area. The project will not
adversely effect the production rate of any existing wells in the area and will not create a drop in well water
production rates to a level which would not support existing or planned land uses.
Source Nos. 4, 5 & 7.
b) 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? ® ❑ ❑ ❑
The project proposes grading that will alter drainage patterns on a portion of the 13.04 -acre project site above
existing residential areas. The project does not alter the course of a stream or river. Project grading and
manufactured slopes have the potential to increase erosion on- and off -site. Additional hydrology information and
documentation is necessary to ensure that altered drainage patterns do not adversely affect existing residential
areas below the project site.
Source Nos. 1, 2 & 4
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or
river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? ® ❑ ❑ ❑
The project alters existing drainage patterns of a portion of the site and may substantially increase the rate and/or
amount of surface runoff that could increase the potential for flooding, primarily off -site.
Source Nos. 1, 2, 5 & 6
d) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? ® ❑ ❑ ❑
The project proposes storm drains, catch basins and V- gutters on manufactured slopes per City and Los Angeles
County Flood Control District standards. implementation of the proposed drainage plan will control runoff water so
that it will not exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems.
Source Nos. 5 & 6.
e) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ® ❑ ❑
Project grading and construction could create the potential to violate regional water quality control board (RWQCB)
water quality standards. The project includes a conceptual storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). This
plan reduces potential impacts to RWQCB water quality standards to less than significant with implementation of
CEQA Checklist -12- 4-03
File Nos.: SP 2003 -001 & TM 51941
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
impact Incorporation Impact Impact
the SWPPP.
Source Nos. 5 & 6.
f) Violate any other water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements? ❑ ❑ ❑
The project site is in an upslope, hillside area and is not located within a 100 -year floodplain as mapped on the
Federal Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map.
Source Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 & 6.
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? ❑ ❑ ❑
The project site is in an upsiope, hillside area and housing is not proposed to be located within a 100-year
floodplain as mapped on the Federal Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map.
Source Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 & 6.
h) Place within a 100 -year floodplain structures which would impede
or redirect flood flows? ❑ ❑ ❑
The project site is not located within a designated 100 -year floodplain and does not result in the placement of
structures which would impede or redirect flood flows.
Source Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 & 6.
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the
failure of a levee or dam? ❑
❑ ❑
The project site is not located within the inundation area of any levees or dams.
Source Nos 1, 2, 4, 5 & 6.
j) Expose people or structures to inundation by seiche, tsunami or
mudflow? ❑
® ❑ ❑
While the project site is not subject to inundation by seiche or tsunami hazards,
the threat of mudflow impacts shall
be examined in the project EIR.
Source Nos 1, 2, 4, 5 & 6.
k) During project construction, will it create or contribute runoff
water that would violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements, including the terms of the City's
municipal separate stormwater sewer system permit? ❑
® ❑ ❑
This potential impact can be mitigated by adherence to standard City construction requirements with regards to
controlling runoff during the construction phase.
Source Nos 1, 2, 4, 5 & 6.
CEQA Checklist -13- 4 -03
File Nos.: SP 2003 -001 & TM 51941
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
1) After the project is completed, will it create or contribute runoff
water that would violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements, including the terms of the City's
municipal separate stormwater sewer system permit? ❑ ® ❑ ❑
This potential impact can be mitigated by the preparation and approval of a drainage plan for the proposed
subdivision that complies with all water quality standards and /or waste discharge requirements.
Source Nos 1, 2, 4, 5 & 6.
m) Allow polluted stormwater runoff from delivery areas or loading
docks or other areas where materials are stored, vehicles or
equipment are fueled or maintained, waste is handled, or
hazardous materials are handled or delivered, or other outdoor
work areas, to impair other waters? ❑ ❑ ❑
Given the absence of delivery areas, loading docks, etc., no impacts are anticipated.
Source Nos 1, 2, 4, 5 & 6.
n) Potential for discharge of stormwater to cause significant harm
on the biological integrity of the waterways and water bodies
including municipal and domestic supply, water contact or non -
contact recreation and groundwater recharge? ❑ ❑ ❑
See explanation for 8.1 above.
o) Discharge stormwater so that significant harm is caused to the
biological integrity of waterways or water bodies? ❑ ❑ ❑
See explanation for 8.1 above.
p) Significantly alter the flow velocity or volume of storm water runoff
that can cause environmental harm? ❑ ❑ ❑
See explanation for 8.1 above.
q) Significantly increase erosion, either on- or off-site? ❑ ® ❑ ❑
See explanation for 8.1 above.
RE
LAND USE AND PLANNING — Would the project
a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑
The project site is located at the extreme northern edge of the City of Arcadia and does not physically divide an
established community.
Source Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5.
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
CEQA Checklist -14- 4 -03
File Nos.: SP 2003 -001 & TM 51941
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect? ® ❑ ❑ ❑
The project site's General Plan Land Use Classification is Singie- Family Residential (SFR -4). The project site's
Zoning Ciassification is Residential Mountainous Single - Family (R -M). The site's proposed Zoning is Highland
Oaks Specific Plan. Development Standards set forth in the Specific Plan differ from those set forth by the R -M
Zoning Classification and also differ from the R -1 Standards applicable to the local existing homes adjacent and
nearby the site. This may result in impacts related to the height of structures, setbacks, lot widths and other
development standards. The E1R shall examine the differences between current R -M and R -1 Zoning Standards
and the Highland Oaks Specific Plan Development Standards.
Source Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5.
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan? ❑ ❑ ❑
The project site contains natural vegetation and habitat, however, the site is not located within the boundaries of a
designated Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan.
Source Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4.
10. 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? ❑ ❑ ❑
The project site is not located in an area that contains known mineral resources classified MR2 -2 by the state
geologist.
Source Nos. 1 & 2.
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? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
The project site does not contain known, locally - important mineral resources and is not shown as a mineral
resource in the Arcadia General Plan.
Source Nos. 1 & 2_.
11. 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 applicable standards of other agencies? ® ❑ ❑ ❑
Short-term construction- related noise impacts have the potential to create certain impacts that could exceed the
City of Arcadia General Plan Noise and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines in residential zones for brief periods of
time. Short-term construction- related noise will result from the grading and earthwork necessary to create the
roadways, pads and manufactured slopes for the seven -lot subdivision, from the construction traffic driving to and
from the site, from the approximate 260 round -trip truck trips necessary to export approximately 2,600 cubic yards
of earth material from the site, and ultimately from the construction of the seven proposed residential homes. Long-
term noise impacts associated with the proposed seven single - family homes are not expected to exceed the City's
.Noise and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines with standard construction and operational phase mitigation
CEQA Checklist -15- 4-03
File Nos.: SP 2003 -001 & TM 51941
See Explanation to 11.a above.
Short-term construction - related groundbome vibration may be felt on adjacent properties for short periods of time
during grading operations. However, the project does not require any blasting of bedrock to complete grading
operations. Therefore, potential groundbome vibration impacts are not anticipated to be excessive. Groundbome
noise levels will also result from grading activity, but are not expected to be excessive or louder than airborne noise
impacts resulting from grading activities.
Source Nos. f & 2.
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ❑ ❑ ® ❑
The proposed seven -lot subdivision will result in an incremental increase in residential and service traffic noise on
the streets serving the project site. However, this increase does not represent.a substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the vicinity around the project.
Source Nos. 1 & 2.
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project? ❑ ® ❑ ❑
The project does represent a substantial short-term (temporary) increase in ambient noise levels over the time
necessary to complete the grading, export the excess material and construct the seven homes. This effect will be .
Jess than significant with standard city grading and construction noise mitigations.
Source Nos. 1 & 2.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? ❑ ❑ ❑
The project site is not located within the boundaries of an airport land use plan, nor is it within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport.
Source. Nos. 1, 2 & 9.
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? ❑ ❑ ❑
The project site is not within. the vicinity of a private airstrip and will not be subject to excessive noise levels from
airstrip operations.
Source Nos. 1, 2 & 9.
CEQA Checklist -16- 4 -03
Less Than
Significant
Potentially
With
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No
,.,
Impact
Incorporation
impact
Impact
measures.
Source Nos. 1 & 2.
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundbome noise levels? .
❑
®
❑
❑
See Explanation to 11.a above.
Short-term construction - related groundbome vibration may be felt on adjacent properties for short periods of time
during grading operations. However, the project does not require any blasting of bedrock to complete grading
operations. Therefore, potential groundbome vibration impacts are not anticipated to be excessive. Groundbome
noise levels will also result from grading activity, but are not expected to be excessive or louder than airborne noise
impacts resulting from grading activities.
Source Nos. f & 2.
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ❑ ❑ ® ❑
The proposed seven -lot subdivision will result in an incremental increase in residential and service traffic noise on
the streets serving the project site. However, this increase does not represent.a substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the vicinity around the project.
Source Nos. 1 & 2.
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project? ❑ ® ❑ ❑
The project does represent a substantial short-term (temporary) increase in ambient noise levels over the time
necessary to complete the grading, export the excess material and construct the seven homes. This effect will be .
Jess than significant with standard city grading and construction noise mitigations.
Source Nos. 1 & 2.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? ❑ ❑ ❑
The project site is not located within the boundaries of an airport land use plan, nor is it within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport.
Source. Nos. 1, 2 & 9.
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? ❑ ❑ ❑
The project site is not within. the vicinity of a private airstrip and will not be subject to excessive noise levels from
airstrip operations.
Source Nos. 1, 2 & 9.
CEQA Checklist -16- 4 -03
File Nos.: SP 2003 -001 & TM 51941
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with
Significant Mitigation
Impact Incorporation
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING —Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly
(for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)? ❑ ❑
Less Than
significant No
Impact Impact
�d
The density of the proposed seven -lot subdivision is not in excess of the density of the existing single - family
residential developments adjacent to, and in the vicinity of the project site. The proposed project has the potential
to increase the City population by approximately 22 to 25 residents. This is not considered a substantial increase in.
population growth in the area of the proposed project.
Source Nos. 1, 2 & 4.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ❑ ❑ ❑
No existing housing is being removed or displaced by the proposed seven -lot subdivision.
Source Nos. 1, 2 & 4.
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ❑ ❑ ❑
No existing residents or other people are being displaced by the proposed project.
Source Nos. 1, 2 & 4.
13. 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 govemmental facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection?
®
❑
❑
❑
Police protection?
®
❑
❑
❑
Schools?
®
❑
❑
❑
Parks?
❑
❑
❑
Other public facilities?
❑
❑
❑
The project site is located in an area of very high fire hazard. Impacts to the existing level of fire services shall be
examined in the EIR.
The project represents an increase in the number of dwelling units and population that will require police services.
impacts to the existing level of police protection services shall be examined in the EIR.
The project represents an increase in the number of dwelling units and population that may impact the local school
district. Impacts to the local school district shall be examined in the EIR.
CEQA Checklist -17- 4 -03
File Nos.: SP 2003.001 &TM 51941
Less Than
Significant
Potentially _ With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
Although the proposed project represents a small increase in population, the park and recreation services provided
by the City of Arcadia and others would not be significantly impacted by the implementation of the proposed
project.
Although the proposed project represents a small increase in population, other public services provided by the City
of Arcadia and others would not be significantly impacted by the implementation of the proposed project.
Source Nos. 1, 2 & 4.
Ml!
RECREATION —Would the project
a) 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? ❑ ® ❑ El
The proposed seven -lot subdivision will incrementally increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks
and other recreational facilities. However, with the payment of park and recreation impact fees, the project's
impacts will be offset so that substantial physical deterioration of such facilities would not occur, nor be
accelerated.
15.
Source Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which have an
adverse physical effect on the environment? ❑ ❑ ® ❑
The proposed residential subdivision does not include recreational facilities or require the construction or
substantial expansion of recreational facilities.
Source Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4.
TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFiC —Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result
in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the
volume to capacity -ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)? ❑ ® ❑
The proposed seven -Jot subdivision will increase traffic over existing levels during the short -term construction
phases of the project, but only incrementally on a long -term operational basis after all approved dwelling units have
been constructed and occupied.
The project's short-term construction related traffic impacts involve both construction worker trips to and from the
project site each day and the approximate 260 round -trip truck trips to export approximately 2,600 cubic yards of
excess material from the site. This results in the potential to substantially increase traffic loads for short periods of
time during certain portions of the construction process. The construction of the project is to be phased, and the
truck trips will be scheduled to limit the number of trips per day as well as to avoid peak traffic periods.
Long -term operational impacts associated with the seven single family residential dwelling units are not anticipated
to result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips (84 average daily trips), the volume -to-
capacity ratio on streets serving the project, or congestion at intersections (13 trips during the peak hour of traffic).
The project is not likely to impact existing roadways /intersections that are currently experiencing unacceptable
levels of service at peak hours.
CEQA Checklist -18- 4 -03
File Nos.: SP 2003 -001 & TM 51941
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Sign'dicant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
Source Nos. 1, 2, 13 & 14
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the county congestion management
agency for designated roads or highways? ❑ ❑ ® ❑
Short-term construction related traffic from the project should not add traffic to intersections that currently exceed or
are projected to exceed level of service standards established by the City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles and
Caltrans.
Source Nos. 1, 2, 13 & 14.
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? ❑ ❑ ❑
The project will not result in a change in air traffic patterns and will not result in a significant increase in traffic levels
or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks.
Source Nos. 1, 2 & 9.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)? ❑ ❑ ® ❑
Previous traffic studies have shown that that entry road intersection with Canyon Road will not be dangerous, nor
present traffic hazards if constructed as proposed. The Fire Department's emergency access concerns have been
adequately addressed in the current project design. The project does not involve incompatible land uses.
Source Nos. 1, 2, 13 & 14.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ® ❑ ❑
The proposed project street design does not comply with the City' emergency access standards and regulations.
However, the City Fire Department's emergency access concerns have been adequately addressed in.fhe current
project design.
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ® ❑ ❑ ❑
The proposed roadway width is 31 feet from curb -to -curb and does not allow for on- street parking. The impacts of
this situation will be examined by the E1R.
Source Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 13 & 14.
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting
alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ❑ ❑ ❑
The project does not conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative methods of transportation.
Source Nos. 1, 2, 13 & 14.
16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS —Would the project:
CEQA Checklist -19- 4-03
File Nos.: SP 2003 -001 &TM 51941
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board? ❑ ❑ ❑ IE
A sewer line within Canyon Road is available to serve the project site and the project proposes to connect to that
line. The construction of seven additional homes would not result in significant adverse impacts to wastewater
treatment requirements or existing wastewater treatment facilities.
Source Nos. 1, 2 & 8.
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? ❑ ❑ ❑
The wastewater flows generated by the proposed 7 -unit project would not trigger the need for new or expanded
wastewater treatment facilities.
Source Nos. 1, 2 & 8.
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental effects? ❑ ❑ ® ❑
The project site is currently served by a storm drain system east of Canyon Road and the project would connect to
that system. The construction of seven additional homes would not require the off -site construction or expansion of
existing facilities.
Source Nos. 1, 2 & 8.
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed? In making this determination, the City shall
consider whether the project is subject to the water supply
assessment requirements of Water Code Section 10910, et seq.
(SB 610), and the requirements of Government Code Section
66473.7(SB221). ❑ ® ❑ ❑
Southern California relies for the most part on imported water supplies. Currently, there are sufficient supplies to
serve the proposed 7- units, however, mitigation measures to reduce water consumption shall be required of the
project just as such measures are required of all projects within the region.
Source Nos. 1 & 2.
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to
the provider's existing commitments? ❑ ❑ ® ❑
The proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan and the wastewater flows generated by the
proposed 7 -unit project would not trigger the need for new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities.
Source Nos. 1 & 2.
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
CEQA Checklist -20- 4 -03
File Nos.: SP 2003 -001 & TM 51941
With standard waste disposal mitigation measures to reduce the amount of waste generated by the proposed 7 -unit
project, the project will not adversely impact landfill capacity.
Source Nos. 1 & 2.
g) Comply with federal, state and local statues and regulations
related to solid waste? ❑ ❑ ❑
17
See explanation for 16.f above.
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or prehistory? ❑ ❑ ❑
While there are coast five oak trees present on -site (a "sensitive" habitat under the State and City regulations) and
a specimen of the "sensitive" sharp- shinned hawk was documented as foraging on -site, the implementation of the
proposed project will not result in the above- mentioned impacts to any plant or animal species. Due to the lack of
prehistoric or historic resources on the project site or within the vicinity of the project site, such resources shall not
be adversely impacted by the implementation of the proposed project.
Source Nos. 1, 2, 4 & 11.
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantages of long -term, environmental goals? ❑ ❑ ❑
The proposed 7 -unit project complies with the City of Arcadia General Plan, a document that balances and plans
the land uses within the City. The implementation of this project would not achieve short-term environmental goals
to the disadvantage of long -term environmental goals.
Source Nos. 1 & 2.
c) 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) ® ❑ ❑ ❑
Cumulative impacts shall be examined in the EIR.
Source Nos. 1, 2, 4 & 5.
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly? ❑ ❑ ❑
CEQA Checklist -21- 4-03
Less Than
Significant
Potentially
With
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant No
Impact
Incorporation
Impact impact
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? ❑
®
❑ ❑
With standard waste disposal mitigation measures to reduce the amount of waste generated by the proposed 7 -unit
project, the project will not adversely impact landfill capacity.
Source Nos. 1 & 2.
g) Comply with federal, state and local statues and regulations
related to solid waste? ❑ ❑ ❑
17
See explanation for 16.f above.
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or prehistory? ❑ ❑ ❑
While there are coast five oak trees present on -site (a "sensitive" habitat under the State and City regulations) and
a specimen of the "sensitive" sharp- shinned hawk was documented as foraging on -site, the implementation of the
proposed project will not result in the above- mentioned impacts to any plant or animal species. Due to the lack of
prehistoric or historic resources on the project site or within the vicinity of the project site, such resources shall not
be adversely impacted by the implementation of the proposed project.
Source Nos. 1, 2, 4 & 11.
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantages of long -term, environmental goals? ❑ ❑ ❑
The proposed 7 -unit project complies with the City of Arcadia General Plan, a document that balances and plans
the land uses within the City. The implementation of this project would not achieve short-term environmental goals
to the disadvantage of long -term environmental goals.
Source Nos. 1 & 2.
c) 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) ® ❑ ❑ ❑
Cumulative impacts shall be examined in the EIR.
Source Nos. 1, 2, 4 & 5.
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly? ❑ ❑ ❑
CEQA Checklist -21- 4-03
File Nos.: SP 2003 -001 & TM 51941
The proposed 7 -unit project complies with the City of Arcadia General Plan, a document that balances and plans
the land uses within the City. The implementation of this residential project would not cause substantial direct or
indirect adverse effects on human beings.
Source Nos. 1, 2, 4 & 5.
CHECKLIST INFORMATION SOURCES
1. City of Arcadia General Plan.
2. Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Arcadia General Plan.
3. City of Arcadia Municipal Zoning Code.
4. Highland Oaks Specific Plan (revised draft), dated May 9, 2003.
5. Revised Tentative Tract Map 51941 dated February 24, 2003.
6. Conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan for Tentative Tract Map 51941 dated February 24, 2003.
7. Conceptual Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan for Tentative Tract Map 51941 dated February 24, 2003.
8. Conceptual Circulation and Utility Plan for Tentative Tract Map 51941 dated February 24, 2003.
9. USGS Map, "Mt. Wilson, CA. ", 1966, photo revised 1988 and State of California Seismic Hazards Zone Map — Mt.
Wilson Quadrangle — Preliminary Map— Released: September 30, 1998.
10. "Report of Geotechnical Engineering Investigation for TTM 51941" prepared by Environmental Geotechnical
Laboratory, Inc., dated February 26, 2000.
11. 'Biological Resources Assessment TTM 51941" prepared by Applied Ecological Research, dated April, 2000.
12. City of Arcadia Oak Tree Ordinance (No. 1962), adopted January 21, 1992,
13. 7TM 51941 Traffic Study" prepared by Austin -Foust Associates, Inc., dated May 22, 2000.
14. Development Services Department Memorandum from Ed Cline, Traffic Engineer, to Jim Kasama, Associated
Planner, re: Traffic Impact Report, Canyon Road Residential Development, dated March 26, 2001.
15.. Record of Site Visit of April 17, 2001 and subsequent visits up to May 10, 2003
CEQA Checklist -22- 4-03
Less Than
Significant
Potentially
With Less Than
Significant
Mitigation Significant No
Impact
Incorporation Impact Impact
The proposed 7 -unit project complies with the City of Arcadia General Plan, a document that balances and plans
the land uses within the City. The implementation of this residential project would not cause substantial direct or
indirect adverse effects on human beings.
Source Nos. 1, 2, 4 & 5.
CHECKLIST INFORMATION SOURCES
1. City of Arcadia General Plan.
2. Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Arcadia General Plan.
3. City of Arcadia Municipal Zoning Code.
4. Highland Oaks Specific Plan (revised draft), dated May 9, 2003.
5. Revised Tentative Tract Map 51941 dated February 24, 2003.
6. Conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan for Tentative Tract Map 51941 dated February 24, 2003.
7. Conceptual Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan for Tentative Tract Map 51941 dated February 24, 2003.
8. Conceptual Circulation and Utility Plan for Tentative Tract Map 51941 dated February 24, 2003.
9. USGS Map, "Mt. Wilson, CA. ", 1966, photo revised 1988 and State of California Seismic Hazards Zone Map — Mt.
Wilson Quadrangle — Preliminary Map— Released: September 30, 1998.
10. "Report of Geotechnical Engineering Investigation for TTM 51941" prepared by Environmental Geotechnical
Laboratory, Inc., dated February 26, 2000.
11. 'Biological Resources Assessment TTM 51941" prepared by Applied Ecological Research, dated April, 2000.
12. City of Arcadia Oak Tree Ordinance (No. 1962), adopted January 21, 1992,
13. 7TM 51941 Traffic Study" prepared by Austin -Foust Associates, Inc., dated May 22, 2000.
14. Development Services Department Memorandum from Ed Cline, Traffic Engineer, to Jim Kasama, Associated
Planner, re: Traffic Impact Report, Canyon Road Residential Development, dated March 26, 2001.
15.. Record of Site Visit of April 17, 2001 and subsequent visits up to May 10, 2003
CEQA Checklist -22- 4-03
RESOLUTION NO. 5289
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA,
CALIFORNIA, DETERMINING AND AMENDING REGULATIONS
APPLICABLE TO REAL PROPERTY IN THE HIGHLAND OAKS "D"
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN ZONE AREA.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA DOES DETERMINE AND
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the City Council hereby repeals Resolution No. 4335, and
adopts the following Resolution pursuant to Ordinance No. 1479, for the property
described in Exhibit "A ", attached hereto, to implement the regulations applicable to
the real property within the Highland Home Owners Association "D" Architectural
Design Zone area, the Architectural Review and Area Planning Committee is
established and is hereinafter referred to as the "Committee ".
SECTION 2. In order to promote and maintain the quality single - family
residential environment of the City of Arcadia, and to protect the property values
and architectural character of such residential environments, in those portions of
the City in which the residents have formed a homeowners association, and to
accomplish the purposes set forth in Section 4, there is hereby established the
following regulations and procedures in which said association may exercise plan
review authority.
SECTION 3. In order that buildings, structures and landscaping on property
within said area will be harmonious with each other and to promote the full and
proper utilization of said property, the following conditions are hereby imposed
upon all property in said area pursuant to the zoning regulations of the Arcadia
Municipal Code, and all those in control of property within said area, are subject to
this Resolution and Ordinance No. 1832:
1. FLOOR AREA. No one - family dwelling shall be erected or permitted
which contains less than 1,600 square feet of ground floor area if one story in height,
or 1,200 square feet of ground floor area if one and one -half or two stories in height.
The space contained within an open porch, open entry, balcony, garage, whether or
not it is an integral part of the dwelling, patio, basement, or cellar shall not be
considered in computing the square footage contained in any such building. The
minimum required floor area shall be deemed to include the area measured from
the outer faces of the exterior walls.
2. FRONT YARD. If a dwelling with a larger front yard than the minimum
required by the underlying zone designation exists on a lot on either side of a lot
proposed to be improved, the Committee shall have the power to require an
appropriate front yard on the lot to be improved, including a setback up to a size as
large as an adjacent front yard.
3. SIDE YARD. A lot with a building, or any part thereof, occupying the front
one hundred (100) feet, or any part thereof, of such lot shall have a side yard of not
less than six (6) feet.
4. CORNER LOTS. No building or other structure shall be erected or
permitted on a corner lot which is less than twenty-five (25) feet, (except fifteen (15)
feet in Tracts No. 10725, 13367, 14626, 15285, and 16920) at any point from the side
street property line.
5. GARAGES. All garages shall be incorporated as an integral part of the
main structure and physically attached thereto.
6. TREES. No living oak, sycamore, liquidambar, magnolia, or pine tree
with a trunk diameter larger than six inches, measured at a point on the tree which
is not more than three feet above the grade immediately adjacent to said tree, shall
be cut down, killed or removed in any manner, without first securing the written
permission of the Committee. Such permission shall not be granted unless it is
shown that the tree is a nuisance, and that there is not practical way of removing the
nuisance except by cutting down, killing or removing it.
7. EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS. Materials used on the exterior of
any structure, including roofing, wall or fence greater than two (2) feet above the
lowest adjacent grade, shall be compatible with materials of other structures on the
same lot and with other structures in the neighborhood.
8. EXTERIOR BUILDING APPEARANCE. The appearance of any structure,
including roof, wall or fence shall be compatible with existing structures, roofing,
walls or fences in the neighborhood.
9. APPROVAL OF COMMITTEE REQUIRED. No structure, roof, wall or
fence greater than two (2) feet above the lowest adjacent grade, shall be erected,
placed or replaced unless approved by the Committee.
Plans for the erection, placement, or replacement of any structure, roof, wall
or fence, showing the precise location on the lot of the structure, wall or fence, shall
be submitted to the Committee.
No structure, roof, wall or fence shall be erected, placed or replaced except in
exact conformance with the plans approved by the Committee.
-2- 5289
If necessary to properly consider any application, the Committee may require
specific plans, working drawings, specifications, color charts and material samples.
The provisions of this requirement shall not apply if the project consists only
of work inside a building which does not substantially change the external
appearance of the building.
10. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE.
The Committee shall be empowered to transact business and exercise powers herein
conferred, only if the following requirements exist:
a. A formally organized property owner's organization exists in said area.
b. The organization has by -laws adopted that authorize the establishment of
the Committee.
c. Said by -laws provide for appointment of property owners, only, to the
Committee.
d. Owners have been appointed to the Committee in accordance with the by-
laws.
e. A copy of the by -laws and any amendments thereto have been filed with
the City Clerk and the Director of Planning.
f. The Committee shall designate a custodian of records who shall maintain
said records and make them available for public review upon reasonable request.
g. Permanent written records of the meetings, findings, action, and decision
of the Committee shall be maintained by the Committee.
Any decision by the Committee shall be accompanied by specific findings
setting forth the reasons for the Committee's decision.
Any decision by the Committee shall be made by a majority of the entire
membership of the Committee, and such decision shall be rendered by the
Committee members who considered the application.
A copy of the Committee's findings and decision shall be mailed to the
applicant within three (3) working days of the Committee's decision.
h. All meetings of the Committee shall be open .to the public in accordance
with the Ralph M. Brown Act (California Open Meeting Law).
11. POWERS OF THE COMMITTEE. The Committee shall have the power to:
a. Determine and approve an appropriate front yard pursuant to Condition 2
of Section 3.
b. Determine whether materials and appearance are compatible in
accordance with the above Conditions 7 & 8 of Section 3.
-3- 5289
c. If a grading plan is required for a building permit for a structure, the
Committee may requite such plan to be submitted along with the building plans.
d. Any of the conditions set forth in Conditions 1 through 6 of Section 3, may
be made less restrictive by the Committee if the Committee determines that such
action will foster the development of a lot and will not adversely affect the use and
enjoyment of the adjacent lots and the general neighborhood and would not be
inconsistent with the provisions and intent of this resolution.
e. The Committee shall have the power to establish rules for the purpose of
exercising its duties, subject to review and approval of the City. Copies of such rules
shall be kept on file with the Secretary of the Association and the City Clerk.
12. SHORT REVIEW PROCESS PROCEDURE.
a. The Short Review Process may be used by the Committee for the review of
applications for modifications to the requirements set forth in Conditions I through
6 of Section 3, provided that the application for a Short Review Process shall be
accompanied by a completed application form which shall contain the signatures of
all contiguous property owners indicating their awareness and approval of the
application.
b. The Committee is not required to hold a noticed, scheduled meeting for
the consideration of a Short Review Process Application.
c. The Committee Chairman or another Committee member designated by
the Committee Chairman, to act in his absence, shall render his decision on a Short
Review Process application within ten (10) working days from the date such request
is filed with the Committee; failure to take action in said time shall, at the end of the
ten (10) working day period, be deemed an approval of the plans.
d. The Committee may determine which requirements set forth in
Conditions 1 through 6 of Section 3 are not appropriate for the Short Review
Process, and therefore require the Regular Review Process for the consideration of
such Conditions. Any list of such Conditions which are not appropriate for the
Short Review Process shall be filed in writing with the City Clerk and the Director of
Planning.
13. REGULAR REVIEW PROCESS PROCEDURES.
a. The Regular Review Process shall be used by the Committee for the
review of the Conditions 1 through 6 of Section 3, (eligible for Short Review) in
those cases in which the applicant failed to obtain the signatures of approval from
all of the required property owners.
-4- 5289
b. The Regular Review Process must be used for the review of applications to
those Conditions 1 through 6 of Section 3, which the Committee has determined are
not appropriate for the Short Review Process pursuant to the above.
c. The Committee is required to hold a noticed, scheduled meeting for the
consideration of a Regular Review Process Application.
d. Notice of the Committee's meeting shall be mailed, postage prepaid to the
applicant and to all property owners within one hundred feet (100') of the subject
property, not less than ten (10) calendar days before the date of such meeting.
The applicant shall also provide the Committee with the last known name
and address, of such owners as shown upon the assessment rolls of the City or of the
County.
The application shall also provide the Committee with letter size envelopes,
which are addressed to the property owners who are to receive said notice. The
applicant shall provide the proper postage on each of said envelopes.
e. Any decision by the Committee shall be made by a majority of the entire
membership . of the Committee, and such decision shall be rendered by the
Committee members who considered the application.
f. The Committee shall render it's decision on a Regular Review Process
application within thirty (30) working days from the date such request is filed with
the Committee; failure to take action in said time shall, at the end of the thirty (30)
working day period, be deemed an approval of the plans.
14. EXPIRATION OF COMMITTEE'S APPROVAL. If for a period of one (1)
year from date of approval, any project for which plans have been approved by the
Committee, has been unused, abandoned or discontinued, said approval shall
become null and void and of no effect.
15. LIMIT ON COMMITTEE'S POWERS. The Committee shall not have the
power to waive any regulations in the Code pertaining to the basic zone of the
property in said area. The Committee may, however, make a recommendation to
the City agency, which will be considering any such waiver request, regarding
waiving such regulations.
16. APPEAL. Appeals from the Committee shall be made to the Planning
Commission. Said appeal shall be made in writing and delivered to the Planning
Department within seven (7) working days of the Committee's decision and shall be
accompanied by an appeal fee in accordance with the applicable fee schedule adopted
by resolution of the City Council.
-5- 5289
Upon receipt in proper form of an appeal from the Committee's decision,
such appeal shall be processed by the Planning Department in accordance with the
same procedures applicable to appeals from the Modification Committee.
17. STANDARDS FOR COMMITTEE DECISIONS AND APPEALS. The
Committee and any body hearing an appeal from the Committee's decision shall be
guided by the following principles:
a. Control of architectural appearance and use of materials shall not be so
exercised that individual initiative is stifled in creating the appearance of external
features of any particular structure, building, fence, wall or roof, except to the extent
necessary to establish contemporary accepted standards of harmony and
compatibility acceptable to the Committee or the body hearing an appeal in order to
avoid that which is excessive, garish, and substantially unrelated to the
neighborhood. (Pertains to Condition Nos. 7 & 8 of Section 3 of this Resolution -
Exterior Building Materials & Exterior Building Appearance).
b. Good architectural character is based upon the principles of harmony and
proportion in the elements of the structure as well as the relationship of such
principles to adjacent structures and other structures in the neighborhood. (Pertains
to Condition Nos. 7 & 8 of Section 3 of this Resolution - Exterior Building Materials
& Exterior Building Appearance).
c. A poorly designed external appearance of a structure, wall, fence, or roof,
can be detrimental to the amenities and vlaue of adjacent property and
neighborhood. (Pertains to Conditions Nos. 7 & 8 of Section 3 of this Resolution -
Exterior Building Materials & Exterior Building Appearance).
d. A good relationship between adjacent front yards increases the value of
properties and makes the use of both properties more enjoyable. (Pertains to
Conditions No. 2 of Section 3 of this Resolution - Front Yards).
SECTION 4. The City Council finds and determines that the public health,
safety and general welfare of the community require the adoption of this
Resolution. It is determined that the various land use controls, and property
regulations as set forth herein are substantially related to maintenance of Arcadia's
environment, for the purpose of assuring that the appearance of structures will be
compatible and harmonious with the use and enjoyment of surrounding properties.
Design controls and aesthetic considerations will help maintain the beauty of the
community, protect property values, and help assure protection from deterioration,
blight, and unattractiveness all of which can have a negative impact on the
-6- 5289
environment of the community, affecting property values, and the quality of life
which is characteristic of Arcadia.
It is further determined that the purpose and function of this Resolution is
consistent with the history of the City and continued efforts through various means
to maintain the City's land use, environmental, and economic goals and to assure
perpetuation of both the psychological benefits and economic interests concomitant
to an attractive, well maintained community with emphasis on residential living.
All findings and statements of purpose in related Resolutions which pre-
existed this Resolution or prior covenants, conditions, and restrictions constitute
part of the rationale for this Resolution and are incorporated by reference.
SECTION 5. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase,
or portion of this resolution is for any reason held to be invalid by the final decision
of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of
the remaining portions of this Resolution. The Council hereby declares that it
would have adopted this Resolution and each section, subsection, subdivision,
sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or
more section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof be
declared invalid.
SECTION 6. That the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this
Resolution.
Passed, approved and adopted this 1st day of April, 1986.
/s/ DONALD PELLEGRINO
Mayor of the City of Arcadia
ATTEST:
/s/ CHRISTINE VAN MAANEN
City Clerk of the City of Arcadia
-7- 5289
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS:
CITY OF ARCADIA )
I, CHRISTINE VAN MAANEN, Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certify
that the foregoing Resolution No. 5289 was passed and adopted by the City Council
of the City of Arcadia, signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Clerk at a
regular meeting of said Council held on the 1st day of April, 1986, and that said
Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Councilmen Gilb, Hannah, Lojeski, Young and Pellegrino
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
/s/ CHRISTINE VAN MAANEN
City Clerk of the City of Arcadia
-8- 5289
EXHIBIT "A"
The property bounded on the south by the southern boundaries of the Highland
Oaks School, Lot 59 of Tract No. 16920 and Lot 83 of Tract No. 15285; on the west by
the centerline of Santa Anita Avenue and the City limits; on the north by the City
limits; and on the east by the Los Angeles County Flood Control Channel.
EXHIBIT "A"
-9- 5289
S ygy � s d Y �fT ( } �
N 'ra F
4'
`cT11 d ,
+ A
_ su
�b 4'�
w ddd
. - • � Jj ! " d v� s x� �A��e ° + ry,; >r R ' ,e 3 " ° F¢' , q'� � � �� ' i P ��3�i
<. t: r � ^`,�' t i "� s ' r+'" o- r• b +�,5r W d �^"" .a " °n l� �.7` tib'�i
v
L Jli.
! r: y
'«as•1 } �w, uf r st
i t
rta�if
Highland Oaks Specific Plan Review
FINAL REPORT
November 9, 2004
Prepared for:
City of Arcadia
Planning Division
240 West Huntington Drive
Post Office Box 60021
Arcadia, California 91066 -6021
Prepared by:
TRG Land, Inc.
898 Production Place
Newport Beach, California 92663
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This report is a review of the Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map
submitted by Vista Community Planners to the City of Arcadia (Tract No. 51941).
The findings of this report are based on review and analyses of the Highland Oaks
Specific Plan document and Tentative Tract Map, background research, and site visits.
Background information was gathered regarding the Highland Oaks Homeowner
Association, oak tree preservation, design standards, and development standards for the
City of Arcadia. Site visits of the property were conducted in order to obtain a better
understanding of the project site's existing conditions. Photos of the property were
taken from locations on and off the property.
The Highland Oaks specific plan has several issues of concern. The major issue
regarding this particular property has been the approach into the property from the
adjoining street. This access road is running at grades steeper than most cities and
public works agencies would be willing to allow and the current plan does, not account
for the vertical curve that will be necessary to flatten the road at the top and bottom of
its approach, which is an engineering necessity.
The road is steepened as a result of the project's inability to deal with the excess
earthwork that would likely be generated as a result of flattening the road. The other
option that exists for reducing the road grade is to encourage a steeper driveway access
into the individual parcels. This may not be possible for some driveways because they
are already extremely steep. Designing steeper driveways would likely result in less pad
area per parcel as a result of flattening the road grade.
Circulation is the single most challenging issue with the site plan although it is just one
of many issues we encountered during the review of the project.
In addition to the over steepened access road into the site, the project also has cut
slopes at a 1.5:1 slope ratio. These cut slopes will be very difficult to re- vegetate and,
over time, may produce problems for the homeowners in terms of run off, erosion, and
other problems associated with over steepened slopes. In most cases the only
opportunity to achieve 1.5:1 slope ratio occurs in areas where the property is largely
bedrock and therefore, planting schemes are not typically considered.
Beyond the 1.5:1 cut slopes, there is also a concern for the site's drainage, which has
been an on -going issue between this particular property and the existing downhill lot
mentioned later in this report.
The Highland Oaks Specific Plan property would be in violation of current law because it
drains across properties without having first secured a drain agreement with a downhill
property owner. The public works department should take careful consideration of this
particular issue in light of the fact that this will be an agreement between two private
parties and would be a deed restriction on the downhill property in perpetuity. No
adequate provisions appear to have been taken to deal with the current runoff
City of Arcadia: Highland Oaks Specific Plan Review
condition. Based on site visits, this problem has existed for quite some time due to the
silt accumulation that has occurred on the down stream property.
To exacerbate this condition by simply placing a large fill slope in the canyon that
adjoins it will undoubtedly increase the rate of runoff. The downhill structure, based on
the plan review, does not appear to be prepared to handle runoff from the
manufactured slope in the canyon. A hydrology analysis should be conducted in order to
assure that post - development conditions are appropriately addressed.
The last issue of concern is the oak tree at the project entry, which is intended to be
saved, according to the Specific Plan. However, based on our observation, is not likely to
survive construction. The tree will likely be damaged due to the large amount of
construction and activity around and underneath the drip line of the tree as well the cut
in the slope adjoining the tree's trunk and root system. It would be disingenuous to
suggest that, without elaborate measures, this tree would likely survive the construction
process given what is presented in the application to date.
We feel the applicants should simply acknowledge that this tree would likely be removed
and mitigate accordingly for the removal of such a large oak specimen in this setting.
City of Arcadia: Highland Oaks Specific Plan Review 2
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The Highland Oaks Specific Plan is located in the northeast portion of the City of
Arcadia, within the City's Highland Oaks Homeowners Association boundaries. (See
Figures 1 and 2) The City of Arcadia is in Los Angeles County. Most of the property's
northern boundary abuts the Angeles National Forest and the City of Monrovia. To the
east of the property is the Arcadia Wilderness Park. Generally, Canyon road and
properties along Canyon Road abut the southern portion the Highland Oaks Specific Plan
property.
According to the Specific Plan document, the entire property is 83.15 acres of
undeveloped steep hillsides. Only the most southern portion of the property, consisting
of 11.9 acres, will be subdivided. The remaining parcel will be permanent open space.
The general slope orientation of the hillsides within the proposed parcel subdivision is
south - facing. The Specific Plan document has no information specifying the average
slope grade of the property. There are 84 existing trees on the proposed subdivided
parcels.
The Highland Oaks Specific Plan document and revisions were reviewed, studied, and
analyzed to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the Highland Oaks Specific Plan
project. As part of the process to appropriately analyze the site and the proposed
project, a site visit was made to the property. Photographs of existing conditions were
taken from onsite and offsite locations. Photos were obtained from locations along
Canyon Road as well as the rear yard of 2085 Vista Avenue.
The information gathered from these site visits were compared to the tentative tract
map. Predevelopment and post development conditions were analyzed.
City of Arcadia: Highland Oaks Specific Plan Review
N
j
a
City of Arcadia: Highland Oaks Specific Plan Review 4
ANALYSIS:
Circulation: The run of the road is between 15 and 18 percent grade. Prior to
considering vertical curves, most street standards allow 10 percent
maximum grade on streets. The Specific Plan does not account for any
grade reduction and transitions at the road entry and cul de sac.
Engineering standards require that these areas should be flatter than the
rest of the road. Canyon Road has a 15 percent road grade at the
intersection of the project's entry.
The Specific Plan indicates that the enhanced entry will be at a 15
percent grade for the northwest corner. The southeast corner is at 18
percent grade.
The proposed cul de sac has a diameter of 66 feet. The existing Vista Ave
is shown on the tract map with a 72 -feet diameter. Most cities'
City of Arcadia: Highland Oaks Specific Plan Review
www. ci.arcadia.ca. us
emergency service departments require cul de sacs with a 78 -feet
diameter.
In addition, some driveways are extremely steep, beyond the typical
design standards maximum grades. The driveways for Parcel Five and Six
are at about 30 percent and 25 percent grade, respectively.
Grading: There are some points of concern regarding areas where hillsides will be
cut. The tentative tract map shows that hillside will be cut at a 1.5:1
slope ratio, even in side slopes between building pads. Slopes at 1.5:1
ratios are not typically permitted for cut and fill slopes without special
consideration. (See Figure j) In addition, there is incongruity in areas
where the manufactured slope daylights with natural grade including
slopes exposed to public views.
The daylight line, the points at which manufactured slope meets natural
slope, is not landform graded and therefore it will be obvious that the
slope has been cut. The manufactured slopes daylight with natural grade
at pointed angles; rounding these contours would camouflage the cut and
it would contour grade the proposed slopes to blend with the natural
hillside. Figure 3 identifies where proposed grading is not landform
graded. It also identifies how landform grading can be applied, even if a
1.5:1 cut slope ratio will be permitted. (See Figure 3)
The back -of -pads are propped up by five -foot tall retaining walls. These
walls will serve to maintain a certain pad elevation and create a larger
pad size. (See Figure 3) Utilizing retaining walls is typically not desirable
because it means that the pad is being developed beyond what the land
naturally affords. The natural slope below the pad typically has a slope
shown at a 1:1 slope ratio. The retaining wall will be precariously built on
such a slope. This is not a typical design standard associated with
common hillside projects.
In order for the building pads to be graded according to the Tentative
Tract Map, it is necessary to cut the hillside severely; some areas would
require about 40 feet of vertical cut. The cut material will essentially be
dumped into the canyon in Parcel Five. The resulting manufactured slope
in Parcel Five is just the displaced dirt leftover after cutting the hillside.
To the extent that these slopes are flattened to a 2:1 slope, even more
dirt will need to be relocated.
City of Arcadia: Highland Oaks Specific Plan Review
1.5:1 Cut Slope
Proposed Grading
®� Landform Grading
Retaining Wall
Figure 3: Some proposed cut slopes have a 1.5 .1 slope ratio, including side slopes between
building pads. Proposed grading is not landform graded and should be rounded to resemble
natural hillsides. Retaining walls will be used throughout the project.
City of Arcadia: Highland Oaks Specific Plan Review
Drainage: The plan indicates that the canyon in Parcel Five will be filled, resulting in
a manufactured slope that will be outfitted with drainage ditches and
down drains to channel runoff water. The outlet to these drains is located
at the base of the canyon, about 10 feet away from the property line.
This outlet point, however, channels the runoff directly into the rear yard
of an existing home at 2085 Vista Avenue, which already has a problem
with runoff and silt accumulation. (See Figure 4)
The Highland Oaks Specific Plan does not address the impacts of this
design. In reality, the existing rear yard will receive water and silt in the
rainy season. Currently, there is a thick layer of silt covering a large
portion of the rear yard. (See Figures 4 and 6)
The homeowner has had to place sand bags to divert water and silt away
from portions of the rear yard. In addition, the proposed concrete
drainage ditches will increase the flow velocity of the runoff in
comparison to the existing permeable soil.
The Highland Oaks Specific Plan, as it is designed, will place burden on
the existing lot and the homeowner. In addition, water quality has not
been addressed here or at any other location. There is no indication that
storm runoff will be retained for purposes of water quality. It can be
deduced from the tract map that storm runoff will be channeled into
Canyon Road, existing infrastructure adjacent to Canyon Road, and the
rear yard of residential lot 2085 Vista Avenue. (See Figure 5)
City of Arcadia: Highland Oaks Specific Plan Review
Figure 4: The rear yard of 2085141sta Avenue has accumulated a thick layer of
silt that was washed down from the existing canyon in Parcel Five. The shed to
the right of the light pole is half buried in silt.
Locadono 1085 Vista Avenue, Arcadia, CA
C
Q
O
1
V
City of Arcadia: Highland Oaks Specific Plan Review
Figure 6;
The tire swing has been
buried in slit that has
washed down the
canyon in the proposed
Parcel Five.
The chain link fence,
with barbed wire on top,
is ilkewise buried in silt
and can no longer be
closed.
Location:
2085 KstaAvenue,
Arcadia, CA
In the Specific Plan document, Section 4.0: Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan refers to Figure 8 in that document, an 11x17 copy of the
original Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. In order to perform a
thorough analysis of this plan and read the notes provided on the plan, a
full size copy is required.
The redline strike -out version of the Specific Plan document states that
"No long -term erosion potential has been identified within the Final EIR"
(Section 3.0, Page 3 -5). Based on site visits, there should be concern
about long -term erosion.
Oak Trees: The Specific Plan indicates that an existing oak tree will be preserved and
the entry road is aligned right next to the tree. The street curb is shown
10 feet away from the "protected" oak tree's identified trunk. It should be
noted that the map does not indicate the tree trunk's diameter and
therefore it is possible that the curb is closer than 10 feet. The grading
plan shows that there is no grading setback from the tree trunk or the
tree drip line, which is the typical practice to preserve trees for the
purpose of ensuring the trees' survival. The Specific Plan document does
not adequately address how the tree will be preserved. The tentative
City of Arcadia: Highland Oaks Specific Plan Review 10
tract map shows the road aligned within the oak tree's drip line. (See
Figure /�
The Specific Plan indicates that an oak tree will be protected and
integrated into the development project. This particular oak tree is
significantly larger than the other existing vegetation on the project site,
having a majestic presence along Canyon Road. Upon visiting the site and
placing the proposed grading improvements within its context, the
project's assertion that the tree will be protected is questionable.
In addition, the road elevation at this location requires cutting the
surrounding existing hill form about 20 feet, which can severely impact
the tree's root system. This type of oak tree is sensitive to change in
grade and soil compaction, minor changes in these conditions may cause
the tree to die. (See Figure 6)
Figure 7: Pavement within the protected tree's dripline.
City of Arcadia: Highland Oaks Specific Plan Review 11
/ \
/FY
� f
,
,
-
;'
Figure 7: Pavement within the protected tree's dripline.
City of Arcadia: Highland Oaks Specific Plan Review 11
0
O
ao
,Ot
City of Arcadia: Highland Oaks Specific Plan Review 12
Within the boundaries of the subdivided parcels, there are 84 existing
trees. Only 23 of these trees are not destroyed by grading. It should be
noted that the tract map does not identify the species of the existing
trees or the size of these trees. In addition, the Specific Plan does not
adequately ensure the remaining trees' survival.
As a general concern, the Highland Oaks Homeowners Association
Resolution No. 5289, Section 3.6 states that certain trees with diameters
larger than six inches cannot be cut down unless written permission is
given by a committee. Permission criteria require showing that the tree is
a nuisance. The Specific Plan does not address this permission
requirement.
The redline strike -out version of the Specific Plan document indicates that
impacted oak trees will be mitigated. However, the document does not
elaborate on a mitigation plan.
City of Arcadia: Highland Oaks Specific Plan Review 13
and
become part of the project. The tree is located on a steep hillside
and grading activity may impact the tree's root system.
Location; Highland Oaks Specific Plan project site. Arcadia, CA
Structures: Recently, the City has been concerned with mansionization. According to
Tentative Tract Map analysis, the pad in Parcel One is 10,116 square feet.
The proposed structure for Parcel One is 6,331 square feet, resulting in a
0.63 floor -area ratio. The Parcel Two pad is 9,234 square feet and the
proposed structure is 6,294 square feet, resulting in a 0.68 floor -area
ratio.
The Specific Plan indicates that the proposed structures have a floor -area
ratio of about 0.65 in relation to building pad, which is fairly consistent
City of Arcadia: Highland Oaks Specific Plan Review 14
with the review analyses conducted. In any case, a 0.65 floor -area ratio
means that most of the flat pad will be covered by the structure.
These structures will be easily visible from offsite view points because
they are two -story structures and will sit atop steep hillside slopes. In
addition, every parcel except Parcel 6 will have retaining walls at the back
of pads. These walls will typically be five to six feet tall. The slopes and
retaining walls will act as pedestals and emphasize the presence of the
structures. (See Figure 16)
It should be noted that the side slope between Parcels One and Two
shown on the Tentative Tract Map does not correctly show the location of
the 1040 -feet elevation contour. This elevation contour should be located
where the retaining wall is shown.
A visual analysis should be prepared in order to understand the offsite
impact of these structures and whether they are appropriate in the
hillside setting.
City of Arcadia: Highland Oaks Specific Plan Review 15
M
, q-
0
v
0
0
0
,Os
City of Arcadia: Highland Oaks Specific Plan Review 16
General Issues: In respect to vehicular traffic along Canyon Road, the project entry
location seems to afford adequate distance for unobstructed line of sight.
A positive design feature is the permeable pavement that will be used on
driveways, allowing water to flow through to the soil underneath.
The entire property is in a seismic fault zone.
The Specific Plan states that 59.84 acres of the project site will be
permanent open space. However, there is no additional detail as to how
its permanence as open space will be guaranteed or what uses, if any,
will be permitted on the property.
The project will drastically alter the existing terrain by cutting the hill
form. The cul de sac elevation is about 18 feet lower than existing
topography. In order to grade the building pads, the existing hill form will
typically be lowered around 20 feet; in some locations the grading plan
calls for 40 feet of vertical cut.
The cut dirt will then be used to fill the canyon in Parcel Five. This fill has
no other purpose than to dispose of the dirt caused by cutting the hill
form. It is not used to stabilize a building pad at the top of the slope or
make room for a building pad at the toe of the slope. In addition, the
landscape plan indicates that this fill slope will not be landscaped and
therefore increases the potential for slope instability and erosion.
The second paragraph of 2.0 Introduction: Project Setting and Location
(page 2 -1) states that "The developed /disturbed area of the residential
lots consists of 2.77 acres." It should be noted that, based on analysis of
the tract map, 6.2 acres will be impacted by grading improvements; this
acreage includes pad, cut and fill slopes, and road areas. The Specific
Plan document states that there is 5.94 acres of grading impacts and
does not specify what is included in this acreage.
The Specific Plan document stated that the project was assessed in the
context of CEQA regulations. However, the document did not reveal the
declaration of the environmental review.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The project entry should be redesigned to include the proper grade and
transitions required by engineering standards.
- Cut and fill slopes should be graded at a maximum 2:1 slope ratio.
City of Arcadia: Highland Oaks Specific Plan Review 17
- Landform grading techniques should be applied in order to blend
manufactured hillsides with natural slopes.
- Explore alternative road entry opportunities to ensure the survival of the
"protected" oak tree or address mitigation in response to the removal of
the oak tree.
- Conduct more studies regarding project drainage. Explore opportunities
that divert runoff away from the rear yard of 2085 Vista Avenue.
- Increase the structure setback, in relation to the top of slopes, in order to
decrease the visual impact of the structure.
- Visual analysis and modeling should be performed in order to better
understand the project's visual impact.
City of Arcadia: Highland Oaks Specific Plan Review
IN
A
STAFF REPORT
Fire Department
DATE: February 15, 2005
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: David R. Lugo, Fire Chief ome
By: Heather McDowell, Management Analyst
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 6461 Setting Forth Certain Fees Related to the Fire Department
Recommendation: Adopt
SUMMARY
The purpose of this Staff Report is to obtain City Council approval to revise and update an
existing Resolution related to Fire Department Fees, and to establish an all inclusive
Fee Schedule for Fire Prevention services provided to the public and businesses operating within
the City of Arcadia.
Since 1997, 'the City has relied upon Resolution No. 6015, as the Arcadia Fire Department Fee
Schedule. This schedule of fees outlines fees and services the Fire Department may charge
residents and businesses for Fire Department services. Resolution 6015 includes inspections,
permits, and plan checks.
In 2002, the City of Arcadia contracted with Revenue & Cost Specialists, LLC ( "RCS ") to
perform a Cost Allocation Plan and Cost of Services Study. This study determined that the
existing fees being collected by the Fire Department fell below the cost of providing the services.
The report also advised:
The City is diverting a significant amount of current tax monies, or is incurring
future obligations on the use of those taxes, to subsidize services which benefit
only portions of the general tax - paying public.
1 :�s
a
The RCS study proposed that fees be increased to cover the costs of providing services to the
community.
Mayor and City Council
February 15, 2005
Page 2
Utilizing the Cost Allocation Plan and Cost of Services Study prepared by Revenue & Cost
Specialists, LLC, the basis for calculating fees within the City of Arcadia, the Fire Department
determined all services that should be included in the fee schedule and with the assistance of the
Administrative Services Department personnel, staff completed the necessary worksheets, which
validate the proposed fees for services.
The intent of recommending an updated Fee Schedule at this time is to recoup fees for services
and reduce the amount of general fund tax revenue being directed to cover the costs of providing
these services to the community. Incorporating the new fees into the City's revenue funds will
allow the Fire Department to reallocate general fund revenues to other Fire Department
programs. This will result in improved efficiency in the delivery of services (i.e. emergency
medical response, fire response, etc).
The services addressed in this staff report are legitimate services provided to the community,
having costs associated with them. A legal basis exists to charge for these services. The
1997 Resolution does not adequately compensate the City for the costs of providing these
services and the City is subsidizing these services for the community.
City staff, inclusive of the City Manager and Fire Department personnel, have met with members
of the Arcadia Chamber of Commerce and have examined the fee proposal at length. The City
of Arcadia has received the endorsement of the Chamber (see letter attached) to proceed with
implementation of the proposed Fire Department Fee Schedule at this time.
FISCAL IMPACT
The benefit to updating the Fee Schedule at this time is that the City will recoup the cost of
providing many Fire Department services. The entire community is now paying for services that
benefit a select few and tax dollars are now subsidizing the costs associated with these services.
Implementation of Resolution 6461 is anticipated to generate additional revenue for the City and
it will effectively transfer the cost of the services to the actual recipients. Based on annual
permit and inspection volumes, it is estimated that implementation of the revised Fee Schedule
has the potential to generate $200,000 annually.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of Resolution No. 6461 setting forth the Fire Department Fee
Schedule.
Approved: U
William R. Kelly, City Manager
ARCADIA
email: arcadiac @pacbell.net CHAMBER OF COMMERCE www.arcadiachamber.com
388 West Huntington Drive, Arcadia, California 91007
Tel: (626) 447 -2159 • Fax: (626) 445 -0273
February 1, 2005
City of Arcadia
City Manager Bill Kelly
240 W. Huntington Drive
Arcadia, Ca 91007
Dear Bill,
Recently, you and I met with several city and chamber representatives, including Fire
Chief David Lugo, Chamber President Mikki Porretta and President Elect Russ Garside.
At that meeting, we discussed the goals and objectives of the city regarding charges for
services rendered by the Fire Department for specific inspections. We understand that the
inspection charges to these specific kinds of businesses will be for service rendered, and
will not be a blanket charge to all types of business. Companies with more propensity to
flammable situations such as gas stations, paint companies, restaurants and certain
manufacturers who need the more intense inspections, will be charged for these services
to provide the utmost of fire safety. The charges will be mostly in the range of $200 to
$300 twice a, year, which pays only for the service itself.
It is also understood that neighboring communities have levied this charge for fire
inspection services for many years, and that these charges are not "out of line ".
The position of Mikki Porretta, Russ Garside and the Arcadia Chamber of Commerce is
to support these fire inspections and the charges for the service, as long as the charges
and inspections are not burdensome to the companies involved.
X eth re 'Y' e Costanza
Executive Director
RESOLUTION NO. 6461
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING CERTAIN
FEES RELATING TO THE ARCADIA FIRE DEPARTMENT
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA,
DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council finds that based on a certain cost
allocation study performed by the Administrative Services Department of the City
of Arcadia, the fees set forth in this Resolution, are necessary for the purposes set
forth in this Resolution. Said fees do not exceed the estimated costs for providing
the applicable service, and the fees bear a reasonable relationship to the cost of the
applicable service or program involved. Furthermore, the fees bear a fair and
reasonable relationship to the benefit the payer obtains from paying the fees, or the
burden caused, and the fees are not imposed for general revenue purposes, but
instead for partially recovering the cost of providing applicable services. The
proposed fees are intended to cover the costs of the Fire Department services set
forth in the Schedule of Fire Department Fees, attached hereto as Exhibit "A ".
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby adopts the proposed fees set
forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto.
1
SECTION 3. Any provisions in resolutions adopted by the City
Council prior to this Resolution which are inconsistent with this Resolution are
hereby repealed.
SECTION 4. This Resolution shall become effective upon adoption.
SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this
Resolution.
Passed, approved and adopted this day of
, 2005.
Mayor of the City of Arcadia
ATTEST:
City Clerk of the City of Arcadia
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Steven P. Deitsch
City Attorney
2
N
d
O
N
T
m m
9
T
m G
m N
�pT�p T
ID 0
Z' y W
C m�
a a9 ..
n � N
to o 3 3 o
Sd
a O N - no
C.� d
N 0 0
0 0 Q
�D =
D 0
fD - 0 j - n n
m T
mCDCc0
N T
amo p n
N T
c�;
0 O T
T
3
n d N T
fD7 M p n
Xis
O 0 m,
O. O.
J O J o n i
N O
-
p a �;C1
< 7 Ol '
N 0 n
0 �
�.,
N CD M
' C7
N O 0 N 0
0
y d C
y
O N
O
j 0
�' W
t "a'rF
a) z
C
Go .'
CD
.�
CD
O
° o ( D°
mm°:oCD
3 �
oa ao
0m
domy
p
CD J O
0 w
N <D M CD 3'
7 0
D N K
N
0 O OO
3
O O
7 CD
N
O N O. N W N
p��
N
N m CD M
j 0 j 0 O
�
G 5 Tl
npp�7
_
w
mv�D�y
_
p -03
Q. 0.
yro��
X -
1 14
9 J N T
—'0
n 3
CD m
W c
Cr O O
7 a. 0
N
:0
a ° off0'�y
CD 3.M�Cco
m3.d
^`m_m O
mS
O O. 3
N W
N O 7 3 N
�c- p,
D m
O T
a
, fD
N `<< O J S
M. O
7 Qo
'O
b N
fD
j Q0 fn
N
CD
C
7 7
N
O .N..
7 7 O t0
N .
(p y
N ID 11
C
Q 'O
N C
N
7 (0 f0
..
CDi 3'N
N
?F (D (D N
D) O C.
(D C
A
N D] fD d
7
=r N T N
N
7 -^ W O
6 7
3 m n
J N
O 7 N CD
ydµ.
3 7 F 90
d N tU .�1]
'a<occ
D
�d
rG
f0
p Cad
CD _
J d N Q
"
ry
C J 7 9
3
f0
'CD
DI
di
CD
y f0 d
C,
pcc
O
c a6
,F
C c1
i M:
CD
7�
N
n a p
ry 7
N W
t0
p-. N
�"
3 N
N _w o
7 -
a W Dl
C-
fD m
= J J
.+ N Oj
N
y m G
^�
n
N O O7
S, a
"
7 C
N c O. —
O.
a
J D_
y Jf0
3
N
CD
.• N
J
'
O CD Dl
N
O.
0
N
O.
y
j4 Yv
T
T
T
T
T
m
r u
X
55
56
55
55
m
m
m
m
m
m
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
A
W
N
B RA
r u
a
d
N
w
Df
N
d
_�yy f
g'
J_
J
3
7
J
7
ati �x„t
D)
D)
D)
D)
D)
D)
N
N
N
fD
m
m
CC
O
Q.
O
a
O
a
O
a
O
a
O
a_
CD
m
m
m
m
.
"'
sa
O
J-
O
J
O
J
O
J
O
J
O
7
eel "S
1:vY
1 fiX
�
yV4:<
�3es
6'
"m
C
n- w
y S
"N
in
lbe
In
in
N
O
O
N
�u
0
O
(
C,
v
mn
CD
M a
,,
^ .f
W
N
O
r
C
N
W
d o
O
N
T
W
a° m
a
m
y
T T
D P
� 9y
A m Q
CL m +
C N N
a �o
f + N
O •O y n
B 'O N N N n
N O M N n
T
(D d— ID 5—
S n Q
d
- +�•
3 C. n
d O O G C n
(^ 3 C C
C y d C N d
i nsw'
CD 0
m
ymm
mm=m 303
n5
0
a)
n0
CD OO mo gnd,
5.0
m C. N
CD I Cr
m O=
= Cr
Ha � G
G
0
O an
t r:Sj
V
N�a�
T= N
0cm'aav ='
Q= O C
CD N
M j .�
O a ID
���33o0N
7 d
- n
i
rtu�
x 17
N d O'
an d (D
C
_• c n d
cD p n
O.
[n� m �
CL C
CL C7
0 < d
0
o
Q 0
d
CD Q
O C O 1
7 O IUD
'OO O
to
3 T1 S
3 CD m S m d
CD = m .
0 Q�f0 = S 7
j m C
O
O
N
N. O H y
7. w
a m =
W
N N
m
= m m N
O N C
10
0 a
N d
91
0,
...
0
�' 0
CT cc to
X
0 m
y
n
m
CD m
m 'O
a N
m P m W
t0
O
CD 0
.Cy.. O CD
o c� w
0 O
0 _.
nm awe
s�
`3`s
3.m
c
Q 3 0 S.
3
, m °m
na o o
m C
m a
.�,�;
w
�m
3
CDD d
O
�v
m
N
m
0
O' S t0 d
7 f0
3
C
7
m g _
O' S
O
O< N
N
613
CD
p' m
d 9
a
n'h
T_
T_
T_
T_
r'ti j
_T
s 'fi
m
m
m
m
m
O
O
O
O
O
-Tpj
O
O_
O
O
O
O
C)
O
ryJ
O
O
W
-4
= ;ive'.Q
n
n
n
n
n
d
d
d
N
d
$tw$
M
CD
M.
a'a
d
d
d
O'
<
d
wW
14 .;
T
T
T
CD
T
*ek
m
m
CD
m
C ,
0
0
0
o
o"
CL
a
a
a
f
CD
m
m
m
Is "w
t�
n�
Z
Z
Z
Z
2
"�'''
..:.
O
- O
O
O
O
,,, L
_
=
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
A `kF
7 i
mP
Wta
1i
O
k:f
� �Y6
ej
e
N
4n
fn
N
^x
CO
v
v
W
rh
mn
��
W
IV
O
C71
J
Y
C
y
0
N
S ri
W
o m
9 n
m
m m
a ..
T T
Q
7 d m
m m Z
G m �a
C WP
CL O
C + N
N m N T
M
O N O O T
N m N m T
O N O CD
bh 'i
N
SD N a M n
6 N.
M
— 3 n
m
°m a n
� N 7 I
O So-O
CD
y .1 j N. I
CD C�.
$ O. I
3 -n
n y. N N I
;'
!D 'p G
m O O m n
d m
N p d N n
3
N C1
ss3;'?S
h
N
to - 0 m Q
X 0 O d Q
`G , O
0 <
CD O
�: m m O
o x
z
C �m a 3..p
CD m �m
D =--
>
m Q p C)o m
omFOa
°
>
y
o�voA°�
_ m
= =r �m H
0 — to o
Nm�OM
T fn
wx s '
n
S m CD 7
N X N
p
cm
N m p
-ocop y
m CD m m
v.
2) 3 vm
O �' o y
O
N
0 �� =
'O
n � w CL CD
Q C
O N m
7 Co d
H N C
N Co >>
C CD O
C D D7 — N
O O , CD
V
Ck3
N S!
n 0 CD CC C
m C) T C
CD
m O 0
3 3 m
m A
O O . SMN
3•0 Sm
CD 7
C yCp Qp
+?
C
m O O O
C G CD
N
O
3 N N
7 N m N C
C N N n N
- 0
CD C m N
$u
O CD =;, C
m 3 a� -.
C
a N 0
O
O N N a. C
p d O
4 s ,
p 0
�'p3_°
O N
�j =�0.
3 CD
cD3ma3
O 7
wom30
N m 7 N
m N O a CJ
Q CD
(T O 0 3 m
MMW",
CD
CL 0)
.a S
,.
5
3. O S SD
O O
a 6 C. O
{D 0 3 7 O.
N 0 - 0
_
m S
p -m C
m m o . 3
O
CD
� y 7 CD
CD
-0 CL
ma
T
m�N�a o
c
�a
o 'Co
C
CL
S 7 CD
n N
y
mm���
a O (D
O C
!"
:A {x
C
O
0
M O
7 CD
CD
a
p
CO
:-,
55
55
55
55
41w?
m
m
m
m
0
0
0
o
sm''r
A
O
CA
A
CJ
N
g,
d� „_
d
61
CU
d
4 er"'
3
3
3
7
tN
61
61
N
CD
T
T
T
T
N
CD
(7
n
O
O
O
O
Ol
C1
CD
C1
CD
C.
CD
0.
CD
Z
Z
Z
Z
7
7
CD
m
m
m
�
m?d5?
gq
O,
N,{
O"rz
m 3"
e l ,
4�
N
N
s,Y51.
0
O
cn
A
CD
mn
W
!�h
m
WN
O
to
Yl/
N
V,
�Y
ti=
1
M
�i
0
T
0
v m
v
n
T
A
N
�I T
a. c
0 S C
d
m m�
a m
C p N
D + O
n + rn
d3mz
n3mz
°mm
i nn
smm�
oo ^ =o O
l d C N
l O C N
C �C Q
L Ei ' Q
N C. C Q
3 d 0.0 n ° +�
"
,
3 '
3 0
q.
I
�,p CD
CD M '
C L 0. O
a N 6. p
p- p a T
I
N 7
T
7
O. d m
C fD r q F
^�.
3
=� N N'
3- N N
{j
o
d'
N •O
Q N = m N r- e,R
CD CD
CD CD
' fD 3
d
-� T
N
CD
C �, a 0 , <
3x
3n33
�ao3
�o0
7a "o u
L3m�o fl
N
N N N
d
D) N 7 0•
_
n 7r
N N 7<
T Iaa30 y
f D� CD
-0
G�
N W CD
N d
7_
- 0 O
N0 d
y.'O - 0 O
d
CS
cL
d N D
0.
--
y
N
CD
N
6-o ... ?� Q
O
a T O'
-s
m r N T O I'1F" y
�.
A
Q s
�.
7 3
m o 0
7
C p mp
r- 3 0
d
m oo
p N'•.
cL
0.
(p
.. w
y N CD w
N 90 N
= W 7
p �..7.. O. CD W
d
o
N
N S
°1
CD - 00
O §§'
CD N C N CD
CD
-CD
(D m CD ID.
( CD
C CD
C d
C d
�. �
L 3 V1
Qp .7.
7 C .7
N m N
N m
N 7 G
N..� C
x L N
N CQ CD
O
Cp
0
S to
O
N
7 N
p 3c
CD
O
oNC
oNC
m�
;'3
O Co
W
CO
C G
y
CD 3 0 3
O
an d
O �'
y
C'o
S
m
CO.N
O� S
d
-CD
CD CD
m CD
CD
T
T
T
T
T
"C7 c 1
A
Y y
m
m
m
m
m
m r
0
0
0
0
0
o cn;
O
O
O
O_
O
O N
rQ
N
O
CO
CD
7
N
7
O7
7
N
7
d
7
N
7 ¢��•;
d t'3 r}
m
T
T
T
T
T ° n
CD
CD
CD
Q
CD
Q
CD
Q
CD
Q
CD
CD
CD M:r:
�4
SY Srr
6s
W
w
0
7
_ g 4 m
l]
SD
CD
SD
CD �P.
CD
CD
r
tee: -r
CD
m
3
3
w;
�$ *vl
CD ? N
CD S
O t ^>
N C A
N C
=� a
o CD
= p
o CD
w
d
H
d
t?
p ' N CD D
0 CD -3 CD
�O3
. °3
- CD N
'O E
•p N�
S t j
CD C'
^p'n N
CD
N
N
A
k
3
7
O
CYI
O„
0 CD
N
O
C
xy'
cl
CD
3
1hp
m o
M9
C
to
Mi
CD W
IV
0
I
C
y
9
.Z
N
T
m
o m
ID
N m
T T
0 Q
Cn
d �
C m�
c C J
iC—D N �
C N
O
C�9 + N
3 fD fD n
p N. f a CD n 0
Py m d Fr n
m� 3
C. C. n
Co
0 O Q Q
W O n
Cl) W C da;
i m'm
7 p
CD
00.� :�
Cr N
�xc.a
momma
t'''=5
daa �
T DQ O S
O aC S
a.m a0
(D a — N
� CD N
D) O'
M IA
CD
kti
04
CD, C c CD
�Q0�
3a39
-
N C a. OH
-O
0 0 �, M
Ol
A M
m W N
i;Ff t n:
�
a . N D1
O
N V � 3 g- a 0
cL N m
p C
O 0
O n
N
N -O -0 M
N go
r '
O N 61 .0... N - 0 W
» N flj O
T 7,N
d a m.
_x"
> >_fD=
0 -a: =r D O;
- —n
:3
3
3
y
O D a 0
T C to d o 3. O
CD m C
ID
CL,CD CD
D S� N O p N
,I
O Dj O O Q
y3
N A
'n
�3�DCc
a) 25'
yND � dy
CO CD
-.,
mm�.
o:v
n,fia:3
0
Edn
? yam
1$;�`'
<
O 4e m
O O C j- to
n
CD
O
,yam
c
ii1h
V 7
n a N CL
p.�p 3_
N d
N.
CD
0 CD
to I CD 0
CL 0
(0
S CD ^^ O
C. C G
fU
0
a
to
CD
O d y a
a fD Ca
,
(D
CD
O N 0
N
T
T
T
T
i M�y'J�,. 3 ro
m
m
m
mi?
:.
A
A
A
A
O
N
N
N
N
N
Dl
N
O7
'
CD
CD
tea,
0
0
0
a
a
a
o
CL
0,
N
ID
D)
CD
19x>
Z
Z
O
>
O
CD
00
a
N
M;
Cx
CD
&'e.
_$
Z1E.'
W Q,
0 i'N'
ter,
�Al
igck: ^.
N
M N
1
p
Ntf
0 D
c
y " O
M (D
O N
CDq
�
D N�
fA
fA
N
T, n N
r,�.'f;
10
Co
0
7 0 N'"
*t
m n
v
CD
V
ml
''^
w W
W
3
O
Ct1
r
i
a
N
W
O
tD
0 m
In n
m
T
(D <
N m
tD
c
�2
a o?
a �o
O + o
O" (D N vi T
O (D o N T
O T T
C W H-n
d O N -n
3 p ?�`E. C7
o
it °:a n
°' N nt
W
o c.
o N O. n
^'','
In
7 0 =°
c n l
a
3
y N -0.0
0 ccD3:
N 3$
a�CD0)m
3 a r <
(CDr
— r
0 0 3 r
far„
a ^mt° m .°.
m g �?j
v3
=
= CO m O
N-m
3a ETC
y 0 ma C
1 D M
p m (D
N m c a
0 C0 m o
y(D
C L N CD C ' O
3
°° 0 C
O
L
{
p N N
aN
- CD p n a
m
c Jd N?
N a aC 6 ('f
(o a
? 0 3
Go m
N C .n T
0 C L
n9 S (D
?Tv
w
m
o O
m
�_
CID
CC' a T
y
d N =w C
N
+ N
_
- ''n -'
n N CD
N° C
fAS`y
C d ry 0 m
O
N
3 �'n
N 7 a
C p) 3
3
Oef
Z
'a
(p
In
as <
CD
3t°
X
0- a N - n 0
j f�D N
CL 0
0
D7
J N A?
W D) N '9 CD N
N45s;
W -p SOD N 7
CZ CD
N .3 O C
-p 7
fD CD
m 0 C7 (D
0 0 0. 0 N
... nN
O_ J p p
M 3 !fl
Nd
J. C
ry ..O N
3 0 0....
O
Oc
3 �o�y
0) to
wa
- o� °
N t0 7 N
>3 10c
>
ID (D
.
0 3
y w
N 3 3 3 o
CD N.0
m 5.
y d
0
m
N T y N o
0 3 0
0 IN
m m
fD
arc
p C
0 M
°
-0
O 6 7
p
.
p N
O 0)
_
N a C
N a
d
J
N
°) ° d (D
N
J 0.
-)
T_
T_
T_
T_
;c;•
m
m
m
m
O
O
O
O
O
T
O
O
O
O
O
O
t0
OD
V
O
�'?''i'•
V
„6
J
ci
3
of
J
of
J
v
7
FD
�, 5:.•�
CID
M
CID
0
M,
0
cl
0
CL
0
CL
O
CL
O
06
O'o-}
fD
N
(D
N
tD
wa
A
»sH.:
O
O
O
O
O
CID
CD
CD
CD
CD
n °g
mYk
Tz`=:
s
u3
S +,�a
gifts
„r
O
�r
a�=
T ):
tD;?6
a=
in
EA
fA
EA
EA
�r rl
O
O .
O
t
(
MI S
v
3
rF
mn
CD
CD
M U
MIS
O
^ c
O
l /r
C
N
0
N_
T'
W
9 0
.� n
W
W 0
N
T T
� Q
_ -0
m m
CL CD S
m
a �o
O � O
O n
m°
ZS'O 9: nn
CD X30
g�00
O.N w Tn
a?.'
a o T
cmccC)
n O m CD m n.
(D CD T
n
m 1v T
�a -. f7
m 0 N O T
3 3 p� 0
vv`f
�=. C'p N 1
vmimOa
_CD 7 i
Naa I
O I
z 0 O a O
CD °' °' -
m d m 3
3 c c �.
CD =. p
w Z c o o. p
�fDOMm�
kz .
t
anw
TOam�
Z3 CD CD m
0 m�o2?a
m
maoo
mM
m�?.M
- D
M
c C �
m
EP
Zr 0
,{
�
N I
m 0
>>
3
0 CD 61 —1
CD N m O 0 p. <
= 0
0 0 Oa 0
N C 0. ¢0 7
i
cm N — T 7
O N O S m m
N 3-
O m m y
c 7
0 7 —
L'^
wOOCD
m00)
M'mm
m ove
3EF Dc
2 sY
[1 7
7 O a. .
. �l �•
.y
O
Tii'O� m O
° -ooc
�
m
o
�
limo N
� :,
CL
� �cD
3 CD a= ae°—'
01
o nm
� � ao
'�°-m m � �
7 (O
Z�
W
( 3 , m T CD
C O Q-0
.� Q
. -O G
N N .� (O
t
CD m
N 3
m
.� 3 3 7 0 N
.<CD
O T N
7 3m
N O to
N O Q
C - a c m CD
3
k "' i
N y
-0 O m c
CD T,�
C
m s 1
CD CD I
Vol
N
0 ga c c
g
O N
d f - MCC S
= S?e
0
f$ C0 N
& n O m
r'Y�
000g
0 0
°-'gym
° - m oCD
m.3
Now
conic.
mN
N �3 f D
`G 7
3�0
= O a C.
CD O C
a3�m
m O m D'
G O c a �..
aa
N
00 mS.m
0 5 .3
0
3
CD CL
m
to a
co
a
c0
55
57
57
�5
�1
a a :z
m
m
m
m
m,
A
A
A
A
A
Wg
R,e
0
0
0
w
0
'# .
CA)
w
w
w
�T
qy
i
%kF4sti
m
m
m
m
9L
O
O
O
O
O
r y.6
of
m
of
ni
may
T
T
T
T
T
C
tD
CD
N
N
m
$'
O
O
O
O
=" K,
O
0%
CL
- a
a
a
a
CD
m
m
m
CD
,
rr H
v:
I� v
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
>
m
>
m
D
m
D
m
7
m
�
",,.
ry4
,TgP,
r
=tk.
0
rn� .
5x Yi
W
EA
H3
EA
to
EA
0
O
O
(b
CD
z 1 "'
m n
mp
v
CD
O
V
1.
a
M
Q
N
T
W
m° m
W W
y
!D W
fD P
Vm
C m Z
G {D �
C O
n J N
y0
0= 0 0
m
y 7? 1 0
p 03 CD C N Q
D7'00 C)07
4 N.
TO I�q.
y
7
— a 0
a m T
y O 3 C O C m
O m a C7
CD (7
0"�'
0 0 I
y 3
n 0 1
CD 0' I
3
mad 0 I
y 7
�%•
n C -) l
d
m�
C
O d G
N `N i
a 7 O N
� 0 � CD N 'd
� N M " N §i
0
N 0
0..0.. T O
7 6
ID
7 0 CD y
m C m 7
�
0'06 S
3• . 0 T 's
O- � �,
•0 c
� N d ��v
N
p
m 0 N
X C w
0 �p
3 2 m m a y
p'
7 N. 7 CD 3
"+ '� y
Q - 01
n 0 0 0
N CD N
m . d CD C ' 3
C
O '( 7 0 0 0 m
�N�rr'
p a y �;
0 7
m y O. Q
0 m Qo Q
m O C A •Q
m a 0
3 go N
C a
yQ
y O m C.
y 7 a m
y 7 fD 7
O m C m .0
3 37AQmmW
3 a IQ N i
om��. OpCD
m y
m v
000mC)�
C)l< —m
17 3 0�
Nm
o
3Q
CL
OZZ
?
° 0�'y
cm3�'
mm
vm���3.c
2
O'm
7
0 y Qo..0
a
O 0 (O
0 w (0
y x S_
O go y
0.
fD -7 7 2
°
T
(O m O
O' O S CD
N� N N T D
y 7 C..-0
a m aO
O m y m O
0) 1 {
S S
fD
M m p S
0 a m m
y (OD 0 W C
a 0 a 0 O
m m
(D
�
0 w oo
m��3.mmDm
5
mm
~ 7 m
0 0 °i a Co
m
�.0 *�
N
C
- a
nn
Mm
W O
and m mn
. (�t�
(D
m
aQ KA
n
�:
M . a
mom
� � 3 � ..
0m0m
CD
o ao
m o m
m —CL
m� ° m a CD
am t..
. m
C d
3 5
-,
7
CD x -' ID
x m m Qo
0 'O d
o 'c
5
E x"
o
a
o
0.
_
m
0 CD ,�
O' y (O
,`
0.
SiY ��"•
7 `
N
- 0
0
m s^
T
T
T
T
T
T
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m �#
A
A
W
W
W
W%Y
C)
C)
i
o
m
m
m
m
m r
CD
7
' 0
0
ni
5i
ci
d
m
0
T
T
T
T
T
CD
CD
i3
C)
w.f
0
0
0
0
0
n "
a
CD
a
m
a
m
Q. o
m
"
CD
0
0
o
v
o
O
CD
m
m
m
m
CB
N
t[i�v
n�nwi
O�?dY
3p *E
Q
9
,,nz
0)
O
Q
O
Ny
a
a
x
CD
1
m
S
69
69
S
fA
ffl w"
C
O
O
m n
v
CD
CD
I�h
CD
0
M U
ml
�
^ cc
V
r�
.y
C
y
m
v
0
0
W S
� ID
T .2
W <
� m
T T
Q
7 d D
m
cap
G 0
O N
n +N
0 d
o 3
m-
K
0�
-.
.
..
d
i N
c 1D
3
5g'v
0 3
<
m m
o a
CD
a
n
;.
CL a
o
a9
3 <
r
CD 2
i
F
o o
CD
9
0 .Oi
3
0
3
5. n
3
3 3
3
17 0
0
0
t.
d 7
�• 7
d<
3 �
O •O
m
N
Q
o
n
<
C
m
i CA
z
y
N
N
�
m
0•
c
y n
CD
a
c
o c
0
9 a
W „ps
O �p
N
w
p
cr
M �
N
O T
O
3
N
y N
m
�r?f
2
a (a
CD
CD
O
y
C
Y,rmj
N
,<
o
,w
S'n 0 ,1 Fi.;.
X
m
m
m
m
?v,
CD
A
A
A
A
A
3R'r
Oo
V
0)
W
N
0
n
n
n
tc,.
N
N
N
N
0
O
(D
f�D
C
p N
O
O
O
O'0'
<
T
<
<
<
m
fD
m
m
CD
0
T.
0.
�'
CD
..
I T
;yyYa E-'.lj.'n'
r
D
o
0
0
0
j`S
n
>
>
o
m
m
m
CD
O W”
l<
�{
X
CD
fry.
t•.
r
mlgr
at
O
m-s;
c
Oo
W
01
z.•:v.
CD
CD
CD
w
60
O
O
O
CD
N
co
C
i
i
=`
m n
v
CD
rf mn
CD
CD
o u
Mi
O
to
O
ul
Y
y
R
9
O
N
T
A
W
9
ti
� 0
T T
C
n d d
C m�
c r
C p Ot
G O N
0
n r �
m n
CD
3
M.
wn
C D
m
V
�� O /�
(a
3
Q /�
CD
V■
7 ^_
y M CT
0
CD
°
C, Q >
>
3
Z, fD °
d
m
9
9
L
N N N O
W
�sCf 4
CD O
N<
D
0
N
O
co N
p
F
CL
°
CD N
a
'.. r
N 3
to
to
N
p
o
a
CD
q
L
CY 7 d
T
m
fD
S co
CD N O N
Q
,,.t ,
C
d y
N
(O
CD— O
fA
t i
(<p
>..
d
v
m
m
a o ::p
O — CD
9
N
a
o
y..
n
Dp
;�
O
M
1 C
<
CD
tv
= a
a
ol<
a
o
Nd ° p
3
y
A
O
n
co
a rS
° COQ
+.o•a
CD
x
f
d
m
y
W
o
m
�o
q
Yf
me
CD
.
D
W
CD
_S
3
c
c
p
fT
C
H X
'O -O CD
:3
,,.
O
CD
CD
a
'SI
A
m
m
m
m
m
0
0
0
0
0
o
Fate
O
O
O
O
( 0
W
N
r
p'
�
,S r,
A
^A
n
n
n
n
C7
N
�" }•.
N CO/0
N
N
N
CP
CD
fD
'�
0
fD
CD
O
O
O
O
O
71}
N
`2
N
`G
N
`G
N
`G
N
`Z
C ,,
wal•
O:r
�!M
7i
FA4'
l� c,
Z
Z
2
fA
Z
(f1
fA C1 fA 4A
fA
>
>
7
O
j
N
O 3 r 0
0
CD
CD
CD
O
CD
tT
< 3
O 7 ID
C
Cn�ii
r,
3 C=D
d
W v
N
< CD j 3
CD a " CD
mat
N CD
CD
Wad;
CD .�..
,mv,,'y,:'.
i ;�
CD
N
O N
69
O
yi;a
CD T
40�
toil N
-n
O
O
o d
S
G9 S d
N O
n
'cp
N
y `G 0
CCD
0.
O
0
A
p
j
_
C
N
Q d O
(7 d
p
N
N
O O
< CCD !E
CD
,
CD CD Vl
S
CD
(?
N
o CD
M
=-D 4!
CD
CD
W C CD 7
O
W
G N CD
7
N
W N 3 N
F y
CT a CD N
i
N
N
Cb
7 .0.. CD
d
0
C a
CD
O .. O •. CD
CD
m n
CD
3
M.
wn
C D
m
V
�� O /�
(a
3
Q /�
CD
V■
7 ^_
C
T
0
w
_T
9
A
ry
0
A
CD
CD
C_
W
o.
0
0
4
7
W
A
O'
d W
J J
J 611
O N
�o
J N
v
^ D
CD
W
rF
CV
CD
on
,,^
tL
w �
W
3
O
V
r
9
D
o CA 0
_1 a o m 0
=_ 3 n
n N n
0 0
0 '
O O O ' =
s
C) m A
W� c c
W
A W
m
?
'd=
CL
W ��
3
»
N �cn
go W
m»
a
W
= C1D
0 3
xa
C
TIm=
7 W
aJ
`G N
W
p CD
O.J
0 y
CD O !t
: x12,
O
�
O O P
W
�p
N Cp
-0 J
I j CD w
J
cp
CD CD Cp
W
z ,.
_
O a
y c
N
N
p. _
0 A
Ml
O
3 W �' D
C
[W1 W
D
0
Cr
w
U2
(D
CD
N
CD
w
y
o0i O. 0
O� d
tl1
[D Q O
a'
S W W
W
0 7
0 f9 7 C
N
O..
W y
W
7
W
O
0 0 d
O -0
O O
CD
O
7
C O
n 3 15
61
O
j3 T.
CD
CD
W
n �.
CD
N N O
S
go a
23p*
i C 0
6 W
c p
3
N � W CD
C W
W W
O CD
�.
r
C
. 0) y' o
>>
O CD
W 6
3
O 01
C
6.0
C a N
C W
7
W N
(7 N
C)
Cn
C
fU w
f) p
d
nr
N
O CD
�1 N
:3
.
C C
0
O
7J d
CD
^ W.
W 3
0)
N
CD
°
Vpq,
5
T_
T_
T_
T_
T
T_
T_
T
fyfx.
Z1
Zil
.'a
17
x
�5
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
T}
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
O
m
0
W
N
0
O
C
CO
0
OD
C
-4
C J1
01
0
0
0
n
(7
CA
Cn
(n
Co
N
0
N
W
W
W
3
3
3
0
0
T
MWIN
r:
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
Dt
�
<
CD
CD
m
m
c
V ,�,
"'`'
CL
a
a
a
o
W
W
N
fD
n
CD
w i
J
O
CO
CO
O
Iti: 'tA
3 a,
k y+;Yi
Z
0 co o (n
Z
Z
Z
Z
2
Z
O
W
O
0
O
O
O
0�
m
W W W W
CD
CD
CD
O
CD
CD
w +.
W
0 W F m
CD
W
CD
W
W
W
�
to 0 0
i
c
o+
2 O m co
(1' L
N
j
CD j
C
, CD
O `
µ
C
w
En
a.=..
CD
CD
.OA
A
TS' a
C D
CD
6s
CD
s s
0
M
O
CD
0
W
O
p
4 +;t
A
i C�0
x
0
7
N
co
v
^ D
CD
W
rF
CV
CD
on
,,^
tL
w �
W
3
O
V
r
STAFF REPORT
Fire Department
DATE: February 15, 2005
TO: Mayor and City Council /f y�
FROM: David R. Lugo, Jr., Fire Chief,(.G71 f�
By: David Haney, Battalion Chief
SUBJECT: Report and Recommendation to Waive Normal Purchasing Procedures and
Appropriate $958,475 from the Equipment Acquisition Fund for the "Emergency"
Purchase of Two (2) Triple Combination Fire Pumpers for the Fire Department.
Recommendation: Approve
SUMMARY
The City of Arcadia must replace two (2) front -line pumpers for Fire Department operations.
Funding for this apparatus purchase was neither anticipated nor provided for in the 2004 -2005
Equipment Acquisition Fund. However, it has become necessary to make this purchase due to
the sale of two front -line pumpers by the City.
The Fire Department requests Council approval for the appropriation of $958,475 from the
Equipment Acquisition Fund for the emergency purchase of two (2) triple combination fire
pumpers from Pierce Manufacturing and approval of waiving normal purchasing procedures.
Due to the recent release of two (2) front -line Fire Department pumpers for sales purposes, it is
necessary for the City to purchase two new pumpers. Staff has researched various purchase
options, including the prospect of a "piggy- back" purchase to expedite delivery of the pumpers
to the City. Careful consideration has been given to compliance with the City's purchasing
requirements. Due to the urgency and necessity to continue to provide timely public safety
response to the citizens of Arcadia, it has become necessary to request Council approval to move
forward with an "emergency" purchase for two Pierce triple, combination pumpers. Staff makes
this recommendation in the best interest of the City of Arcadia with an emphasis on optimal
utilization of public funds.
1
Mayor and City Council
February 15, 2005
Page 2
South Coast Fire Equipment Inc., the local Pierce Manufacturing dealer, currently offers a
seven (7) year option for purchasing additional vehicles at a price fixed on the cost for the first
pumper. When the first pumper is purchased by an organization, that organization has the option
to purchase additional pumpers at the original purchase price with the addition of a set Consumer
Price Index. The seven (7) year option will reduce City personnel hours on future pumper
purchases by eliminating the need for the extensive pre - construction meetings for the additional
pumpers. Eliminating the pre - construction inspection meetings will save the City approximately
$17,000 for each additional purchase and $3,000 to $4,500 in vehicle costs. This option will
allow the City to establish reasonable estimates of cost for additional apparatus over the next
seven (7) years to assist with budget forecasting.
Presently, the Arcadia Fire Department operates triple combination pumpers manufactured by
Mack or Pierce Manufacturing. The Fire Department's original fleet of triple combination
pumpers consisted of five (5) Mack pumpers. In the late 1990's, Mack discontinued
manufacturing fire apparatus and at that time the Fire Department purchased two Pierce
pumpers, one in, 1991 and the second in 1994. The Fire Department's two (2) Pierce pumpers
have served the City extremely well. Pierce Manufacturing has consistently maintained the
highest level of reliability, safety, customer service and warranty repair of our Pierce pumpers.
In preparation for the purchase of the two pumpers, an experienced Apparatus Committee was
established to evaluate three of the fire apparatus industry's top manufacturers, which included
American LaFrance Fire Apparatus,'Pierce Manufacturing, and Seagrave Fire Apparatus.
The committee evaluated each manufacturer's products for their quality and serviceability.
Pierce Manufacturing was determined to produce the best combination of quality,
standardization with existing department pumpers, and safety. Pierce Manufacturing was the
number one pick by all members for safety; reliability, and familiarity.
According to the City of Arcadia Vehicle Replacement Plan, within the next seven (7) years all
of the Fire Department's current triple combination pumpers will require replacement. By
selecting Pierce Manufacturing, all pumpers would have the same manufacturer and would be
built to the same specifications, which would support safety, training, repair, maintenance,
standardized construction, product support, and customer service.
Pierce Manufacturing offers several exclusive options that are specific to their products and are
proven in the field. Pierce Manufacturing offers an airbag and passenger restraint system, called
a side roll protection system. They are the only manufacturer who provides a passenger restraint
system on a fire truck. The system provides for the safety of fire personnel in the event the
,. f ,,.,
Mayor and City Council
February 15, 2005
Page 3
vehicle is involved in a roll over accident. Research shows approximately thirty-seven (37)
Firefighter deaths (approximately 35 %) in 2003 were the result of vehicle accidents,
twenty -four (24) as the result of vehicle rollovers.
The second option exclusive to the Pierce system is that the front axle has independent front
suspension. Pierce's front axle was adapted from military specifications by Pierce's parent
company, Oshkosh. This front suspension modification offers safety to firefighters and citizens
due to the increased size of the brakes attached to the axle. The braking surface is doubled,
which dramatically reduces the stopping distance of the vehicle, decreases the maintenance costs
of the braking systems on the front axle due to longer wear of brake pads and increases brake life,
by 300 %. Pierce manufactures this axle at their facility so warranty issues are under the sole
responsibility of one manufacturer.
Training and repair costs will also be reduced because Fire Department personnel are trained on
the use and operation of the Pierce Manufacturing trucks, reducing the need for extensive
training on a different manufacturer's pumper. The City's Public Works Department mechanics
are trained to repair common maintenance issues on the Pierce trucks.
The City Attorney has advised that pursuant to Arcadia Municipal Code Section 2846.1(a), and
upon approval of the City Manager, purchases of more than $30,000 may be made on an
emergency basis. The Municipal Code defines "emergency" as a condition which makes
competitive bidding impractical or not in the best interest of the City. The urgent need to
commence the purchase and the unavoidable lenghty delivery process, including the manufacture
of the pumpers, requires that the City proceed quickly without competitive bidding. The need
for particular pumpers which meet the City's specifications and requirements as described above
also supports the waiver of competitive bidding for this purchase. Finally, the City Attorney has
advised that the City Council may at any time waive normal competitive bidding requirements
for equipment purchases pursuant to Arcadia Municipal Code Section 2846.3.
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize staff to make an "emergency" purchase of two
(2) triple combination pumpers from the Equipment Acquisition Fund from Pierce
Manufacturing in the amount of $958,475.
Mayor and City Council
February 15, 2005
Page 4
FISCAL IMPACT
Because of the immediate need to replace the pumpers the City of Arcadia has taken out of
service, it is absolutely necessary to proceed at this time. The sale of the pumpers will net the
City a minimum of $450,000; therefore the actual charge to the Equipment Acquisition Fund is
$508,475. This cost includes the cost of two (2) pumpers, radio installation, and personnel
expenses for pre - construction planning meetings and vehicle inspections.
In the absence of the two currently owned pumpers, the Fire Department is now leasing a
pumper from American La France at a cost of $100 per day. Opening this purchase for bid
would add up to three months, to the purchase process.
Should payment, agreements be made, Pierce Manufacturing offers reductions toward the
purchase price. -For example, for pre- payment of the vehicle chassis, Pierce will offset the final
price on the purchase by $17,000.
It is recommended that the City Council waive normal purchasing procedures and authorize the
appropriation of $958,475 from the Equipment Acquisition Fund for the "Emergency" purchase
of two (2) triple combination fire pumpers from Pierce Manufacturing.;
lr-" '"A
William R. Kelly
City Manager
STAFF REPORT
Office of the City Clerk
DATE: February 15, 2005
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Vida P. Tolman, Chief Deputy City Clerk/Records Manager
SUBJECT: ANNUAL WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM, 2004 -2005
The Los Angeles County Agricultural Commissioner has submitted the attached 2004 -2005
annual declaration list of private properties within the City of Arcadia which have been
inspected by the County, and found to contain a growth of flammable weeds; brush and /or
rubbish. Said weeds have attained such growth as to become, when dried a fire menace to
adjacent property and must be abated by the property owner or the County, if the owner does
not bring the property into compliance upon notice of the conditions of the property.
The attached Resolution No. 6458, declares that hazardous conditions upon or in front of
certain private property are a public nuisance. Said resolution also schedules a public hearing
for March 1, 2005 at 7:00 p.m., as the date and time for the City Council to hear protests, if
any, from the affected property owners to the abatement of their property.
Upon adoption of the resolution the County Agricultural Commissioner will mail notices to the
affected property owners. An affidavit of mailing will be returned to the City by the County
when mailing of the notice, as provided by law, has been completed.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 6458, entitled: "A Resolution of
the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, declaring that weeds, brush, rubbish, refuse,
and dirt upon or in front of specified property in the city are a seasonal and recurrent public
nuisance, and declaring its intention to provide for the abatement thereof." (Public Hearing
March 1, 2005).
Approved:
William Kelly, City Manager
2004 -2005 Declaration List
ATTACHMENT T
1725 S. Baldwin
John M Laraway & Tsu -Ling
Santa Anita Cyn Rd.
William Martin
Santa Anita Cyn Rd.
William Martin
Highland Vista Dr.
Virginia Brown Trust
Highland Oaks Dr.
Helen Vida Trust
Monterey Pines Dr.
J Jaska & B Kilbourne
Torrey Pines Dr.
Shan Ting & Huei H
Torrey Pines Dr.
Zheng Bao H & Mel L
Whispering Pines Dr.
Charles Bluth Trust
380 Torrey Pines Dr.
Yaway Enterprises
Torrey Pines Dr.
Charles Bluth Trust
Torrey Pines Dr.
Charles Bluth Trust
Torrey Pines Dr.
Charles Bluth Trust
1 st Avenue
Jack Boone
153 E Santa Clara St.
Josef & Inge Koeper
Santa Clara St.
Elsworth Dahlgren Trust
1045 W. Huntington Dr.
PBR Realty LLC
310 S 1st Avenue
Romolo De Paolis
S 1 st Avenue
Romolo De Paolis
58 Genoa St.
Andy Kuo
3 E Duarte Rd.
Raymond & Helen Myers
201 E. Duarte Rd.
Mellon Investment & Development LLC
R & H Trail
Polyco LLC
R & H Trail
Polyco LLC
8th Avenue
No Records Found
LeRoy Avenue
George Kolovos Trust
Norman Avenue
Louis E. Nassaney
Live Oaks Avenue
Kevin W. Chung
Clark St.
Livingston Graham Inc.
Clark St.
Livingston Graham Inca
Clark St.
Livingston Graham Inc.
Clark St.
Livingston Graham Inc.
Goldring Rd.
Consolidated Rock Products Co.
Goldring Rd.
Paul Garrett Co. Trust
Goldring Rd.
Paul Garrett Co. Trust
Goldring Rd.
Samuel Kardashian
Goldring Rd.
Samuel Kardashian
Goldring Rd.
Wang Association
S 1 st Avenue
Romolo De Paolis
E Duarte Rd.
Mitzie Hartzlere Trust
E Duarte Rd.
Mitzie Hartzlere Trust
E Duarte Rd.
Mitzie Hartzlere Trust
E Duarte Rd.
Mitzie Hartzlere Trust
Alice St.
Arcadia Presbyterian Church
S 8th Avenue
Polyco LLC
S 8th Avenue
No Records Found
4th Avenue
WJ Homes LLC
Page 1
RESOLUTION NO. 6458
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING THAT WEEDS,
BRUSH, RUBBISH, REFUSE, AND DIRST UPON OR IN
FRONT OF SPECIFIED PROPERTY IN THE CITY ARE A
SEASONAL AND RECURRENT PUBLIC NUISANCE, AND
DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO PROVIDE FOR THE
ABATEMENT THEREOF (PUBLIC HEARING MARCH 1,
2005)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA,
DOES HEREBY, FIND AND DETERMINE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That pursuant to the provisions of Title 4, Division 3,
Part 2, Chapter 13, Article 2, of the California Government Code, Sections 39560
to 39588, inclusive, and evidence received by it, the City Council of the City of
Arcadia specifically finds:
SECTION 2. That the weeds growing upon the streets, sidewalks, or
provide property are weeds which bear seeds of a wingy or downy nature or attain
such large growth as to become, when dry, a fire menace to adjacent improved
property, or which are otherwise noxious or dangerous.
SECTION 3. That the presence of dry grass, stubble, or other
flammable materials are conditions which endanger the public safety by creating a
fire hazard.
SECTION 4. That by reason of the foregoing fact, the weeds or dry
grass, stubble, refuse or other flammable material growing or existing upon the
1
private property hereinafter described, and upon the streets and sidewalks in front
of said property constitute a seasonal and recurrent public nuisance and should be
abated as such.
SECTION 5. That the private property, together with the streets and
sidewalks in front of the same herein referred to, is more particularly described as
follows, to -wit: That certain property described in Appendix "A" attached hereto
and by this reference made a part hereof as though set forth in full at this point.
SECTION 6. That pursuant to the findings of fact, by this Council
heretofore made, that the weeds or dry grass, stubble, refuse or other flammable
material in and upon and in front of the real property hereinbefore described
constitute and are hereby declared to be a seasonal land recurrent public nuisance
which should be abated. The Agricultural Commissioner /Director of Weights and
Measures, County of Los Angeles, is hereby designated the person to give notice to
destroy said weeds or dry grass, stubble, refuse, or other flammable material and
shall cause notices to be given to each property owner by United States Mail and
said notice shall be substantially in the following form to -wit.
SECTION 7. That the Agricultural Commissioner is hereby authorized
and directed to recover its costs of inspection of the properties hereinabove
described in a manner consistent with prior action of the Board adopting a fee
schedule for such inspection. The recovery of these costs is vital to the ongoing
2
operation governing the identification and abatement of those properties that
constitute a seasonal and recurrent public nuisance and endanger the public safety.
SECTION 8. Property owners are advised that regrowth after first
removal should not be permitted; otherwise City crews may clear regrowth.
SECTION 9. That Tuesday, the I" day of March 2005 at the hour of
7:00 p.m. of said day and hour at the City Council Chambers of the City of Arcadia
at City is fixed by this City Council as the place, when and where any and all
property owners having any objections to the aforesaid proposed removal of weeds
or dry grass, stubble, refuse, or other flammable material may appear before the
City Council and show cause why said weeds or dry grass, stubble, refuse or other
flammable material should not be removed in accordance with this Resolution, and
said objections will then and there be heard and given due consideration.
SECTION 10. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this
Resolution and the notices to destroy weeds or dry grass, stubble, refuse or other
flammable material hereinbefore referred to shall be mailed by said Agricultural
Commissioner/Director of Weights and Measures at least ten (10) days prior to
March 1, 2005.
F
Passed, approved and adopted this day of
, 2005.
Mayor of the City of Arcadia
ATTTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney;
91
� r1
Robert G. Atkins
Interim Agricultural Commissioner/
Director of Weights and Measures
October 26, 2004
COUNTY OF LOSANGELES
Department of
Agricultural Commissioner/
Weights and Measures
72300 Lower Azusa Road
Arcadia, California 91006-5872
hap ✓ /acwrn.codaacaus
The Honorable City Council
City of Arcadia
240 W. Huntington Dr.
Arcadia, CA 91007
ATTENTION: CITY CLERK
RECEIVED
NOV 12004
CITY OF ARCADIA
CITY CLERK
Listed below are the proposed dates for the adoption of our annual
Declaration List Resolution and for the Protest Hearing. The
Adoption Hearing and mailing dates will appear on the Declaration
Cards mailed to the property owners.
Resolution and Declaration List Delivery Date: January 18, 2005
Resolution Adoption Date: February 15, 2005
Protest Hearing Date: March 1, 2005
If you find these dates to be agreeable with your council and
calendar, please sign and fax (626) 350 -7077 a copy of the letter
as a confirmation no later than NOVEMBER 17, 2004.
The Declaration Cards will be_printed_on or before DECEMBER 15,
2004, and your meeting dates cannot be changed after that date.
Any consideration in placing our item early on your agenda would
be appreciated.
If" °you -- - have any questions or need additional information, please
contact me at (626) 575 -5487.
Very truly yours,
RAYMOND B. SMITH
Bureau Chief
Weed Hazard & Pest Management
Corina Mon sivaiz
Staff Assistant
Weed Hazard & Pest Management
RS: CM: cm
Bureau
tt- ►o - -aL+
Date
Please print current Mayor's name below:
Bureau
Please print City Clerk's name below:
�f1�lilEs q, aA
Protecting Consumers and the Environment Since 1881
To Enrich Lives Through Effective and Caring Service
. ( ✓f +i y d
�
* C AlIFO0.t+„ �
Robert G. Atkins
Interim Agricultural Commissioner/
Director of Weights and Measures
January 18, 2005
12300 Lower Azusa Road
Arcadia, California 91006 -5872
hUp.11acwm.co.Ia.ca.us
The Honorable Mayor Gary A. Kovacic
City of Arcadia
240 W. Huntington Drive
Arcadia, CA 91007
Dear Mayor Kovacic:
RECEWEYD
i JAN 12 2005
C CRY CLERK
Transmitted herewith is the Declaration List ofproperties which have been found by inspection to have
weeds, brush and/or rubbish growing or occurring upon them and which constitute an existing or potential
hazard to the health and safety of adjacent property owners.
Also attached is a resolution for adoption by the City Council declaring that hazardous weeds, brush,
rubbish, etc., growing or occurring upon or in front of the listed properties are a seasonal and recurrent
public nuisance.
It is my recommendation that the Honorable City Council:
Adopt this resolution at your meeting of February 15, 2005
which Resolution sets March 1, 2005 at 7:00 p.m.
as the date and time for Hearing of Protests.
Annual Weed Abatement notices require owners of declared properties to maintain their parcels in a fire
safe condition throughout the year. An affidavit ofmailing will be returned to you when mailing of notice
as provided by law has been completed.
Respectfully submitted,
R ERT G. ATKINS
terim Agricultural Commissioner/
Director of Weights and Measures
RGA:RS:cm
CTYRESLU05. FRM
Attach.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Department of
Agricultural Commissioner/
Weights and Measures
Protecting Consumers and the Environment Since 1881
To Enrich Lives Through Effective and Caring Service
ABATEMENT ORDER
MARCH 1, 2005
FOLLOWING THE PUBLIC HEARING HELD MARCH 1, 2005, IN THE MATTER OF
RESOLUTION TO ABATE NOXIOUS WEEDS, RUBBISH, REFUSE, AND DIRT, THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, BY MOTION ADOPTED AN ORDER DIRECTING THE
AGRICULTURAL COMMISSIONER/DIRECTOR OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES TO ABATE
THE NUISANCE BY HAVING THE WEEDS, RUBBISH, AND REFUSE REMOVED.
CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ARCADIA
0 /.� i /ice rc
ATTEST:
BY
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
RAYMOND B. SMITH, BUREAU CHIEF, AGRICULTURAL COMMIS SIONER /WEIGHTS
AND MEASURES, being first duly sworn says: That on or before the 7th day of February, 2005, as
required by the Government Code of the State of California, he notified byUnited States Mail the owners
of each of the properties described in the attached list a notice or notices to destroy noxious or dangerous
weeds, of which the annexed is a true copy, and setting the 1 st day of March, 2005, as the date upon
which owners of said property could attend a meeting ofthe Council of the City of Arcadia, when their
objections will be heal
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME
This day of 2005
City Clerk
LW13
LOS ANGELES
COUNTY DECLARATION -LIST PAGE
535
DATE
12
20
04
,
- IN SEQ BY WEED -KEY, THEN PARCEL UNIMPROVED
ZONE
CITY CODE
STREET ADDRESS
PARCEL
NO.
KEY
• 06
035
1725 S BALDWIN AVE
5383
030
016
5
7
06
035
SANTA ANITA CANYON ROAD
5765
002
012
6
7
06
035
SANTA ANITA CANYON ROAD
5765
002
013
5
7
06
035
HIGHLAND VISTA DRIVE
5765
011
O11
8
7
06
035
HIGHLAND OAK DRIVE
5765
030
010
9
7
06
035
MONTEREY PINES DRIVE
5771
032
002
7
7
06
035
TORREY PINES: DRIVE
5771
032
007
2
7
06
035
ToREWY PINES DRIVE
5771
032
008
1
7
06
035
WHISPERING PINES DRIVE
5771
032
013
4
7
06
035
380 TORREY PINES DR
5771
033
007
0
7
06
035
TORREY PINES DRIVE
5771
033
015
0
7
06
035
TORREY PINES DRIVE
5771
033
016
9
7
06
035
TORREY PINES DRIVE
5771
033
017
8
7
06
035
1ST AVENUE
5772
001
003
0
7
06
035
153 E SANTA CLARA ST
5773
007
009
0
7
06
035
SANTA CLARA STREET
5775
025
025
0
7
06
035
1045 W HUNTINGTON DR
5777
036
002
2
7
06
035
310 S 15T AVE
5779
002
032
6
7
06
035
S 1ST AVENUE
5779
002
034
4
7
06
035
58 GENOA ST
5779
013
012
7
7
06
035
3 E DUARTE RD
5779
015
002
4
7
06
035
201 E DUARTE RD
5779
018
040
2
7
06
035
R & H TRAIL
5780
025
054
7
7
06
035
R & H TRAIL
5780
025
056
5
7
06
035
8TH AVEBUE
5780
025
070
7
7
035
LEROY AVENUE
5784
020
014
3
7
• 06
06
035
NORMAN AVENUE
5788
014
013
3
7
06
035
LIVE OAKS AVENUE
5790
027
032
8
7
06
035
CLARK STREET
8532
016
001
5
7
06
035
CLARK STREET
8532
016
003
3
7
06
035
CLARK STREET
8532
016
004
2
7
06
035
CLARK STREET
8532
016
022
0
7
06
035
GOLDRING ROAD
8532
017
009
5
7
06
035
GOLDRING ROAD
8532
017
018
4
7
06
035
GOLDRING ROAD
8532
017
057
6
7
06
035
GOLDRING ROAD
8532
018
005
7
7
06
035
GOLDRING ROAD
8532
018
011
9
7
06
035
GOLDRING ROAD
8532
018
021
7
7
-06----0-3-5
06
035
S. 1ST AVENUE
5779
002
033
7
06
035
E. DUARTE ROAD
5779
015
004
7
06
035
E. DUARTE ROAD
5779
015
005
7
06
035
E. DUARTE ROAD
5779
015
006
7
06
035
E. DUARTE ROAD
5779
015
007
7
06
035
ALICE STREET
5779
017
004
7
06
035
S. 8TH AVENUE
5780
025
063
7
06
035
S. 8TH AVENUE
5780
025
071
7
06
035
4TH AVENUE
5781
021
017
7
• n
1 j
L40 LOS ANGELES
IN SEQ BY W
ZONE CITY CODE
• WEED KEY 7 TOTAL
,WEED KEY 7 TOTAL
WEED KEY 7 TOTAL
COUNTY DECLARATION LIST PAGE 536 DATE 12 20 04
EED -KEY, THEN PARCEL UNIMPROVED
STREET ADDRESS PARCEL NO. KEY
VACANT /IMPROVED RECORDS 0
UNIMPROVED RECORDS 39- 47
RECORDS -3-CL 47
•
is
�R
- R
i
STAFF REPORT
Public Works Services Department
February 15, 2005
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Pat Malloy, Public Works Services Direct r
Prepared by: Thomas W. Tait, Field Services Ma ager
SUBJECT: Professi Services Agreement — Plan Review. Stormwater and
Industrial Waste Inspection and Other Limited Services Related to the
City's Municipal Storm Water (NPDES) and Industrial Waste (IW)
Programs
Recommendatio,.n: Authorize the City Manager to amend a Professional
Services Agreement with John L. Hunter and Associates, Inc. for contract
extension in the amount of $57,170 for Municipal Storm Water ( NPDES)
and Industrial Waste (IW) Program support services.
SUMMARY
On February 17, 2004 City Council approved a one (1) year contract extension in the
amount of $70,000 for consulting, services with John L. Hunter and Associates, Inc.
(JLH) to provide administration, inspection and plan checking services for the City's
Municipal Storm Water and Industrial Waste (IW) Programs. The scope of the
proposed contract extension has been reduced due to streamlining' of work
responsibilities associated with the program. For example, the creation of new
programs and tasks are complete and implemented, allowing for more staff time to be
spent on program administration and monitoring of emergency responses and reporting
activities in both NPDES & IW programs. Industrial waste plan checking, permitting and
inspection costs will be recovered through service fees, which will offset program costs.
In addition, NPDES plan checking and construction inspection costs will be recovered
through service fees as well. Staff estimates that $34,283 or 60% of the proposed total
contract extension amount will be recovered through permitting fees, plan check fees
and inspection fees. Cost savings gained by a reduction of the scope of services, while
still maintaining the same level of service with both programs, as well as costs
recovered through service fees from work performed by the contractor, are placed back
into the General Fund.
f
Mayor and City Council
February 15, 2005
Page 2
To continue to provide consulting services associated with the Municipal Storm Water
( NPDES) and Industrial Waste (IW) programs, staff recommends amending John L.
Hunter and Associates, Inc.'s agreement and award a contract extension in the amount
of i$57,170. They have all of the qualifications needed to successfully perform this work
and have demonstrated their qualifications during the past seven (7) years of service to
the City.
DISCUSSION
To maintain compliance with the conditions of the existing NPDES Storm Water Permit,
John L. Hunter and Associates, Inc. (JLH) will continue to support the City with
implementation of Best Management Practices, reporting requirements, and
administration of the following three required programs:
1. Identify Illicit Connections and Illegal Discharges to Storm Drains
2. Development Planning and Development Construction Plan Checks
3. Perform Commercial and Industrial Inspections
Over 50 cities in Los Angeles County have Industrial Waste Discharge Programs (IW) to
reduce the likelihood of blockage or damage to the sanitary sewer system. These
programs supplement the Los Angeles County Sanitation District's Industrial Waste
Discharge program, which does not provide for the protection of locally owned sewage
collection lines. The basic elements of an IW program are:
1. Enforcement of Industrial Waste Ordinance (AMC)
2. Industrial Waste Inspections of Permitted Facilities
3. Investigations of Industrial Waste Dischargers
4. Permitting and Plan Checking
6. Annual Fees to Offset Program Costs
For the Industrial Waste Program, JLH has already identified the City's current industrial
waste generators, compiled a database, issued discharge permits, assisted in the
development of an industrial waste ordinance and created plan checking protocol.
During this contract extension, JLH will continue to assist the City in these activities.
Inspection requirements of the NPDES Storm Water Program can be combined with
essentially identical elements of the IW program, which reduces costs for the City.
Additionally, with staff assuming greater responsibility for the administration and
management of the City's stormwater and industrial waste programs there would be a
$12,830 reduction in overall costs to the City — an 18% decrease from last year's
contract amount. For instance, staff would be responsible for the entire:public outreach
for the program, field response to all illicit connection /discharge complaints and issues,
program management that pertains to the review of NPDES documents and permits,
preparation of the annual NPDES report, and overall program maintenance — which was
Mayor and City Council
February 15, 2005
Page 3
previously handled by JLH. Based on an estimated amount of NPDES & IW plan
reviews, IW inspection fees and IW permitting fees — the net cost to the City for both the
Municipal Storm Water and Industrial Waste (IW) Programs for the proposed contract
extension is estimated at $22,887. This net cost reflects the unfunded mandates of the
current NPDES permit, for which cities are required to comply, while funding their storm
water programs.
JLH has continued to assist staff with the City's NPDES enforcement program, and has
performed educational site visits and needed inspections. These site inspections will
continue to primarily focus on restaurants and auto service facilities to identify those
with inadequate grease traps /clarifiers or possible violations with the NPDES Permit.
Our efforts will continue to focus on the protection of public health and the environment,
ensuring the City complies with existing sections of the Arcadia Municipal Code, as well
as State and Federal regulations.
JLH has successfully designed and administered NPDES and industrial waste programs
for several Los Angeles County municipalities and has seven (7) years of success with
the current programs in Arcadia. Staff recommends amending John L. Hunter and
Associates, Inc.'s agreement for a second contract extension in the amount of $57,170
for continued assistance with both the Municipal Stormwater NPDES and the Industrial
Waste Programs.
FISCAL IMPACT
$24,000 is budgeted in FY 2004 -2005 Sewer Fund for the Industrial Waste portion of
the contract and $33,170 from the General Fund to cover program costs associated with
the NPDES program. However, NPDES plan checking and construction inspection
costs will be recovered through service fees, which will offset program costs. Staff
estimates that $34,283 or 60% of the total proposed contract extension amount will be
recovered through permitting fees, plan checks and inspection fees.
As staff becomes more familiar and knowledgeable about the Program and the creation
of new programs are complete and implemented, we are able to take on more of the
administrative responsibilities associated with the ongoing operation of the program,
which reflect the $12,830 cost reduction from the previous contract amount of $70,000.
Mayor and City Council
February 15, 2005
Page 4
RECOMMENDATION
1. Amend the Professional Services Agreement with John L. Hunter and
Associates, Inc. for contract extension in the, amount of $57,170 for the
continued assistance with both the Municipal Storm Water (NPDES) and
Industrial Waste Discharge programs.
2. Authorize the City Manager and City Clerk to execute a contract in a form
approved by the City Attorney.
Approved by:
William R. Kelly, City Manager
PM:TT:dw
` " ° °RP °R•Tg ° STAFF REPORT
Office of the City Clerk
DATE: February 1, 2005
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council /�,__
FROM: Vida Tolman, Chief Deputy City Clerk/Records Manager
q
PROCLAMATION OF LOCAL EMERGENCY
Recommendation: Renew the Director of Emergency Services issuance
of a local emergency proclamation.
SUMMARY:
Ordinance No. 1432 of the City of Arcadia empowers the Director of Emergency Services to
proclaim the existence or threatened existence of a local emergency when said City is affected
or likely to be affected by a public calamity and the City Council is not in session.
The Director of Emergency Services (Director) of the City of Arcadia found that conditions of
extreme peril to the safety of persons and property arose within Arcadia caused by torrential
rain, which began on January 8, 2005. The Director signed and issued a local emergency
proclamation on January 13, 2005 (see attached).
Pursuant to Ordinance No. 1432, Section 2213.2.1., whenever a local emergency is proclaimed
by the Director, the City Council shall take action to ratify the proclamation within seven (7)
days thereafter or the proclamation shall have no further force or effect. In addition, the City
Council must act to renew the proclamation at each of their subsequent meetings until final
termination of the emergency.
At their January 18, 2005 meeting, the City Council acted to approve the local emergency
proclamation via Resolution No. 6459, which reads as follows: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, RATIFYING THE PROCLAMATION OF THE
EXISTENCE OF A LOCAL EMERGENCY WITHIN SAID CITY PERTAINING TO THE TORRENTIAL
RAIN AND RELATED MATTERS COMMENCING ON JANUARYS, 2005.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is staffs recommendation that the City Council act to renew the local emergency
proclamation by again approving Resolution No. 6459.
APPROVED:
William R. Kelly, City Manager
Page 1 of i
CITY OF ARCADIA
r PRO CLAMATION
tm# -
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 1432 of the City of Arcadia empowers the Director of Emergency
Services to proclaim the existence or threatened existence of a local emergency when said City is
affected or likely to be affected by a public calamity and the City Council is not in session, and;
WHEREAS, the Director of Emergency Services of the City of Arcadia does hereby find; that
conditions of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property have arisen within said City
caused by torrential rain; which began on the 81h day of January, 2005. and;
That these conditions are or are likely to be beyond the control of the services, personnel,
equipment and facilities of said City, and;
That the City Council of the City of Arcadia is not in session and cannot immediately be called
into session;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY PROCLAIMS that a local emergency now exists
throughout said City, and;
IT IS FURTHER PROCLAIMED AND ORDERED that during the existence of said local
emergency the powers, functions and duties of the emergency organization of the this City shall
be those prescribed by state law, by ordinances and resolutions of this City, and; that this
emergency proclamation shall expire in 7 days after issuance unless confirmed and ratified by
the governing body of the City of Arcadia.
January 13, 2005
By ::
II�W b A
William R. Kelly
City Manager/Director of Emergency Services
RESOLUTION NO. 6459
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, RATIFYING THE
PROCLAMATION OF THE EXISTENCE OF A LOCAL
EMERGENCY WITHIN SAID CITY PERTAINING TO THE
TORRENTIAL RAIN AND RELATED MATTERS
COMMENCING ON JANUARY 8, 2005 .
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 1432 of the City of Arcadia empowers the
Director of Emergency Services to proclaim the existence or threatened existence
of a local emergency when the City Council is not in session, subject to ratification
by the City Council within seven (7) days; and
WHEREAS, conditions of extreme peril to the safety of persons and
property. have. arisen within this City,. caused torrential rain commencing on
January 8, 2005, at which time the City Council was not in session; and
WHEREAS, said City Council does hereby find that the aforesaid conditions,
of extreme peril did warrant and necessitate the proclamation of the existence of a
local emergency; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Emergency Services did proclaim the existence
of a local emergency within said City on the 13` day of January, 2005.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
1
SECTION 1. That said local emergency proclamation is hereby ratified
and confirmed by the Arcadia City Council and shall be deemed to continue to
exist until its termination is proclaimed by the City Council of the City of Arcadia,
State of California.
SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this
Resolution.
Passed, approved and adopted this
18th day of January , 2005.
Mayor of the City of Arcadia
ATTEST:
IS JAMES H. S=ORRO
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
a
01
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) SS:
CITY OF ARCADIA )
I, JAMES H. BARROWS, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certifies
that the foregoing Resolution No. 6459 was passed and adopted by the City Council of
the City of Arcadia, signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Clerk at a regular
meeting of said Council held on the 18th day of January, 2005 and that said Resolution
was adopted by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Member Chandler, Marshall, Segal, Wuo and Kovacic
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
91
STAFF REPORT
Development Services Department
DATE: , February 15, 2005
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Don Penman, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Director
Martha Eros, Transportation Services Offic
SUBJECT: Resolution No: 6462 approving submittal of the Transportation
Development Act claim form to receive funds for the operation of Arcadia
Transit for Fiscal Year 2004 -2005
Recommendation: Approve
SUMMARY
Attached for the City Council's review and approval is Resolution No. 6462 authorizing
the City Manager to submit a claim form for Transportation. Development Act (TDA)
Article 4 funds for fiscal year 2004 -2005. The claim form has been prepared by staff
and will be submitted to the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
(MTA) and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) for processing.
The City will receive $354,025 in FY04 -05 to operate Arcadia Transit.
DISCUSSION
The Transportation Development Act was adopted by the California State legislature in
1971 (SB325) and generates revenue from retail sales tax and gasoline /diesel sales
tax. Local agencies are allocated funds based on area population and transit fare
revenue generated by its local transit service. The funds are administered by means of
two programs, the Local Transportation Fund (LTF) and the State Transit Assistance
(STA) fund. The MTA serves as the regional planning agent for Los Angeles County
and administers the funds to each participating municipal transit operator. The City of
Arcadia will receive a total of $354,025 in Transportation Development Act funds during
fiscal year 2004 -2005 for the operation of Arcadia Transit.
Local Transportation Fund (LTF) revenue is derived from one -fourth of one percent
(0.0025) of the 8.25% retail sales tax collected statewide for transportation planning and
mass transit activity. The California State Board of Equalization returns the quarter cent
to each County according to the amount of taxes collected in its jurisdiction. Eligible
uses include public transit, program administration, transportation planning, pedestrian
and bicycle facilities, special group transportation service, and rail passenger service.
In FY04-05, the City of Arcadia will receive $335,115 in LTF funds to operate Arcadia
Transit.
The 1980 State Transit Assistance (STA) fund . is a second TDA funding source
dedicated to public transit operation and capital expenditures. STA revenue is
generated from the statewide sales tax on gasoline and diesel fuels, and is appropriated
by the California State Controller Office to regional Transportation Planning Agencies
(i.e., the, MTA),for formula allocation. The formula is calculated using 50% population
count and 50% operator revenues for the prior fiscal year. The City will receive $18,910
in STA funds in FY04-05.
FISCAL IMPACT
The City of Arcadia will receive a total of $354,025 from the MTA in State funds to
operate Arcadia Transit' This amount represents approximately 26% of Arcadia
Transit's FY04 Operating Budget.
RECOMMENDATION
ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 6462 AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT
THE TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT-ARTICLE 4 CLAIM FORM TO THE
LOS ANGELES COUNTY: METROPOLITAN' TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY .IN
THE AMOUNT OF $354,025 TO RECEIVE FUNDS FOR THE OPERATION OF
ARCADIA TRANSIT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005.
Approved, WW
William R. Kelly, City Manager
Attachment(s)
1. Resolution No. 6462, TDA-Article 4
2' FY05 Transportation Development Act, LTF-Article 4 Claim Form
3. FY05 State Transit Assistance Fund Claim Form
L! . j vo I I Y, R; •1
RESOLUTION NO. 6462
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE SUBMITTAL OF
THE TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT CLAIM FORM
TO RECEIVE FUNDS FOR THE OPERATIONS OF ARCADIA
TRANSIT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004 -2005
WHEREAS, the Transportation Development Act of 1971 ( "Act ") (Chapter 1400,
Statutes 1971 (SB 325), and amendments thereto) makes certain funds available for public
transportation systems; and
WHEREAS, the Arcadia City Council has adopted a budget for Arcadia Transit for the
2004 -2005 Fiscal Year evidencing the need for financial assistance; and
WHEREAS, the Southern California Association of Governments ( "SCA(Y") has been
charged in the Act with the responsibility for the general administration of local transportation
funds through the Act.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA,
CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council appoints the City Manager or his/her designee to
execute and file a claim with SCAG for local transportation funds in an amount to be
determined by SCAG based on preliminary estimates of funds available, and to take any and all
necessary further actions and execute any and all necessary documents in order to receive such
funds.
SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
Passed, approved and adopted this day of February 2005.
- Mayor of the City of Arcadia
ATTEST:
City Clerk of the City of Arcadia
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
5� 9, IX
City Attorney of the City of Arcadia
1 'P•._,'uw cYJC "aA o 7462 J 5 -6c
TDA CLAIM FORM
LTF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION - ARTICLE 4
• �!- M1
DATE: FPh 1!; 9nns FISCAL YEAR: 9nnd -)n0.. COUNTY STAFF: An— gl=[Pg
PAYMENT RECIPIENT: CITY OF ARCADIA
ADDRESS: 240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE
P.O. BOX 60021
ARCADIA, CA 91066 -6021
ATTENTION: DON PENMAN
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER /DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR
(Name and Title)
PURPOSE REQUESTED PAYMENT AND RESERVES AMOUNT
Article 4 1. Payment from FY Allocation
PUC 99260(a) $ 335,115
2. Amount placed in Capital Reserve from
current year allocation (Complete
Table 2) $ 0
3. Total FY 2005 funding mark (1 +2) $ 335,115
Authorized Signature:
(Claimant's Chief Administrator or Finance Officer)
WILLIAM R. KELLY, CITY MANAGER
(Print name and title)
couniTinu nF APPRnVAi
Approval of this claim and payment by the County Auditor to this claimant are subject to funds
being available and to the provisions that such monies will be used only in accordance with the
terms and conditions set forth by this claim.
CLAIM FORM
STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUND
Pursuant to Sections 6730 -6735 of the California Administrative Code
CONTACT PERSON: MARTHA PROS TELEPHONE: A)A -57d -5x45
DATE: Feb 15, 2005 FISCAL YEAR: 90nd -9nnA COUNTY LTF: I m Anryles
ADDRESS
240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE
P.O. BOX 60021'
ARCADIA, CA 91066-6021
ATTENTION: DON PENMAN
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER /DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR
(Name and Title)
PURPOSE - REQUESTED PAYMENT AND RESERVES AMOUNT
( ) CAC, Section 6730 (a) 1. Payment from Unallocated - Operations $ 18,910
O CAC, Section 6730 (b)
O CAC, Section 6730 (c) 2. Amount placed in Capital Reserve from
current year allocation (Complete Table 2) $ 0
O CAC, Section 6731 (a)
( ) CAC, Section 6731 (b) 3. Total FY 2005 Fund Mark (1 & 2) $ 18,910
( ) CAC, Section 6731 (c)
Authorized Signature:
(Claimant's Chief Administrator or Finance Officer)
WILLIAM R. KELLY, CITY MANAGER
(Print name and title)
(-- 0NDIT1OW QF APPPQVAI ;
Approval of this claim and payment by the County Auditor to this claimant are subject to
monies being available and to the provisions that such monies will be used only in accordance
with the terms and conditions set forth by this claim and SCAG Allocation Instructions.
°2 . h r
� °t4° STAFF REPORT
Public Works Services Department
February 15, 2005
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM` Pat Malloy, Public Works Services Director �
Prepared by: Gary F. Lewis, General Services Mana r
Mark Rynkiewicz, Associate Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: Award of Contract — Oranoe Grove Plant Block Wall Reconstruction
West Wall
Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract
with SOL Construction, Inc. in the amount of $101,014.00 for the Orange
Grove Plant Block Wall Reconstruction - West Wall project.
SUMMARY
The block wall along the west side of Orange Grove Water Plant is aging and over the
last year has experienced damage during storms. Portions of the wall under the
existing un- reinforced foundation have fallen down and other portions have been
weakened over time. Construction standards at the time the wall was built are not up
to today's code requirements, which have contributed to the deterioration of the wall.
Staff recommends that the City Council award a contract in the amount of $101,014.00
to SOL Construction, Inc., for the Orange Grove Plant Block Wall Reconstruction - West
Wall project.
DISCUSSION
The Public Works Services Department is responsible for the maintenance, security,
and operation of Orange Grove Water Plant. This Plant is an essential water storage
and pumping facility with storage tanks, booster pump stations, and wells. The water
reservoirs have a storage capacity of 14.75 million gallons, booster pump capacity of
11,000 gallons per minute and well capacity flow rate of approximately 4,800 gallons
per minute.
Over the last year, the west wall of Orange Grove Water Plant has experienced
significant damage as a result of severe weather conditions. Portions of the wall have
fallen down and the remaining sections are unstable and recommended for
replacement. The existing wall lacks reinforcement in the block and the foundation is
un- reinforced and inadequate to continue supporting the wall.
Mayor and City Council
February 15, 2005
Page 2
The absence of sections of this wall poses a security risk to the water facility.
Therefore repairs are necessary to assure the safety of the adjacent residents and to
secure.the water facilities. This project is very complicated. Sections of the wall act as
a retaining wall .along the adjacent properties and must be properly constructed to
protect property on both sides of the wall. Staff has been dealing with property owners
on issues, such as access to private property during construction and material selection.
We also conducted a neighborhood meeting with all of the adjacent property owners.
This project will reconstruct approximately 475 feet of damaged wall along the west side
of the plant. A masonry block wall is needed to maintain plant safety and security.
Notices Inviting Bids were published in the adjudicated paper and bid packages were
distributed to area contractors. The following five (5) bids were received on January 18,
2005:
Bidder
Location
Bid Amount
SOL Construction, Inc.
Riverside, CA
$101,014.00
Granstrom Masonry, Inc.
Torrance, CA
$128,917.00
Mega Way Enterprises
Covina, CA
$134,840.00
Pacific Construction Co.
Granada Hills, CA
$138,880.00
MJ Contractor
Lake Forest, CA
$160,010.50
Staff has reviewed the bid documents for content and has investigated the contractor's
background and recent projects for competency. It is staffs opinion that SOL
Construction, Inc. can satisfactorily perform the work required and recommends that the
City Council award a contract in the amount of $101,014.00 to SOL Construction, Inc.
for the Orange Grove Plant Block Wall Reconstruction - West Wall project.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
This project is categorically exempt per Section 15302 (c) replacement from the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.
FISCAL IMPACT
Funds in the amount of $187,500 were budgeted in the 2004/2005 Capital Improvement
Program.
Mayor and City Council
February 15, 2005
Page 3
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Award a contract to SOL Construction, Inc. in the amount of $101,014.00 for
the Orange Grove Plant Block Wall Reconstruction - West Wall project.
2. Waive any informalities in the bid or bidding process.
3. Authorize the City Manager and City Clerk to execute a contract in a form
approved by the City Attorney.
Approved: I
William R. Kelly, City Manager
PM:KH:dw
Attachment: Location Map
CITY OF ARCADIA
ORANGE GROVE BLOCK WALL RECONSTRUCTION -WEST WALL
EXHIBIT "A"
,f
i
1p
STAFF REPORT
Public Works Services Department
February 15, 2005
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Pat Malloy, Public Works Services Depart ent
Prepared by: Gary F Lewis, General Se es Ma age
Dave McVey, General Services Superintendent
SUBJECT: Purchase of Hydro- Excavation unit
Recommendation: purchase one (1) 2004 Vactor Hydro — Excavation unit
from Hakker Equipment in the amount of $143,865.33
SUMMARY
Staff is recommending that the City Council award a purchase contract for one (1)
Vactor Hydro Excavation machine from Hakker Equipment in the amount $143,865.33.
This vehicle will be used to excavate soil and debris during the repair and maintenance
of the City's water distribution system. The hydro excavation process uses pressurized
water to loosen the soil, which is then removed via a high - pressure vacuum.
Funds in the amount of $157,000 have been budgeted in the 2004 -2005 Equipment
Replacement Fund.
DISCUSSION
The City's water, sewer and storm drain systems are located underground in the
streets, medians and parkways within the public right -of -way. This vehicle will be used
to safely and efficiently excavate soil and debris during the repair and maintenance of
the City's utility systems. The unit will be especially useful when excavation and repair
work is required in areas that are heavily populated with other underground utilities such
as telephone, electric and gas utilities. The use of this unit in these situations will
reduce the amount of hand digging and will expedite repairs. In the event of an
emergency where we cannot wait for appropriate clearances from other agencies, this
unit can be used to excavate without fear of damaging other utility owned facilities.
Water meters and valves are also located in underground vaults and valve cans that are
up to six feet below street level. Over time these containers accumulate sand, dirt and
debris, which makes it difficult to operate and maintain the equipment. This is
particularly cumbersome in the maintenance and operation of valves, especially during
an emergency. This unit will also be used to excavate materials from underground
vaults and valve cans in an efficient and expeditious manner.
Mayor and City Council
February 15, 2005
Page 2
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) permit regulations
require the City of Arcadia to clean its storm drains every ninety (90) days and /or within
two (2) days after it rains more than one quarter (1/4) of an inch. The Excavation unit
will assist the City in complying with the NPDES regulations. This unit will also be used
to vacuum and 'contain a sewer overflow, preventing sewage from entering ,the City's
storm drain system. It will also be used to clean out catch basins and under - drains on
an as needed basis in response to citizen requests for service
Notices inviting bids were published in the adjudicated paper and bid packages were
distributed to area dealers. The following two (2) sealed bids were received on January
11, 2005:
BIDDER BID AMOUNT
Hakker Equipment $143,865.33
Municipal Maintenance Equipment $158,045:00
Following the opening of sealed bids, and within the time allowed by the bid documents,
Municipal Maintenance Equipment filed a Bid Protest against the low bidder. They
cited, a lack of adequate time to respond to addendum No.2 issued on January 6, 2005
but not received by Municipal Maintenance Equipment until January 10, 2005. Municipal
Maintenance Equipment had adequate time to contact staff and request an extension of
the bid time had they felt it was necessary. Staff has discussed this informality in the bid
process with the City Attorney and confirmed that the intent of bid process has been
met and the City can accept the bids as received.
Staff is recommending that the City Council award a purchase contract for one (1)
Vactor Hydro Excavation machine in the amount $143,865.33 to Hakker Equipment.
FISCAL IMPACT
Funds in the amount of $157,000.00 are budgeted in the 2004 -05 Water Fund
Equipment Replacement Budget for the acquisition of a Hydro Excavation machine.
The unit will replace a 1991 Chevrolet pick -up truck, unit #60084.
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the Purchasing Officer to issue a purchase order to Hakker
Equipment Co for one (1)2004 Vactor 2100 series Hydro Excavation
machine in the amount of $143,865.33.
2. Authorize the City Manager to execute a contract in a form approved
by the City Attorney.
APPROVED:
William R. Kelly, City Manager
PM:GFL:DM:dw
C), j'
DATE: February 15, 2005
STAFF REPORT
Administrative Services Department
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Tracey Hause, Administrative Services Direct
SUBJECT: Classification specifications and compensation levels for Human
Resources Administrator, Senior Code Services Officer and
Economic Development Manager
Recommendation: Approve
SUMMARY
It is recommended that the City Council approve the new classification
specifications and compensation levels for Human Resources Administrator,
Senior Code Services Officer and Economic Development Manager.
BACKGROUND
Human Resources Administrator
As a result of the departure of the previous Human Resources and Risk Manager
and the Assistant Human Resources and Risk Manager approximately two years
ago, existing staff were reassigned to coordinate activities in the Human
Resources Division. During the past two years, the Administrative Services
Director has taken a much more active role in Human Resources activities and
has assumed the primary , responsibilities of the Human Resources and Risk
Manager. A Senior Management Analyst was reassigned from grant and
budgeting responsibilities to assume coordination of citywide training, contract
negotiations with all city bargaining units, and risk management, which includes
workers' compensation, safety committee chairperson, excess insurance
coordination, vehicle accident investigation and disability and industrial disability
retirements. Additionally, the Senior Management Analyst has coordinated
several employee disciplinary actions, as well as assumed a lead role in
coordinating with various attorneys on a variety of personnel and legal issues.
The existing Human Resources Analyst who was promoted to Senior Human
Resources Analyst assumed the remaining activities of recruitment and selection,
benefit administration and classification and compensation.
Though this arrangement has worked effectively to this point, it was intended to
be a temporary solution. Staff is recommending a new classification be created
of Human Resources Administrator. This position, under general supervision,
will plan, direct, supervise, and oversee the activities and operations of the
Human Resources Division, including personnel, labor relations, recruitment,
selection, training, EEO, and safety; and to provide responsible and complex
administrative support to the Administrative Services Director. It is
recommended this position be placed at Salary Range Number 80 M ($6,557 —
$8,189 per month).
Senior Code Services Officer
In the last few years, the Development Services Department has seen an
increase in the volume of cases undertaken by the Code Services office. In
order to efficiently carry out the daily operations as well as the long -term goals of
the Code Services office, the department has established a, Volunteer Code
Enforcement Program. This volunteer program consists of members of the
community who are currently being trained to assist the department with code
services functions.
The Assistant City Manager /Development Services Director has expressed the
need for the addition of a higher -level position that will serve as the supervisor for
the Volunteer. Code Enforcement Program. Furthermore, this higher -level
position will coordinate more complex code services issues and assist the City
Attorney with trial preparation and courtroom testimony for code services related
cases.
With the implementation of the new Volunteer Code Enforcement Program and
the increase in case volume, new job specifications for a Senior Code Services
Officer are being proposed and recommended. If approved, the Senior Code
Services Officer classification will be added to the flexible staffing series in the
classification plan. This will allow the Development Services Department to
flexibly advance a Code Services Officer to a Senior Code Services Officer, with
the contingency that minimum qualifications are met and there are sufficient
funds in the budget. The Senior Code, Services Officer is being proposed at 56
($3,583 - $4,474 per month).
Economic Development Manager
With the retirement of the Economic Development Administrator, the
Development. Services Department is proposing a re- organization of the
Economic Development division. The Department has re- evaluated the functions
and responsibilities of the position and has decided to refrain from filling the
above - mentioned position and instead utilize the current staff in the department.
2
Both the current organizational structure and the newly proposed structure
require the Assistant City Manager /Development Services Director to be
ultimately responsible for functions of Economic Development. With major
redevelopment projects having come to a close, it is anticipated that the volume
of work being handled by Economic Development will be reduced. In addition, all
high profile redevelopment projects are currently handled and will continue to be
handled by the Assistant City Manager /Development Services Director and the
City Manager. Therefore,' the new classification of Economic Development
Manager is being proposed to help the division meet its daily operational needs.
Approval of the Economic Development Manager position will promote
professional growth and development for the existing staff. Furthermore, it will
ensure that the urgent staffing needs of the Economic Development division are
met effectively and efficiently. The proposed salary range for this position is 73
M ($5,516 - $6,889 per month).
All three proposed classification specifications have been reviewed and are
recommended by the Human Resources Commission.
FISCAL IMPACT
Currently the only proposed classification specification that will impact the
General Fund is the Senior Code Enforcement Officer. The annual increase to
the General Fund will not exceed $5,040. The Human Resources Administrator
is funded by the Liability and Workers' Compensation Fund and Economic
Development Manager is funded by Redevelopment. Annual increases will not
exceed $7,115 in the Liability and Workers' Compensation Fund or $3,432 in the
Redevelopment Fund.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council:
Approve the new classification specifications and compensation
levels for Human Resources Administrator, Senior Code Services
Officer and Economic Development Manager.
Approved : 19 L
William R. Kelly, City Manager
CITY OF ARCADIA
HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATOR
Under general supervision, to plan, direct, supervise, and oversee the activities and
operations of the Human Resources Division, including personnel, labor relations,
recruitment, selection, training, EEO, and safety; and to provide responsible and complex
administrative support to the Administrative Services Director.
SUPERVISION EXERCISED
Exercises direct supervision over professional, technical, and clerical staff.
EXAMPLES OF IMPORTANT AND ESSENTIAL DUTIES
Assume responsibility for all Human Resources Division services and, activities,
including contract negotiations, collective bargaining agreement administration,
recruitment, selection and placement services, EEO, training and orientation programs,
ADA administration, and the administration of the classification, job evaluation and
performance appraisal systems.
Ensure the City's compliance with policies and contracts, as well as Federal, State and
local human resources management regulations; review and analyze reports, legislation,
court cases, and related personnel matters.
Supervise the development and implementation of Human Resources Division goals,
objectives, policies, and priorities for each assigned service area; establish, within City
policy, appropriate service and staffing levels; allocate resources accordingly.
Plan and direct the employee benefits program; negotiate for contracted benefits services,
including medical, dental, life, LTD, and related coverages.
Select, train, motivate and evaluate Human Resources Division personnel; provide or
coordinate staff training; work with employees to correct deficiencies; implement
discipline and termination procedures.
Plan, direct and coordinate the Human Resources Division's work plan; meet with staff to
identify and resolve problems; assign projects and programmatic areas of responsibility;
review and evaluate work methods and procedures.
City of Arcadia
Human Resources Administrator (Continued) Page 2 of S
EXAMPLES OF IMPORTANT AND ESSENTIAL DUTIES
Manage and participate in the development and administration of the Human Resources
Division budget; direct the forecast of additional funds needed for staffing, equipment,
materials, and supplies; direct the monitoring of and approve expenditures; direct the
preparation of and implement budgetary adjustments as necessary.
Prepare for and assist in union - management contract negotiations, grievances, and
arbitration; administer the provisions of existing employee contracts and agreements;
advise staff regarding provisions of contracts.
Participate in the administration of the City's classification and compensation plan;
establish and maintain class specifications and salary ranges for positions; initiate and
conduct wage and benefit surveys; analyze, evaluate and make recommendations on
proposed job reclassifications.
Participate in and assist divisions in the recruitment, interviewing, testing, selection, and
placement of all employees hired by the City; administer promotion, transfer, and
separation procedures of current employees.
Assist in administering employee disciplinary policies and procedures; provide assistance
to staff on disciplinary issues and action to be taken; assist in administering formal
grievance procedures; assist in hearings and assist management staff in preparing and
processing responses to grievances.
Direct the preparation and maintenance of personnel records and reports, employee
handbooks, orientation manuals, and other publications on employee working conditions
and benefits.
Deliver and procure appropriate staff development and training.
Administer the City's performance appraisal programs.
Participate on a variety of committees and task forces; attend and participate in
professional group meetings; stay abreast of new trends and innovations in the field of
human resources and risk management.
Assist in responding to and resolving difficult and sensitive inquiries and complaints.
Supervise the City's risk management function, including Workers' Compensation.
City of Arcadia
Human Resources Administrator (Continued) Page 3 of 5
OTHER JOB RELATED DUTIES
Perform related duties and responsibilities as assigned.
JOB RELATED AND ESSENTIAL QUALIFICATIONS
Knowledee of:
Operational characteristics, services and activities of a comprehensive human resources
and risk management program.
Organization and management practices as applied to the analysis and evaluation of
human resources programs, policies and operational needs.
Modern and complex principles and practices of human resources program development
and administration.
Current and pending legislation and court decisions relating to the rights and obligations
of staff in the area of human resources.
Principles and practices of collective bargaining and labor relations.
Techniques of recruiting, interviewing, and selecting applicants for employment.
Wage and salary/benefit administration principles and practices.
Principles of job evaluation and analysis.
Principles and methods of training and education.
Principles of mathematical and statistical computations.
Advanced principles and practices of budget preparation and administration.
Principles of supervision, training and performance evaluation.
Pertinent Federal, State, and local laws, codes and regulations.
Safe driving principles and practices.
City of Arcadia
Human Resources Administrator (Continued) Page 4 of 5
Skill to:
Operate modem office equipment, including computer equipment.
Operate a motor vehicle safely.
Ability to:
Provide professional leadership and direction for the Human Resources Division.
Develop, implement and oversee the goals, objectives, and procedures for providing
effective and efficient human resources programs and services.
Plan, organize, direct and coordinate the work of professional and technical personnel;
delegate authority and responsibility.
Select, supervise, train and evaluate staff.
Identify and respond to Administrative Services Director, City Manager, and City
Council issues, concerns and needs.
Analyze problems, identify alternative solutions, and project consequences of proposed
actions and implement recommendations in support of goals.
Prepare and administer large and complex budgets; allocate limited resources in a cost
effective manner.
Prepare clear and concise administrative and financial reports.
Interpret and apply Federal, State and local policies, procedures, laws and regulations.
Exercise good judgment, flexibility, creativity, and sensitivity in response to changing
situations and needs.
Communicate clearly and concisely, both orally and in writing.
Establish, maintain and foster positive and harmonious working relationships with those
contacted in the course of work.
City of Arcadia
Human Resources Administrator (Continued) Page S of 5
Minimum Oualifications:
Experience:
Six years of general administrative experience in a public agency, including three
years of increasingly responsible professional human resources, budgetary and
supervisory experience.
Training:
Equivalent to a Bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university with
major course work in human resources, public administration, business
administration or related field.
License or Certificate:
Possession of, or ability to obtain, an appropriate, valid driver's license.
S pecial 'Reg uirem ents:
Essential duties require the following physical skills and work environment:
Ability to work in a standard office environment; ability to travel to different sites and
locations.
Effective Date: February 2005
CITY OF ARCADIA
SENIOR CODE SERVICES OFFICER
Under general supervision, to coordinate complex code services issues, to enforce municipal
codes and State and Federal laws and regulations related to municipal land use, zoning,
nuisance, public safety, property maintenance, sanitation and health, building, and
abatement; and to provide assistance to homeowners, tenants, and the business community.
SUPERVISION EXERCISED
May exercise technical and functional supervision over lower level staff and volunteers.
EXAMPLES OF IMPORTANT AND ESSENTIAL DUTIES
Receive, record, and investigate complaints from the public and staff regarding violations of
municipal codes, ordinances, standards, and health and safety regulations; document
violations by securing photographs and other pertinent data; research ownership records,
prior complaints, municipal codes and ordinances, and State regulations to establish whether
a violation has occurred.
Initiate contacts with residents, business representatives, and _other parties to explain the
nature of incurred violations and to encourage compliance with municipal codes, zoning and
land use ordinances, and community standards.
Prepare notices of violation or noncompliance and citations according to applicable codes
and regulations; issue letters to property owners notifying them of violation.
Coordinate and conduct follow -up abatement procedures including the preparation of
additional correspondence, site visits, and communication with property owners and
attorneys; conduct follow -up investigations to ensure compliance with applicable codes and
ordinances; prepare non - compliance cases for legal action and administrative hearings;
present testimony at hearings in court.
Meet with planning, building, engineering, fire, police, and legal counsel staff and
regulatory agencies regarding complaints; coordinate activities with other staff and
enforcement personnel
Provide information to violators, the general public, business community, and other .
government agencies regarding codes, laws, and ordinances; respond to questions,
complaints, and inquiries.
City of Arcadia
Senior Code Services Officer (Continued) Page 2 of 4
EXAMPLES OF IMPORTANT AND ESSENTIAL DUTIES
Maintain files and records related to citations and violations; prepare a variety of written
reports, memoranda, and correspondence.
Administer graffiti removal program and monitor contracts.
Enforce a variety of occupancy, public nuisance, zoning, and land use regulations.
Respond to complaints of alleged violations; review criminal complaints and arrest
warrants.
Investigate suspected violations of health, safety, zoning, public nuisance, or other code
violations and take follow -up actions as necessary to ensure compliance.
Make presentations to citizen groups addressing commercial and association compliance
issues.
Participate in the preparation and administration of assigned budgets.
Conduct surveys and perform research and statistical analyses on various code enforcement
matters; draft code amendments as needed.
Serve as a liaison to the City Attorney; assist the City Attorney with trial'preparation and
courtroom testimony for code services related cases.
Coordinate the code services volunteer program; prepare schedules and provide volunteer
training.
OTHER JOB RELATED DUTIES
Perform related duties and responsibilities as assigned.
JOB RELATED AND ESSENTIAL QUALIFICATIONS
Knowledge of
Modern office practices, methods, computer equipment and programs.
Occupational hazards and standard safety practices necessary in the area of code
enforcement.
City of Arcadia
Senior Code Services Officer (Continued) Page 3 of 4
Knowledge of
Principles and practices used in dealing with the public.
Principles of record keeping, case management, and reporting.
Basic mathematical principles.
English usage, spelling, vocabulary, grammar, and punctuation.
Safe driving principles and practices.
Skill to
Operate modern office equipment including computer equipment.
Operate a motor vehicle safely.
Ability to:
Learn principles, practices, methods, and techniques of code violation investigation
and enforcement.
Learn methods and procedures used in code enforcement including citation issuance
procedures, criminal, civil, and administrative remedies, methods used to obtain
various types of inspection warrants, and principles used to prepare legal documents.
Interpret and apply the policies, procedures, laws, codes, and regulations pertaining
to assigned programs and functions.
Read and interpret maps, plans, and legal descriptions.
Maintain and update records, logs, and reports.
Respond to inquiries, complaints, and requests for service in a fair, tactful and timely
manner.
Work independently in the absence of supervision.
Understand and follow oral and written instructions.
Communicate clearly and concisely, both orally and in writing.
City of Arcadia
Senior Code Services Ojftcer (Continued) Page 4 of 4
Ability to:
Establish, maintain, and foster positive and harmonious working relationships with
those contacted in the course of work.
Minimum Oualifications
Experience
Five years of municipal code enforcement experience with increasing
responsibilities in investigation, enforcement, or public contact.
Training
Equivalent to a Bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university
with major course work in planning, zoning, inspection, law enforcement,
public administration, or related field.
License or Certificate
Possession of, or ability to obtain, an appropriate, valid driver's license.
Possession of POST 832.Powers of Arrest issued by the State of California.
Special Requirements
Essential duties require the fallowing physical skills and work environment:
Ability to sit, stand, walk, kneel, stoop, squat, and lift 25 lbs.; exposure to outdoors;
ability to travel to different sites and locations.
Effective Date: February 2005
CITY OF ARCADIA
REDEVELOPMENT MANAGER
DEFINITION
Under general direction, to perform comprehensive professional level work related to
economic development, planning, and redevelopment; to coordinate the development and
implementation of economic development and redevelopment processes and procedures;
and to provide highly complex administrative support to the Assistant City
Manager/Development Services Director.
SUPERVISION EXERCISED
Exercises supervision over professional, technical, and clerical staff.
EXAMPLES OF IMPORTANT AND ESSENTIAL DUTIES
Provide research material; review, .edit, and negotiate Exclusive Negotiation Agreements
and Disposition and Development Agreements; prepare Owner/Tenant Participation
Agreements.
Prepare documents for redevelopment related work including leases, financial analyses,
environmental analyses, covenants, deeds, title reports, and public hearing notices.
Prepare bids and contracts for public utility maps, legal descriptions, appraisals, parking and
traffic studies, subdivision/parcel maps, relocation, demolition, and hazardous
waste /removal.
Monitor the work of consultants and contractors.
Prepare and review development design proposals and low /moderate income housing
proposals.
Prepare and review planning and zoning approval documents.
Prepare and review litigation documentation including eminent domain.
Participate in the preparation and administration of assigned operating and capital budgets;
maintain and monitor appropriate budgeting controls; prepare the Redevelopment Agency
budget, cash flow forecasts, and bond issues.
City of Arcadia
Redevelopment Manager (Continued) Page 2 of 4
Advise and negotiate with commercial and residential owners /tenants regarding Agency
property acquisitions, relocation, and management.
Make public presentations to commissions, committees, the City Council/Redevelopment
Agency and public /civic groups.
Participate in the development and implementation of new or revised programs, systems,
procedures, and methods of operation; compile and analyze data and make
recommendations regarding staffing, equipment, and facility needs.
Prepare and monitor program grants and related proposals.
Monitor and forecast the fiscal and economic activity impacting the assigned project areas.
Conduct surveys and perform research and statistical analyses on administrative, fiscal,
personnel, and operational problems or issues; monitor legislation and analyze proposed
legislation.
OTHER JOB RELATED DUTIES
Performs related duties and responsibilities as assigned.
JOB RELATED AND ESSENTIAL QUALIFICATIONS
Knowledge of
General principles and practices of municipal government management.
Research and reporting methods, techniques and procedures.
Principles and practices of economic development, planning, redevelopment and
bond financing.
Information sources and research techniques in the field of economic development
and redevelopment.
Disposition _ and Development Agreements, Owner/Tenant Participation
Agreements, and Exclusive Negotiation Agreements.
Development design proposals, legal descriptions, CCR's, contracts, leases,
appraisals, subdivisions, and public utility maps.
City ofArcadia
Redevelopment Manager (Continued) Page 3 of 4
Knowledge of
General principles. and practices of budget development, preparation, and
expenditure control.
Pertinent Federal, State, and local laws, codes, and regulations pertaining to
redevelopment, relocation, environmental planning, general plans, housing, zoning,
and subdivisions.
Modern office practices, methods, and computer equipment.
Safe driving principles and practices.
Skill to
Operate modern office equipment including computer equipment.
Operate a motor vehicle safely.
Ability to
Analyze and compile complex technical and statistical data and . prepare
comprehensive reports, summaries, and graphic display.
Interpret and explain complex economic development, redevelopment and planning
regulations and zoning ordinances.
Perform complex professional economic development and redevelopment work with
minimum supervision.
Conduct work in a safe manner in accordance with established policy.
Communicate clearly and concisely, both orally and in writing.
Establish, maintain, and foster positive and harmonious working relationships with
those contacted in the course of work.
Minimum Oualificafions
Experience
Five years of responsible economic and/or redevelopment experience,
including some supervisory experience.
City of Arcadia
Redevelopment Manager (Continued) Page 4 of 4
Trainine
Equivalent to a Bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university
with major course work in urban planning, public administration, real estate
development, or a related field.
1. License or Certificate
Possession of, or ability to obtain, an appropriate, valid driver's license.
Special Requirements
Essential duties require the following physical skills and work environment:
Ability to work in a standard office environment; ability to travel to different sites
and locations.
Effective Date: February 2005
STAFF REPORT
Administrative Services Department
DATE: February 15, 2005
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Tracey L. Hause, Administrative Services Directol�LJ,
By: Michael A. Casalou, Senior Management Analys
SUBJECT: Authorize an appropriation from the General Fund's u
services in excess of $15,000 under current letter aareements.
Recommendation: Approve
SUMMARY
Staff is recommending the City Council authorize an appropriation of $70,000 from the
General Fund's unappropriated fund balance for personnel legal services. In addition,
staff is requesting authorization to continue utilizing personnel legal services in excess
of $15,000 under current letter agreements that are in place with Leibert Cassidy
Whitmore and Jackson Lewis, LLP for a total amount not to exceed $70,000 in
additional costs.
BACKGROUND
In January 2003, the City Manager, Assistant City Manager and Administrative Services
Director interviewed several attorneys and firms primarily for the purpose of selecting a
firm to represent the City during labor negotiations. William Floyd of Best, Best and
Krieger was ultimately selected for that purpose and that action was approved by the
City Council in March 2003.
In addition, staff also felt it was critical to have access to more than one attorney or firm
when addressing issues in the area of employee relations. Many times when an
investigation into a matter is necessary, it is imperative that an independent attorney
that will not ultimately be defending the City if litigation occurs, conduct the
investigation, represent the City in a grievance hearing, etc. As a result, the City
reached agreement with independent firms for services on an as needed basis. The
City Council was informed of this action in a staff report in March 2003.
DISCUSSION
This arrangement has worked well for the past two years. Legal services under each of
these agreements have not exceeded $15,000 in any one fiscal year. However, due to
more activity in recent months, and with several current issues pending, staff is
projecting that personnel legal costs may exceed the amount currently budgeted. In
accordance with our policy, any professional service that exceeds $15,000 also must be
approved by the City Council. As a result, staff is recommending the City Council
authorize an appropriation of $70,000 from the General Fund's unappropriated fund
balance for personnel legal services and authorize staff to continue utilizing personnel
legal services in excess of $15,000 under current letter agreements that are in place
with Liebert Cassidy Whitmore and Jackson Lewis, LLP. Total costs between both firms
shall not exceed an additional $70,000. Staff has been working with these firms on a
number of personnel issues and is recommending these two firms continue their work
for the City:
FISCAL IMPACT
Adequate funds are available in the General Fund's unappropriated fund balance for
fiscal year 2004/05.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended the City Council:
Authorize an appropriation from the General Fund's unappropriated fund
balance of $70,000.00 for personnel legal services and authorize additional
services in excess of $15,000 under current letter agreements with Liebert
Cassidy Whitmore and Jackson Lewis, LLP.
Approved: w M
William R. Kelly, City Manager
2
6-4 dp z
Development Services Department
DATE: February 15, 2005
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Don Penman, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Direct
gr
Philip A. Wray, City Engineer /Engineering Services Administrator iV
SUBJECT: Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension
Recommendation: Accept the Recommendations of the Metro Gold Line
Foothill Extension Construction Authority's Draft Project Definition Report
Including Station and Parking Location, Grade Crossings, and Location of
Traction Power Substations with the Additional Staff Recommendations
for Santa Anita Avenue Grade Separation and Station Parking Location
SUMMARY
In FY2000, the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (SGVCOG) and the Metro
Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority (Authority) agreed to work as a
unified team to secure federal funds and begin efforts for extension of the Metro Gold
Line Foothill Extension (Foothill Extension) light rail system through the eastern San
Gabriel Valley. The light rail line will be built on the existing rail right -of -way from the
City of Arcadia to the City of Montclair. The Authority, through its technical consultants,
has completed the Draft Environmental Impact Study /Report (EIS /EIR) and is preparing
to complete the Final EIS /EIR and begin the Advanced Conceptual Engineering.
The Authority has prepared a Draft Project Definition Report (PDR) to define the critical
elements of the project, i.e. grade crossings, station and parking locations and traction
power substation locations. The PDR will become the baseline document for the Final
EIR /EIS, the Advanced Conceptual Engineering, and eventually the Preliminary
Engineering.
qv
The Authority is requesting that each city located on the Foothill Extension light rail
corridor accept the recommendations of the Draft Project Definition Report with respect
to their respective agencies.
Mayor and City Council
Staff Report
February 15, 2005
Page 2
BACKGROUND
The City of Arcadia has actively supported the effort to extend the Foothill Extension
light rail system through the eastern cities of the San Gabriel Valley. City staff has
attended multiple planning and development meetings with the Authority pertaining to
the engineering and environmental factors involved with the Foothill Extension project.
On July 15, 2003, the Arcadia City Council took action to join the Gold Line Phase II
Construction Authority Joint Powers Authority (JPA) to actively participate in decisions
affecting the Foothill Extension cities. The City then became involved in determining the
need for a grade separation on Santa Anita Avenue, designating a station and parking
site for the City, and approving a capital reserve account of Proposition A and
Proposition C funds for planning and development of a multi -modal transit station.
In June of 2003, the Authority commenced environmental work on the Draft EIS /EIR to
address local impacts such as the environment, utilities, traffic, engineering and design,
noise, vibration and aesthetics. The City requested the Authority to evaluate options to
grade separate Santa Anita Avenue and First Avenue /Santa Clara Street and look at
various station locations. On May 18, 2004 the City Council held a Study Session to
discuss the Draft EIS /EIR and the elements of the project specific to Arcadia such as
the grade separation and station location options. On June 14, 2004 the Authority
sponsored a community meeting in Arcadia to relay the results of the Draft EIS /EIR
document to community leaders and residents interested in the development of the
Foothill Extension light rail system.
The most recent series of meetings with the Authority staff have been to finalize the
specific project elements such as grade separations, station and parking locations, and
the traction power substation locations. On November 16, 2004, the City Council held a
study session to discuss these specific elements. As a result, the City Council
supported the grade separation of Santa Anita Avenue and the station location
southeast of the intersection of First Avenue and Santa Clara Street.
The Authority has prepared a Draft Project Definition Report (PDR) dated January 6,
2005, that consolidates and further defines the most critical elements of the Draft
EIR /EIS. The PDR will become the baseline document for the Final EIR /EIS. The
report discusses the four critical elements for each City: grade crossings, station
location, parking locations, and traction power substation locations. The report also
includes correspondence and meeting minutes between the individual cities and the
Authority over that last several months to support the decisions. The following is a
summary of the report's recommendations:
Mayor and City Council
Staff Report
February 15, 2005
Page 3
Grade Crossings
The Foothill Extension alignment currently crosses two City streets at— grade: Santa
Anita Avenue, and the intersection of First Avenue and Santa Clara Street. The
Authority has determined that these two grade crossings do not meet the MTA Policy for
grade separations and remain as at -grade crossings. Staff is currently reviewing the
analysis and does not yet concur with the findings for Santa Anita Avenue.
Regardless, the City Council is concerned with future traffic impacts on Santa Anita
Avenue and supports a grade separation at that location proposing the use of local
funds to pay the difference. The crossing at the First Avenue and Santa Clara Avenue
intersection is proposed at -grade and the City concurs with this finding.
Staff recommendation:
1) Santa Anita Avenue (grade separate)
2) First Ave. and Santa' Clara Street (at- grade)
3) Keep existing grade separation at Baldwin Avenue, Colorado Boulevard, and
Huntington Drive /Second Avenue
Station Location
The Draft PDR identifies two options for station locations. Option one is located directly
northwest of the intersection of First Avenue and Santa Clara Street, and option two is
located directly southeast. With the proposed grade separation at Santa Anita Avenue,
option one is not feasible so the option two station location is recommended. The
station will have two side platforms with access paralleling the tracks to the First Avenue
and Santa Clara Street intersection.
Staff recommendation:
Station located at southeast corner of First Avenue and Santa Clara Street
Parking Location
The Authority has determined based on extensive transit ridership studies that the
Arcadia station will ultimately need 800 parking spaces by year 2025. For opening day
in 2009 of the first segment from Pasadena to Azusa, studies indicate that 300 spaces
are needed. Several sites were considered for parking but most are not convenient to
the station. The most logical and convenient location is the area adjacent to and south
of the tracks west of the intersection of Santa Clara Street and First Avenue, which
includes Authority owned property and existing commercial business properties. Staff,
is supportive of the Authority owned property location but is not in agreement with the
expanded area that would affect existing commercial businesses. Staff will work closely
Mayor and City Council
Staff Report
February 15, 2005
Page 4
with the Authority through the Advanced Conceptual Engineering phase to determine
the layout and numbers of parking stalls necessary for the parking facility.
Staff recommendation:
Station parking located adjacent to tracks approximately northwest of First
Avenue and Santa Clara Street intersection
Traction Power Substation Locations
The Traction Power Substations (TPSS) supply power to the light rail vehicles, and as a
result must be located close to the rail lines and spaced at approximately one- and -one-
half -mile intervals. A TPSS consists of a pre- fabricated building typically 14 feet wide
by 43 feet long by 16 feet high and housed within a fenced area typically 40 feet by 70
feet to allow for maintenance vehicle access. The Draft PDR recommends two TPSS
locations in Arcadia. The first location is directly north of the 210 Freeway and east of
the Baldwin Avenue on -ramp in the Caltrans right -of -way. The other location is adjacent
to the tracks directly behind the building at 136 East Santa Clara. Street (directly
northwest of the Marriott Springhill Suites). The City of Arcadia has through the Draft
EIR /EIS process questioned the noise generated by the TPSS and requested noise
mitigation, if necessary, and architectural treatment and/or landscape screening of
these facilities where visible to the public.
Staff recommendation: TPSS located as follows with the appropriate architectural,
landscaping and noise treatment:
1) North of 210 Freeway and east of Baldwin Avenue on -ramp
2) Behind building at 136 East Santa Clara Street
A copy of the complete Draft PDR is available for review in the Development Services
Department.
FISCAL IMPACT
The Authority has informed the City that all betterments, elements not part of the
baseline project scope, requested by a local agency must be funded by the local
agency. The Authority considers the Santa Anita Avenue grade separation a
betterment and will look to the City of Arcadia to fund the difference. This will initially
commit the City to pay for the grade separation Advanced Conceptual Engineering,
pending the outcome of the City's review of the analysis. This work may be funded with
the Proposition A and C funds already set aside for this project. Any agreement with
the Authority to fund the work must be presented to and approved by the City Council
and will be a• separate future action. The other elements of the Draft PDR are
considered part of the baseline project scope and there is no fiscal impact on the City.
y Mayor and City Council
Staff Report
February 15, 2005
Page 5
RECOMMENDATION
That the Arcadia City Council accept the recommendations of the Metro Gold Line
Foothill Extension Construction Authority's Draft Project Definition Report including
station and parking location, grade crossings, and location of traction power substations
with the additional staff recommendations for Santa Anita Avenue grade separation and
station parking location.
Approved: x `�
William R. Kelly, City Manager
DP: PAW: pa
-a . J
STAFF REPORT
DATE: February 15, 2003 Office of the City Manager
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: William R. Kelly, City Manager I>
By: Linda Garcia, Communications, Marketing and Special
Projects Manager
SUBJECT: FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY PRIORITIES
Recommendation: Determine legislative advocacy priorities for the
coming year and authorize staff and The Ferguson Group to
proceed as referenced in this report
SUMMARY
The Ferguson Group has represented the City of Arcadia for several years with regard
to legislative matters and revenue opportunities. Their efforts have resulted in the
receipt of millions of dollars to assist with various City projects. Every year about this
time, the City Council reviews and approves projects for which The Ferguson Group will
focus on in the coming legislative session. This report summarizes the projects staff
considered for this purpose and asks the City Council to set the priorities for the coming
year.
DISCUSSION
The Ferguson Group has been working with staff to prioritize funding requests for this
year so that we, and they, can focus on those projects that best meet federal criteria
and will be favorably received with respect to the current environment in Washington,
D.C. Staff recently met with Trent Lehman of The Ferguson Group and discussed
various projects including a grade separation at Santa Anita Avenue for the Gold Line, a
gymnasium, regional homeland security /counter- terrorism training programs, public
safety vehicles, public safety training, a local history digitization project, water projects
and the Santa Anita Corridor project. Mr. Lehman stated that he expects money to be
very limited this year and he advised us to concentrate on one or two major projects.
He also suggested that since we know we will need assistance to construct a grade
separation if the Gold Line moves forward, we should begin working on this now with
the understanding that a request of this caliber may take several years to garner
attention and/or serious consideration.
Already earmarked (but not specifically allocated) for the City of Arcadia is $3 million for
road /intersection /traffic signal technology improvements to the Santa Anita Corridor.
This money would be useful in terms of possible reimbursement for projects that have
been completed, as well as capital projects on the horizon. Staff would like the
Mayor and City Council
February 15, 2005
Page 2
Ferguson` Group to work on keeping this money dedicated to the City of Arcadia. In
addition, the water /seismic projects started several years ago are well underway and it
is very important that they continue through to completion. The projects for which we
are currently seeking funding include the Orange Grove Booster Pump Station, the East
Raymond Basin Water Resources Plan and the Emergency Backup Supply Well, a total
of $1.9 million. Staff asks that. these projects remain a top priority for The Ferguson
Group.
The federal funding process is lengthy and complicated. Even when money is provided,
sometimes a City match is required or on occasion, funds may be allocated for projects
that are similar to what the City proposed, but have specific requirements that are either
not achievable by or applicable to the City of Arcadia. Staff believes, and Mr. Lehman
agrees, that in today's environment it is in Arcadia's best interest to aggressively seek
funding for those projects that are of the highest priority and /or would be extremely
difficult to complete without assistance. That is, it would not serve us well to take a
"laundry list" of requests to the legislature without being able to demonstrate a serious
need or some other significant reason for completion. With the millions of dollars that
are technically in place for the Santa Anita Corridor and the various water projects, as
well as the possibility of needing significant funds to construct a grade separation for the
Gold Line, staff is of the opinion that these items be our primary focus in the coming
year with the understanding that the work on the, grade separation is preliminary at this
point and primarily an attempt to get the project "on the radar."
FISCAL IMPACT
The purpose of this report is to ask the City Council to set the priorities for our legislative
advocacy efforts in the coming year. There is no fiscal impact at this time.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Authorize staff to direct The Ferguson Group to work on behalf of the City
of Arcadia to ensure that the money earmarked for the Santa Anita Corridor
Improvements remain set aside for Arcadia
2. Authorize staff to direct The Ferguson,Group to continue to seek funding
for the Orange Grove Booster ,Pump Station, the East .Raymond Basin
Water Resources Plan and the Emergency Backup Supply Well
3. Authorize staff to direct The Ferguson Group to begin working on obtaining
funding assistance to construct a grade separation on Santa Anita Avenue
should such be needed for the Gold Line -.
4. Authorize staff to submit any paperwork or application forms for federal
funding as may be needed for each project
3.c
7
STAFF REPORT
' NOI ty Ot KOS
DATE: February 15, 2005
Administrative Services Department
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Tracey L. Hause, Administrative Services Directo(
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 6465 approvi the form of and authorizina the
execution and delivery of a purchase and sale agreement and
related documents with respect to the sale of the seller's vehicle
license fee receivable from the state; and directing and authorizing
certain other actions in connection therewith.
Recommendation: Adopt
SUMMARY
Approximately $1.2 billion was not received by local governments during the time
period between June 2003 and November 2003 when the suspension of the
vehicle license fees ( "VLF ") offsets and the implementation of higher VLF fees
occurred. Approximately $941,655 is still owed to the City by the State (the "VLF
Gap Repayments "), which was expected to be received in August 2006.
A program was recently instituted by the California Statewide Communities
Development Authority ( "CSCDA ") to enable cities and counties to sell their
respective VLF Gap Repayments for an upfront fixed purchase price. CSCDA is
a joint powers authority sponsored by the League of California Cities (League)
and the California State Association of Counties (CBAC). The member agencies
of CSCDA include approximately 230 cities and 54 counties throughout
California, including the City or Arcadia.
Staff is recommending the City of Arcadia participate in this program and secure
the VLF funding in the current fiscal year.
BACKGROUND
Vehicle license fees ( "VLF ") were historically assessed in the amount of 2% of a
vehicle's depreciated market value for the privilege of operating a vehicle on
California's public highways. Beginning in 1999, the VLF paid by vehicle owners
was offset.(or reduced) to the effective rate of 65 %. In connection with the offset
of the VLF, the Legislature authorized appropriations from the State General
Fund to "backfill" the offset so that local governments, which receive all of the
vehicle license fee revenues, would not experience any loss of revenues. The
legislation that established the VLF offset program also provided that if there
were insufficient State General Fund moneys to fully "backfill" the VLF offset, the
percentage offset would be reduced proportionately (i.e., the license fee payable
by drivers would be increased) to assure that local governments would not be
disadvantaged.
In June 2003, the Director of Finance under the Davis Administration ordered the
suspension of VLF offsets due to a determination that insufficient State General
Fund moneys would be available for this purpose, and, beginning in October
2003, the VLF paid by vehicle owners were restored to the 2 %level. However,
the offset suspension was rescinded by Governor Schwarzenegger on November
17, 2003, and State offset payments to local govemments resumed. Local
governments received "backfill" payments totaling $3.80 billion in FY 2002 -03.
" Backfill" payments totaling $2.65 billion were paid to local governments in FY
2003 -04. However, approximately $1.2 billion was not received by local
govemments during the time period between the suspension of the VLF offsets
and the implementation of higher fees and is still owed them by the State (the
"VLF Gap Repayments "). The City's share of the VLF Gap Repayment is
$941,655 (the "VLF Receivable ").
DISCUSSION
Authorized under SB 1096, the VLF Program was instituted by the California
Statewide Communities Development Authority ( "CSCDA ") in 2004 to enable the
City and other cities and counties to sell their respective VLF Receivables to
CSCDA for an upfront fixed purchase price estimated to be. 90.14% of the VLF
Gap Repayments. CSCDA is planning to issue notes ( "VLF Notes ") and to use
the note proceeds to purchase the VLF Receivables and pay financing costs.
The actual purchase price of the VLF Receivables will depend on the total
amount of VLF Receivables that cities and counties sell to CSCDA and on bond
market conditions at the time the VLF Notes are priced. If the City sells its VLF
Receivable under the VLF Program, CSCDA will pledge the City's VLF
Receivable to secure the repayment of a corresponding portion of the VLF Notes.
The City's sale of its VLF Receivable will be irrevocable. Bondholders will have
no recourse to the City if the State does not make the VLF Gap Repayment.
2
The benefits to the City of participation in the VLF Program include:
• Immediate cash relief — the sale of the City of Arcadia's VLF
Receivable is estimated to provide the City with approximately 90.14%
or $848,773 of its VLF Receivable in March 2005, which can be used
to pay for immediate funding needs.
• Level cash Clow from the State over next two years — as explained
above, in each of FY 2004 -05 and 2005 -06, cities and counties across
the State will lose a total of $700 million annually in property tax
payments to the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund ( "ERAF "),
which benefits the State. Accordingly, the City is projected to lose
approximately $636,000 in each fiscal year. This loss in property tax
revenue in FY 2004 -05 and 2005 -06 will be followed by an increase in
revenues in FY 2006 -07 due to the payment by the State of the VLF
Gap Repayment and due to the cessation of ERAF payments in that
year. If the City sells its VLF Receivable through the VLF Program, it
can use the sale proceeds to offset the loss of revenues due to its
property tax contributions over the next two years and eliminate the
spike in revenues in the third year, thereby creating a more level cash
flow in each of the next three fiscal years.
years — beginning in FY 2004 -05, the State will permanently eliminate
the VLF backfill paid to the City and will replace it with an equal
amount of property tax. While these actions are intended to cancel
each other out, the City is now receiving . these payments semi-
annually as property taxes, rather than monthly as VLF backfill
payments. As a result there is a loss of interest earning due to the
delay in receiving the subventions.
• Budgetary flexibility in FY 2004 -05 and 2005 -06 — the sale of the City's
VLF Receivable would provide additional revenues in FY 2004 -05
which can be applied to resolve budgetary challenges in FY 2004 -05
and 2005 -06.
Upon delivery of the VLF Notes, CSCDA will make available to the City its fixed
purchase price. This payment will equal the City's VLF Receivable amount less
capitalized interest costs (to pay interest on the VLF Notes until maturity), credit
enhancement fees and bond issuance costs. As discussed above, the City's VLF
Receivable is $941,665. The purchase price to be paid by CSCDA is estimated
to be $848,773 but cannot be determined with specificity until the total number of
participants in the VLF Program is known and bond market conditions are taken
into account at the time the VLF Notes are priced.
3
4
The proposed VLF Receivables Sale Resolution:
(1) authorizes the sale of the City's VLF Receivable to CSCDA for a minimum
sale price at least equal to $848,773;
(2) approves the form, and directs the execution and delivery, of the Purchase
and Sale Agreement with CSCDA and related documents;
(3) authorizes and directs any Authorized Officer to send, or to cause to be
sent, an irrevocable written instruction required by statute to the State
Controller notifying the State of the sale of the VLF Receivable and
instructing the disbursement of the VLF Receivable to the VLF Bond
Trustee;
(4) approves the use of the VLF Receivables proceeds for general City
operations;
(5) appoints certain City officers and officials as Authorized Officers for
purposes of signing documents; and
(6) authorizes miscellaneous related actions and makes certain ratifications,
findings and determinations required by law.
FISCAL IMPACT
Given the unknown of the State's financial situation over the next few years, staff
feels it is prudent to secure the VLF proceeds at this time to ensure the City will
benefit from this subvention rather than risk loosing the entire amount in the
future. Also as discussed above, this will help resolve budgetary challenges in
FY's 2004 -05 and 2005 -06.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council:
Adopt Resolution No. 6465 approving the form of and
authorizing the execution and delivery of a purchase and sale
agreement and related documents with respect to the sale of
the seller's vehicle license fee receivable from the state; and
directing and authorizing certain other actions in connection
therewith.
Approved:
William R. Kelly, City Manager
El
RESOLUTION NO. 6465
CITY COUNCIL
OF THE
CITY OF ARCADIA
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FORM OF AND AUTHORIZING THE
EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF A PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT
AND RELATED DOCUMENTS WITH RESPECT TO THE SALE OF THE
SELLER'S VEHICLE LICENSE FEE RECEIVABLE FROM THE STATE;
AND DIRECTING AND AUTHORIZING CERTAIN OTHER ACTIONS IN
CONNECTION THEREWITH
WHEREAS, certain public agencies within the State of California (the "State ") are
entitled to receive certain payments payable by the State to each such local agency on or before
August 15, 2006, in connection with vehicle license fees pursuant to Section 10754.11 of the
California Revenue and Taxation Code ( "VLF Gap Repayments';
WHEREAS, the City of Arcadia (the "Seller ") is entitled to and has determined to sell all
right, title and interest of the Seller in and to the "VLF Receivable ", as defined in Section 6585(i)
of the California Government Code (the "VLF Receivable "), namely, the right to payment of
moneys due or to become due to the Seller out of funds payable in connection with vehicle
license fees to a local agency pursuant to Section 10754.11 of the California Revenue and
Taxation Code;
WHEREAS, the California Statewide Communities Development Authority, a joint
exercise of powers authority organized and existing under the laws of the State (the "Authority "),
has been authorized pursuant to Section 6588(w) of the California Government Code to purchase
the VLF Receivable;
WHEREAS, the Authority desires to purchase the VLF Receivable and the Seller desires
to sell the VLF Receivable pursuant to a purchase and sale agreement by and between the Seller
and the Authority in the form presented to this City Council (the "Sale Agreement ") for the
purposes set forth herein;
WHEREAS, in order to finance the purchase price of the VLF Receivable from the Seller
and the purchase price of other VLF Receivables from other local agencies, the Authority will
issue its taxable and tax- exempt notes (the "Notes ") pursuant to Section 6590 of the Califomia
Government Code and an Indenture (the "Indenture', by and between the Authority and Wells
Fargo Bank, National Association, as trustee (the "Trustee "), which Notes will be payable solely
from the proceeds of the VLF Receivable and such other VLF Receivables;
WHEREAS, the Seller acknowledges that the Authority will grant a security interest in
the VLF Receivable to the Trustee and any credit enhancer to secure payment of the Notes; and
WHEREAS, a portion of the proceeds of the Notes will be used by the Authority to,
among other things, pay the purchase price of the VLF Receivable;
Taxable
DOCSSF1:795390.1
WHEREAS, the Seller will use the proceeds received from the sale of the VLF
Receivable for any lawful purpose as permitted under the applicable laws of the State;
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Arcadia hereby resolves as follows:
Section 1. All of the recitals set forth above are true and correct, and this City
Council hereby so finds and determines.
Section 2. The Seller hereby authorizes the sale of the VLF Receivable to the
Authority for a price no less than the Minimum Purchase Price set forth in Appendix A . The
form of Sale Agreement presented to the City Council is hereby approved. An Authorized
Officer (as set forth in Appendix A) is hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver the
Sale Agreement on behalf of the Seller, which shall be in substantially the form presented to this
meeting, with such changes therein, deletions therefrom and additions thereto, as such
Authorized Officer shall approve, which approval shall be conclusively evidenced by the
execution and delivery of the Sale Agreement.
Section 3. Any Authorized Officer is hereby authorized and directed to send, or
to cause to be sent, an irrevocable written instruction to the State Controller notifying the State of
the sale of the VLF Receivable and instructing the disbursement pursuant to Section 6588.5(c) of
California Government Code of the VLF Receivable to the Trustee, on behalf of the Authority.
Section 4. The Authorized Officers and such other Seller officers, as appropriate,
are hereby authorized and directed, jointly and severally, to do any and all'things and to execute
and deliver any and all documents, including but not limited to one or more tax certificates, if
required, appropriate escrow instructions relating to the delivery into escrow of executed
documents prior to the closing of the Notes, and such other documents mentioned in the Sale
Agreement or the Indenture, which any of them may deem necessary or desirable in order to
implement the Sale Agreement and otherwise to carry out, give effect to and comply with the
terms and intent of this Resolution; and all such actions heretofore taken by such officers are
hereby ratified, confirmed and approved.
Section 5. All consents, approvals, notices, orders, requests and other actions
permitted or required by any of the documents authorized by this Resolution, whether before or
after the sale of the VLF Receivable or the issuance of the Notes, including without limitation
any of the foregoing that may be necessary or desirable in connection with any default under or
amendment of such documents, may be given or taken by an Authorized Officer without further
authorization by this City Council, and each Authorized Officer is hereby authorized and
directed to give any such consent, approval, notice, order or request, to execute any necessary or
appropriate documents or amendments, and to take any such action that such Authorized Officer
may deem necessary or desirable to further the purposes of this Resolution.
Section 6. The City Council acknowledges that, upon execution and delivery of
the Sale Agreement, the Seller is contractually obligated to sell the VLF Receivable to the
Authority pursuant to the Sale Agreement and the Seller shall not have any option to revoke its
approval of the Sale Agreement or to determine not to perform its obligations thereunder.
Taxable
DOCSSF1:795390.1 2
Section 7. This Resolution shall take effect from and after its adoption and
approval.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Arcadia, State of
California, this day of , 2005, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Approved as to form :
SELLER'S COUNSEL
Dated:
Taxable
DOCSSF1:795390.1
3
APPENDIX A
CITY OF ARCADIA
Minimum Purchase An amount equal to or greater than $848,773.00 (the "Minimum
Price: Purchase Price ").
Authorized Officers: City Manager
Assistant City Manager
Administrative Services Director
any designee of any of them, as appointed in a written certificate of
such Authorized Officer delivered to the Trustee.
Taxable
DOCSSITL795390.1