HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Review Draft Las Tunas IS_MND 2-21-18
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY/
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. PD 17-01
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. TTM 17-05
MULTI-FAMILY ARCH. DESIGN REVIEW NO. MFADR 17-06
PROTECTED TREE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NO. TRE 18-03
PROTECTED HEALTHY TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. TRH 18-03
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. LLA 18-01
February 21, 2018
Lead Agency:
City of Arcadia
240 West Huntington Drive
Arcadia, CA 91006
Prepared by:
LSA Associates, Inc.
1500 Iowa Avenue, Suite 200
Riverside, CA 92507
LSA No. CTA1401.02
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
i
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
CONTENTS
INITIAL STUDY
SECTION 1 BACKGROUND ..................................................................................... 1
1.1 SUMMARY .................................................................................................... 1
1.2 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
SECTION 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....................................................................... 3
2.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND ............................................................................... 3
2.2 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS ........................................................................ 3
2.3 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS, PERMITS, AND APPROVALS ......................... 14
SECTION 3 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ................................................... 16
3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED .................................. 16
3.2 DETERMINATION ....................................................................................... 16
SECTION 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION ................................. 17
I. AESTHETICS .............................................................................................. 17
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES ......................................................................... 19
III. AIR QUALITY ............................................................................................. 21
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ........................................................................... 27
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES .............................................................................. 32
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS ................................................................................. 37
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ................................................................... 40
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ..................................................... 43
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ............................................................ 51
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING .......................................................................... 58
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES ................................................................................ 59
XII. NOISE ........................................................................................................ 59
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING ....................................................................... 68
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES ...................................................................................... 69
XV. RECREATION.............................................................................................. 71
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC ....................................................................... 72
XVII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES .................................................................. 75
XVIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS .............................................................. 77
XIX. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE .................................................. 81
SECTION 5 LIST OF PREPARERS .......................................................................... 83
5.1 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. ............................................................................... 83
5.2 CITY OF ARCADIA ...................................................................................... 83
SECTION 6 REFERENCES ..................................................................................... 84
SECTION 7 SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES ............................................... 87
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
ii
APPENDICES (on CD)
A Project Information
B Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Study
C Traffic Assessment
D Noise Assessment
E Hazmat Studies
F Geotechnical Study
G Historical Assessment
H Tree Study
LIST OF TABLES
Table A: Potential Construction Schedule .................................................................. 14
Table B: Short-Term Construction Emissions ............................................................. 23
Table C: Long-Term Regional Operational Emissions (worst case) ............................... 24
Table D: Short-Term Local Significance Threshold Impacts ......................................... 26
Table E: Long-Term Local Significance Threshold Impacts .......................................... 26
Table F: Project Tree Inventory ................................................................................ 30
Table G: Existing Traffic Noise Levels Without and With Project (Retail Option) ........... 62
Table H: Existing Traffic Noise Levels Without and With Project (Restaurant Option) ... 62
Table I: Vibration Source Amplitudes for Construction Equipment ............................... 64
Table J: Human Response to Groundborne Noise and Vibration .................................. 65
Table K: Summary of Construction Equipment and Activity Vibration ........................... 66
Table L: Project Trip Generation ............................................................................... 73
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Project Location .......................................................................................... 4
Figure 2: Project Area ................................................................................................ 5
Figure 3: Site Photographs ......................................................................................... 6
Figure 4: Proposed Site Plan ....................................................................................... 9
Figure 5: Proposed Landscaping Plan ........................................................................ 10
Figure 6A: Project Elevations .................................................................................... 11
Figure 6B: Project Elevations .................................................................................... 12
Figure 6C: Project Elevations .................................................................................... 13
Figure 7: On-site Hazmat Limitations ........................................................................ 45
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
1
SECTION 1 BACKGROUND
1.1 SUMMARY
Project Title: Las Tunas Mixed Use Project
Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Arcadia
240 West Huntington Drive
Arcadia, CA 91006
Contact Person and Phone Number:
Vanessa Quiroz, Assistant Planner
(626) 574-5422
Project Location:
17 Las Tunas Drive
Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
Sandra Gottlieb
Olson Urban Housing, LLC
3010 Old Ranch Parkway, #100
Seal Beach, CA 90740
General Plan Designation:
Mixed Use (22-30 du/ac and 1.0 FAR)
Existing Zoning Designation:
Mixed Use (MU)
Project Entitlements
Planned Development No. PD 17-0
Tentative Tract Map No. TTM 17-05
Multi-Family Architectural Design Review
No. MFADR 17-06
Protected Tree Encroachment Permit No.
TRE 18-03
Protected Healthy Tree Removal Permit No.
TRH 18-03
Lot Line Adjustment No. LLA 18-01
1.2 INTRODUCTION
The City of Arcadia was established in 1903 and is home to the famous Santa Anita
Park, the Los Angeles County Arboretum, and Arcadia County Park. The City covers
approximately 11 square miles northeast of the City of Los Angeles at the west end of
the San Gabriel Valley.
The project site occupies 4.93 acres at the northwest corner of Santa Anita Avenue and
Las Tunas Drive. The project site is currently developed with an existing commercial
center although two-thirds of the space is currently vacant. The Las Tunas Mixed Use
Project proposes to adjust the property lot lines of the two existing lots to facilitate the
mixed use development. The property will consist of the following: Lot No. 1 (4.22
acres) will have 80 condominium units including 3 live/work units and an additional
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
2
2,487 square feet of ground floor commercial space and Lot No. 2 (0.71 acre) will have
8,500 square feet of commercial space (“fast casual restaurant” and/or retail space).
The mixed-use residential and live/work component will be situated on approximately
4.22 acres and the retail building on 0.71 acres. The project will be considered together
as a mixed-use project as a Planned Development (PD) to “create a dynamic mixed use
community that integrates residential and commercial uses in a synergistic manner,
enhancing the entire development and benefitting the surrounding area”.
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
3
SECTION 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND
The project site occupies approximately 4.93 acres and is located at the northwest
corner of Santa Anita Avenue and W. Live Oak Avenue in the City of Arcadia. The
property consists of two parcels: Los Angeles County Assessor Parcel Numbers 578-
8020-030 and -031. The site is located in the Mt. Wilson 7.5-minute quadrangle
maintained by the U.S. Geological Survey (1988). Figures 1 and 2 show the location of
the project site and surrounding land uses.
The site is generally flat with the northwest corner at an elevation of 350 feet above
mean sea level (amsl) and the southeast corner at an elevation of 346 feet amsl,
gradually sloping down (0.7 percent) to the southeast. Trees are located to the north,
east, west, and south of the site. Figure 3 provides photographs of the project site.
The project site is currently developed with a 58,000 square-foot commercial building1
although only about a third of the building is currently occupied. Existing tenants include
Adult Day Care, MP Sound, A&J Restaurant, Wash Land, Palace Cleaner, and Little
Stanford Academy while previous tenants included O’Reilly Auto Parts and Goodwill.
2.2 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
The project involves the construction for 80-unit residential condominiums, including 3
live/work units and approximately 10,987 square feet of commercial space (2,487
square feet within the live/work units and 8,500 square feet as fast casual restaurant
and/or retail uses) on 4.93 acres. A lot line adjustment is being processed for the two
lots on the 4.93-acre site to facilitate development of the integrated retail building
component. The mixed-use residential and live/work component will be situated on
approximately 4.22 acres and the retail building on 0.71 acres (see Appendix A). The
project will be considered together as a mixed-use project as a Planned Development
(PD) to “create a dynamic mixed use community that integrates residential and
commercial uses in a synergistic manner, enhancing the entire development and
benefitting the surrounding area”.
The 8,500 square foot commercial building will be located west of the existing Starbucks
and will include 44 auto parking stalls. Amenities include a total of approximately 27,012
square feet designated as public open space and approximately 13,849 square feet of
private open space (i.e., patios, porches, decks). The project is expected to generate
approximately 232 persons2 or residents and 27 employees3 in the City of Arcadia.
1 Per the LA County Assessor’s Map. January 2018.
2 City average household size of 2.9 persons, based on City of Arcadia General Plan. 2.9 persons/unit times 80 units
equals 232 persons
3 Southern California Association of Governments, Employment Density Study Summary Report, October 31, 2001.
8,500 square feet of commercial space divided by 344 square feet/employee equals 24 employees plus three
live/work units = 27 employees/persons.
Las Tunas Mixed Use Project
Regional and Project Location
I:\CTA1401_02\Reports\ISMND\fig1_RegLocAerial.mxd (10/10/2017)
Aä
?l!"^$
%&o(
!"`$
?q
A»
%&l(
A»
!"a$
!"`$
%&g(
%&g(
AË
!"a$
!"a$
!"`$KË
Los Angeles County
Orange County
San Bernardino County
Riverside County
0 10 20
Miles
Project Area
Regional Location
SOURCE: Bing Aerial, 2015; ESRI Streetmap, 2013.
FIGURE 1
0 1000 2000
FEET
S!!N
Project Location
S!!N
!!!!LAS TUNA
S
D
R
I
V
E
LIVE OAK AVENU
ESANTA ANITA AVENUEWOODRUFF AVENUE
WELLAND AVENUEResidential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Commercial
Automotive Retail
Gas Station
Commercial
Commercial
4
3
1
2
Las Tunas Mixed Use Project
Project Location and Photo Locations
I:\CTA1401_02\Reports\ISMND\fig2_Location.mxd (8/31/2017)
SOURCE: GoogleEarth, 2016
FIGURE 2
0 100 200
FEET
S!!N
Site Photographs
Las Tunas Mixed Use Project
I:\CTA1401_2\G\SitePhotos.cdr (2/20/2018)
Photograph 1: View from south of the project looking north toward the San Gabriel Mountains.
Photograph 2: View from the northwest corner looking south along the western portion of the site.
FIGURE3A
Site Photographs
Las Tunas Mixed Use Project
I:\CTA1401_2\G\SitePhotos.cdr (2/20/2018)
Photograph 1: View from the Northeast corner looking south along the eastern portion of the site.
Photograph 2: View from the western central portion looking east across the project site.
FIGURE3B
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
8
Grading for the project could require up to approximately 50,000 cubic yards of
earthwork4, including remediation of previously contaminated soils onsite, with 15,000
cubic yards of cut, 15,000 cubic yards of fill, and approximately 15,000 cubic yards of
soil to be exported off the site.
Figure 4 shows the proposed site plan. Figure 5 the proposed landscape plan and
Figures 6A through 6C show typical elevations of the residential buildings. The site plans
and application materials are provided in Appendix A.
Land Use/Zoning. The underlying General Plan land use designation is Mixed Use (22-
30 du/ac with 1.0 floor area ratio or FAR) and the zoning is Mixed Use (MU) (see Figure
5). The proposed entitlement process for the proposed project includes a Lot Line
Adjustment; a Tentative Tract Map No. TTM 17-05; Multi-Family Architectural Design
Review; a Protected Tree Encroachment Permit; a Protected Healthy Tree Removal
Permit; and Planned Development (PD). The applicant will be adjusting the property lot
lines of the two lots and the PD will apply to both lots to ensure the project is consistent
with the base zoning (MU) which requires the inclusion of a ground floor, street frontage
commercial component for all projects. Mixed Use commercial/office and residential
tenancies and stand-alone commercial or office uses are allowed. Typical population
density for mixed use projects is 63-86 persons per acre. The proposed Planned
Development will have a private gated residential community wrapped around the
commercial uses (i.e., restaurant and/or retail), including three live-work units that will
be integrated horizontally and vertically with the proposed commercial uses.
Surrounding Land Uses. The site is abutted by a church to the north, a mix of one
and two-story single-family residential (northwest) and commercial uses (west), a mix of
one-story single-family residential (further northeast) and a Chevron gas station (across
Santa Anita Avenue to the east), and commercial to the south, across Las Tunas Drive.
Starbucks is located adjacent southeast of the project site, at northwest of Santa Anita
Avenue and Live Oak Avenue intersection. It should be noted that Temple City is located
south of the project site, just beyond the commercial uses, approximately 0.8 mile south
of City of Arcadia boundary. Figure 3 provides photographs of the project site and
surrounding land uses.
Off-Site Improvements and Easements. The project site is served by City of
Arcadia for water and sewer. The City has a 12-inch water main in Santa Anita Avenue
and an 8-inch water main in Las Tunas Drive/ Live Oak Avenue. The Project will be
served from the existing mains on both streets. The City has one existing sewer main in
Las Tunas Drive/Live Oak Avenue and two mains in Santa Anita Avenue. Sewer service
will be from the existing main in Live Oak Avenue. All site drainage currently flows into
an existing 45-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) storm drain line in Santa Anita
Avenue owned by the Los Angeles County Public Works Department. The proposed new
connection to this drain will reduce the storm flow using on-site detention and will
require a connection permit from the County. The tentative tract map (TTM 77121)
shows a number of public utility and access easements on the site, one private utility
easement is proposed along the East of the proposed commercial center, Lot 2, to
provide sewer, water and fire service to the residential units. A connection permit will
4 From the project grading plan (Appendix A)
SOURCE Angeleno Associates, 2018:NFEETI:\CTA1401_2\G\Site_Plan.cdr (2/20/2018)120060FIGURE4Site PlanLas Tunas Mixed Use Project
SOURCE SMP EnvironmentalDesign, 2018:NFEETI:\CTA1401_2\G\Landscape_Plan.cdr (2/20/2018)80040FIGURE5Landscaping PlanLas Tunas Mixed Use Project
SOURCE Angeleno Associates,February 2018:I:\CTA1401_2\G\ResElevations.cdr (2/20/2018)Residential ElevationsLas Tunas Mixed Use ProjectFIGURE6A
SOURCE Angeleno Associates,February 2018:I:\CTA1401_2\G\ResElevations.cdr (2/20/2018)Residential ElevationsLas Tunas Mixed Use ProjectFIGURE6B
SOURCE Angeleno Associates,February 2018:I:\CTA1401_2\G\ResElevations.cdr (2/20/2018)Residential ElevationsLas Tunas Mixed Use ProjectFIGURE6C
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
14
also be required from Los Angeles County for connection to their storm drain system in
Santa Anita Avenue just east of the site (see Appendix A).
Construction Activities. The applicant proposes the following potential schedule for
the various project-related construction activities as shown in Table A.
Table A: Potential Construction Schedule
Activity Time Completion
Project Initiation — Mid to Late 2018
Demolition 2 months Fall to Late 2018
Grading1 2-3 months Early to Mid-2019
Site Work 5-6 months Mid to Late 2019
Building Construction2 2 years (6 phases) Mid to Late 2021
Project Completed 3 years End 2021
Source: Olson Urban Housing, LLC. January 2018.
1 Includes various aspects of soil remediation per project engineer and project hazmat remediation plans.
2 Includes architectural coatings and final paving
Regional and Local Access. The project site is approximately 2.7 miles south of
Interstate 210 (I-210), approximately 2.7 miles north of Interstate 10 (I-10), and
approximately 2.8 miles west of Interstate 605 (I-605). Access into the residential units
will be from Santa Anita Avenue and Las Tunas Avenue. For the commercial uses access
will be from Las Tunas Drive.
Initial Study/Technical Studies. LSA has prepared a comprehensive Initial Study
including the following technical studies: historical assessment of the existing 49 year-
old commercial buildings; air quality and greenhouse gas emissions; noise and vibration;
and a trip generation comparison of the existing to proposed uses including traffic
counts at the project driveways.
2.3 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS, PERMITS, AND APPROVALS
The project applicant has applied for or will need the following discretionary approvals
from the City relative to this project:
Planned Development No. PD 17-01;
Tentative Tract Map No. TTM 17-05;
Multi-Family Architectural Design Review No. MFADR 17-06;
Protected Tree Encroachment Permit No. TRE 18-03;
Protected Healthy Tree Removal Permit No. TRH 18-03; and
Lot Line Adjustment No. LLA 18-01.
Other non-discretionary actions anticipated to be taken by the City at the Staff level as
part of the proposed project include:
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
15
Approval of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to mitigate site runoff
during construction (i.e., over the short-term) and a Standard Urban Stormwater
Management Plan (SUSMP) to mitigate for post-construction runoff flows (i.e., over
the long-term during project occupancy and operation).
Building permit. The comprehensive building permit includes building permit,
plumbing, mechanical, and electrical permits.
Grading permit.
Sewer connection permit.
Demolition permit.
Development of the proposed project may require the following permits and/or
approvals from other responsible agencies:
A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit from the Regional Water
Quality Control Board - Los Angeles Region to ensure that construction site drainage
velocities are equal to or less than the pre-construction conditions and downstream
water quality is not harmed.
Connection Permit to the Los Angeles County storm drain line in Santa Anita Avenue.
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
17
SECTION 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION
I. AESTHETICS
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I.a) The most prominent scenic resource that can be viewed from the project area is the San
Gabriel Mountains to the north.5 There are no other unique vistas, natural or undisturbed
areas, or officially recognized scenic areas in the surrounding area. The project site is currently
developed with a single-story commercial building but businesses currently only occupy about
a third of the commercial building. Located to the southeast of the project site, just northwest
of Live Oak Avenue and S. Santa Anita Avenue is a Starbucks. The existing commercial building
has an approximate height of 20 feet.
Surrounding land uses include a Presbyterian church to the north, with trees blocking views of
the San Gabriel Mountains. East of the project site, just beyond Santa Anita Avenue, is single-
family residential properties (northeast) as well as a Chevron gas station (east). South of the
project site, across Las Tunas Drive, are commercial and commercial manufacturing uses,
including a car wash and automotive repair shops. Located to the northwest of the project site
is a mix of one and two-story residential units and commercial uses (west). The closest
residential building to the subject site is located near the northwest corner of the property
approximately five-feet from the project boundary.
Public views of the San Gabriel Mountain peaks are available traveling northbound on Santa
Anita Avenue, and intermittently to travelers both east- and west-bound on Las Tunas Drive
due to trees located north of Las Tunas Drive. See Figure 2 for an aerial view of surrounding
land uses, and Figure 4 for site photographs and existing views of the project area.
The project includes a mix of residential and commercial buildings, as shown in the previous
Figure 4, Proposed Site Plan, while representative elevations of the various buildings are shown
in Figure 6, Project Elevations. The project consists of horizontal residential units instead of
vertical through the Planned Development, and the condo units comprise of two and three-
story unit.
The project is proposed as a private gated community with access off of Santa Anita Avenue
and Las Tunas Drive. All townhouse buildings/units will have a maximum height of 39’-0”with
and a 10-foot building setback along Santa Anita Avenue with a 15-foot building setback at the
second story along Santa Anita Avenue. Additional building setbacks include: a 20-foot
minimum setback along western property line adjacent to existing commercial uses (west) and
5 Resource Sustainability, City of Arcadia General Plan, November 2010.
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
18
residential uses (northwest); a 10-foot minimum setback between the proposed residential
units and the existing Starbucks; and a 15-foot minimum setback along the northern property
line adjacent to existing residential uses. The proposed project includes Santa Barbara Spanish
architectural design to be consistent and compatible with the surrounding residential
community to the north and northwest.
As mentioned above, the current commercial building located on the project site has a height
of approximately 20 feet. The proposed project townhomes have a maximum building height of
40 feet, approximately 20 feet taller than what currently exists onsite. Trees are located along
the southern portion of the project site, partially blocking views south of Las Tunas Drive (see
Section IV, Biological Resources, for additional discussion of trees protected by City ordinance).
Views of the San Gabriel Mountain peaks from the project site would be partially blocked by
trees, which are located to the north of the project site, just between the project site and the
church. Views to the San Gabriel Mountains from residential units to the north and west of the
project site would not be blocked by the buildings of the proposed project since the mountains
are north of the project area. Views of the San Gabriel Mountains from Las Tunas Drive are
currently impacted by the existing commercial building as well as the trees located along Las
Tunas Drive and along the northern portion of the project site. It should be noted landscaping
will be included along Las Tunas Drive as part of the project (see Figure 5, Proposed
Landscaping Plan). Implementation of the proposed development plan will actually improve
views onto the site from surrounding areas by demolishing the existing commercial center
building. In addition, the applicant will have to comply with the City’s existing tree protection
ordinance regarding onsite or adjacent offsite trees if their canopies overhang the site, which is
the case for several trees along the northern boundary of the site (see Section IV, Biological
Resources, for additional discussion of trees protected by City ordinance).
With implementation of the building setbacks, architectural design, and landscaping features,
as well as compliance with the City’s tree protection ordinance, impacts to scenic vistas would
be considered less than significant and no mitigation is required.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I.b) The project site and surrounding area does not contain any designated scenic highways.6
Therefore, the project will not significantly damage any scenic resources within a state scenic
highway, and no mitigation is required.
6 A State Scenic Highway is defined as any freeway, highway, road, or other public right-of-way, that traverses an area of
exceptional scenic quality. Eligible and Officially Designated Routes, California Department of Transportation Scenic Highway,
http://www.dot.ca.gov/design/lap/livability/scenic-highways/, website accessed August 7, 2017.
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
19
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I.c) The project proposes to demolish the existing commercial building and replace it with 80
residential condominium units of which 3 are live-work units with 2,487 square feet of
commercial uses, and 8,500 square feet retail commercial uses (fast casual restaurant and/or
retail). Implementation of the proposed development plan will not block views of the San
Gabriel Mountains to the north, and would improve views onto the site from surrounding areas
by demolishing the existing commercial center building. The analysis in Section I.a
demonstrates why the proposed project would not have significant impacts on the existing
visual character of the site or surrounding urban area, and no mitigation is required.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare, which would adversely affect daytime
or nighttime views in the area?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I.d) The existing commercial building and parking lot creates light and glare at present, even
with two-thirds of the existing shops closed. Located east and south of the site are two major
roadways (S. Santa Anita Avenue and Las Tunas Drive), residential uses, various types of
commercial uses, and streetlights that produce nighttime light levels typical of urban areas.
Substantial sources of night lighting in the area include Santa Anita Avenue to the east, Las
Tunas Drive to the south, a Chevron gas station and residential units to the east, commercial
uses to the south, and a mix of commercial and residential units to the west. Similar to
surrounding land uses, the proposed project would include lighting for the new townhomes,
live/work units and retail building and parking lot.. To reduce potential impacts from light or
glare to less than significant levels, lighting will be shielded such that it will minimize light
spillage to adjacent properties in accordance with City Municipal Code, and gateway design
features will be constructed with street trees, decorative landscaping, architectural features,
welcome signs, decorative lighting, and other streetscape design techniques in accordance with
Policy CC-4.1 of the Community Character Element of the City’s General Plan to provide a
pleasant and integrated appearance. Additionally, the proposed project would not utilize high
gloss or reflective materials that would cause glare or reflection. Through adherence to
applicable City standards, the project would not generate excessive light or glare; therefore, a
less than significant impact would occur. No mitigation is required.
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects,
lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment
Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to
use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
20
resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer
to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding
the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the
Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in
Forest protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
II.a) The project site is primarily covered at present by impervious man-made surfaces,
including commercial uses and parking lot. In addition, the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program (FMMP) does not designate any land in the City of Arcadia or the surrounding areas as
Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance.7 Therefore, no impact
to farmland would occur and no mitigation is required.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
II.b) There is no agricultural use zoning or Williamson Act contracts in the City of Arcadia.
Therefore, there will be no impacts in this regard and no mitigation is required.
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of , forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code section 4526, or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 51104 (g))?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
II.c) The site is almost completely covered by man-made impervious surfaces (e.g., building
and parking lots) at present. The City of Arcadia has no timberland or timberland production
land, and has no property zoned for forest land. There is no farmland in the City of Arcadia, so
the project will not convert farmland to non-agricultural use, and there are no impacts in this
regard and no mitigation is required.
7 Los Angeles County Important Farmland 2016, California Department of Conservation, July 2017, accessed July 26, 2017.
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
21
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion
of forest land to non-forest use?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
II.d) As outlined in II.c above, the proposed development will not result in the loss of forest
land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. Therefore, there is no impact and no
mitigation is required.
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
II.e) As outlined in Section II.c above, there is no farmland in the City of Arcadia. Therefore,
the project would not convert farmland to non-agricultural use and there is no impact. No
mitigation is required.
III. 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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
III.a) LSA prepared a detailed assessment of air quality impacts and the project traffic impact
analysis for the proposed project based on the project development characteristics (LSA 2018)
(Appendix B). The Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the South Coast Air Basin (Basin)
sets forth a comprehensive program that will lead the Basin into compliance with federal and
state air quality standards. Air quality in the Basin is regulated by the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD). The AQMP control measures and related emission reduction
estimates are based upon emissions projections for a future development scenario derived
from land use, population, and employment characteristics defined in consultation with local
governments. Accordingly, conformance with the AQMP for development projects is
determined by demonstrating compliance with local land use plans and/or population
projections.
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
22
As outlined in Section X, Land Use and Planning, the proposed project is consistent with the
land use and zoning designations of the site subject to approval of a Planned Development..
The underlying land use designation and zoning is Mixed Use (maximum 30 du/ac with 1.0
FAR). The project will not require a General Plan Amendment or Zone Change, and its
residential and commercial uses are well below the maximums allowed for a mixed use project,
so the proposed land use change would not represent an increase in traffic and air pollutant
generation compared to the land uses under which the AQMP was prepared. According to the
CEQA Air Quality Handbook, significant projects include large development such as airports,
electrical generating facilities, petroleum and gas refineries, water ports, and solid waste
disposal sites. Under this definition, the project is not considered a significant project due to its
limited size. In addition, as shown in Tables B–D the project would result in short-term
construction and long-term pollutant emissions that are less than the CEQA significance
emissions thresholds established by the SCAQMD. Therefore, the project would not result in an
increase in the frequency or severity of any air quality standards violation and will not cause a
new air quality standard violation. For these reasons, the project would not conflict with or
obstruct implementation of air quality plans, and no mitigation is required.
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
III.b) The following analysis analyzes both short-term impacts caused by construction activities
and long-term impacts caused by occupancy and operation of the project as proposed.
Short-Term Impacts
Grading for the project could require up to approximately 50,000 cubic yards of earthwork8,
including remediation of previously contaminated soils onsite, with 15,000 cubic yards of cut,
15,000 cubic yards of fill, and approximately 15,000 cubic yards of soil to be exported off the
site. Grading and other construction activities would result in combustion emissions from heavy-
duty construction vehicles, haul trucks, and vehicles transporting construction crews. Exhaust
emissions during these construction activities will vary daily as construction activity levels
change. The grading and demolition phases of construction represent the most intense
construction period during which daily emissions would be at their greatest level, based on the
potential amount of equipment and duration of use. The other construction phases would not
result in any greater construction emissions due to less equipment being used and shorter
construction duration. Construction-related impacts also include demolition of the existing
building and existing improvements on the site. Table B below provides a “worst-case” estimate
of the short-term construction emissions from the proposed project.
Currently, the Basin is designated as a nonattainment area for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5. Project
construction will be required to comply with regional fugitive dust reduction practices (SCAQMD
Rule 403) that assist in reducing short-term air pollutant emissions. The purpose of SCAQMD
Rule 403 is to reduce the amount of particulate matter in the atmosphere resulting from man-
made fugitive dust sources. Among the requirements under this rule, fugitive dust must be
8 From the project grading plan (Appendix A)
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
23
controlled so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond
the property line of the emission source. This is achieved by requiring actions to prevent,
reduce, or mitigate dust emissions. Adherence to Rule 403 is a standard requirement for any
construction activity occurring within the Basin. As depicted in Table B, construction emissions
would not exceed daily SCAQMD thresholds, so impacts are less than significant.
Table B: Short-Term Construction Emissions
Construction Phase
Total Regional Pollutant Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOX CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Demolition 4.0 44.1 24.3 0.1 3.9 2.2
Site Preparation 2.3 24.3 10.1 0.0 5.4 3.4
Grading 2.8 46.6 16.2 0.1 5.0 2.7
Building Construction 3.4 26.9 23.7 0.1 2.6 1.7
Architectural Coating 16.0 1.9 2.8 0.0 0.3 0.2
Paving 1.8 14.7 15.3 0.0 0.9 0.8
Max. Peak Daily 19.4 46.6 26.5 0.1 5.4 3.4
SCAQMD Thresholds 75.0 100.0 550.0 150.0 150.0 55.0
Significant Emissions? No No No No No No
Source: Appendix B, LSA 2017. Values rounded to nearest one decimal place.
Note: Peak daily emissions are based on a worst-case assumption that the Building Construction and Architectural Coating phases
would overlap.
CO = carbon monoxide
lbs/day = pounds per day
NOx = nitrogen oxides
PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size
PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size
SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District
SOx = sulfur oxides
ROG = reactive organic gases (volatile organic compounds)
While short-term project air quality impacts are under the SCAQMD thresholds, the following
mitigation measures are suggested to help assure potential air pollutants from project
construction are reduced to the greatest extent feasible.
AQ-1 The following measures shall be implemented during construction:
1. The project proponent shall ensure that construction equipment is properly
maintained and serviced to minimize exhaust emissions.
2. The project proponent shall ensure that existing power sources are utilized
where feasible via temporary power lines to avoid on-site power generation.
3. The project proponent shall ensure that construction employees be informed of
ride-sharing and transit opportunities.
4. The project proponent shall ensure that any portion of the site to be graded shall
be prewatered to a depth of three (3) feet prior to the onset of grading activities.
5. The project proponent shall ensure that twice daily watering of the site or other
soil stabilization methods shall be employed on an ongoing basis after the
initiation of any on-site grading activity. Portions of the site that are actively
being graded shall be watered regularly to ensure that a crust is formed on the
ground surface, and shall be watered at the end of each workday.
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
24
6. The project proponent shall ensure that all disturbed areas are treated to prevent
erosion until the site is constructed.
7. To reduce the potential for wind erosion, the project proponent shall ensure that
landscaped areas are installed as soon as possible.
8. The project proponent shall ensure that SCAQMD Rule 403 is adhered to,
ensuring the cleanup of construction-related dirt on approach routes to the
project site.
9. The project proponent shall ensure that all grading activities are suspended
during first and second stage ozone episodes or when wind speeds exceed 25
miles per hour.
10. Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, or maintain at
least 0.6 m (2 feet) of freeboard (vertical space between the top of the load and
top of the trailer) in accordance with the requirements of California Vehicle Code
(CVC) Section 23114.
11. Limit all on-site traffic speeds to 15 mph or less.
12. The construction contractor shall use construction equipment that have Tier 4
final engines, level 3 diesel particulate filters (DPF), with oxidation catalyst that
impart a 20% reduction.
Long-Term Impacts
The Project proposes a total of 80 residential units of which 3 are live-work units, with 2,487
square feet commercial space and 8,500 square foot of commercial uses (total 10,987 square
feet of commercial use). Long-term air pollutant emission impacts result from stationary sources
and mobile sources involving any project-related changes. The project would change onsite
uses from commercial to a mix of residential and commercial uses with 3 live-work units and a
fast-casual food restaurant and/or retail. The project would result in net increases in both
stationary and mobile source emissions. The stationary source emissions would come from the
use of domestic and commercial cleaning products, landscape and other maintenance
equipment, general energy, and solid waste, while trip generation factors were taken from the
ITE Trip Generation Manual, Ninth Edition and the traffic impact analysis prepared by for the
proposed project (Appendix C). The long-term operational emissions associated with the
proposed project, calculated using the CalEEMod 2016.3.1 model are shown in Table C. The air
quality study shows that the increase of all criteria pollutants as a result of the proposed project
would be less than the applicable SCAQMD daily emission thresholds. Therefore, project-related
long-term air quality impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Table C: Long-Term Regional Operational Emissions (worst case)
Source
Pollutant Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Existing Emissions
Area Sources 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Energy Sources 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Mobile Sources 8.7 36.9 93.5 0.3 19.6 5.4
Total Existing Emissions 10.0 36.9 93.5 0.3 19.6 5.4
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
25
Table C: Long-Term Regional Operational Emissions (worst case)
Source
Pollutant Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Proposed Project
Area Sources 2.4 1.4 7.2 0.0 0.1 0.1
Energy Sources 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
Mobile Sources 4.2 17.4 43.1 0.1 8.8 2.5
Total Project Emissions 6.6 19.2 50.5 0.1 8.9 2.6
Total Net Emissions -3.4 -17.7 -43.0 -0.2 -10.7 -2.8
SCAQMD Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55
Significant? No No No No No No
Source: Appendix B, LSA 2017. Worst case winter or summer values - rounded to nearest one decimal place.
CO = carbon monoxide
lbs/day = pounds per day
NOx = nitrogen oxides
PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size
PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size
SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District
SOx = sulfur oxides
ROG = reactive organic gases (volatile organic compounds)
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)?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
III.c) The majority of the project-related operational emissions would be due to residents
coming and going from their units, and a small amount of customer and employee vehicle trips
to and from the commercial uses. Tables B and C indicate that all emissions of criteria
pollutants from the proposed project would be less than the applicable SCAQMD thresholds over
both the short and long term, therefore, no significant cumulative impacts would occur and no
mitigation is required.
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
III.d) Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) represent the maximum emissions from a
project that would not result in an exceedance of the national or state ambient air quality
standards. LSTs are based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant within the project
source receptor area (SRA) and the distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. For this project,
the appropriate SRA is the East San Gabriel Valley according to the project air quality analysis
included in Appendix B of this report.
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
26
Short-Term LST Impacts
As previously described, it is expected that construction would occur in one phase, and the site
is only 4.93 acres, so less than five (5) acres would be actively worked on during times allowed
by the Arcadia Municipal Code (i.e., M-F 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM and Saturdays from 8:00 AM to
5:00 PM. No construction work is allowed on Sundays or holidays). The closest sensitive
receptors to the site are residential units located immediately north and west of the project site.
Table C shows that emissions are below LST thresholds and thus would be less than significant
and not require mitigation (see Table D). Note that the SCAQMD has not established an LST for
reactive organic gases/volatile organic compounds (ROG/VOC) or sulfur oxides because
ROG/VOC are ozone precursors with only a regional concern, and SOx is not included because
after gasoline reformulation there are essentially no SOx emissions from vehicular sources.
Table D: Short-Term Local Significance Threshold Impacts
Emissions Sources NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
On-site Emissions 38.0 32.0 5.3 3.4
LST Thresholds 108.5 788.0 6.0 4.0
Significant Emissions? No No No No
Source: Table E, LSA 2017
CO = carbon monoxide
lbs/day = pounds per day
LST = local significance threshold
Long-Term LST Analysis
The project proposes 80 residential units including 3 live/work units, and a total of 10,987
square feet of commercial uses. The potential long-term daily air pollutant emissions from the
proposed residential and commercial uses were calculated and compared with the appropriate
LSTs from the SCAQMD based on CalEEMod 2016.3.1 model data from the project air quality
assessment (Appendix B). As shown in Table E, the calculations determined that the operational
emission rates would not exceed the LST thresholds for the closest sensitive receptors.
Therefore, the proposed operational activity would not result in a localized significant air quality
impact and no mitigation is required. Note that the SCAQMD has not established an LST for
reactive organic gases/volatile organic compounds (ROG/VOC) or sulfur oxides because
ROG/VOC are ozone precursors with only a regional concern, and SOx is not included because
after gasoline reformulation there are essentially no SOx emissions from vehicular sources.
Table E: Long-Term Local Significance Threshold Impacts
Daily Emissions Sources NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Onsite emissions 2.3 9.4 0.6 0.3
LST Thresholds 203.0 1,733.0 4.0 2.0
Significant Emissions? No No No No
Source: Table F, Appendix B, LSA 2018. NA = Not Applicable. Values rounded to the nearest one decimal place.
CO = carbon monoxide
lbs/day = pounds per day
NOX = nitrogen oxides
PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size
PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size
ROG = reactive organic gases (volatile organic compounds)
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
27
Hot Spots Analysis
Project-generated traffic congestion may result in the formation of locally high concentrations of
CO, known as CO “hot spots.” Section XVI indicates the project would not have any significant
impacts on traffic in the project area (i.e., no intersections would degrade to unacceptable
levels). The intersections in the project area would therefore operate at an acceptable LOS and
would not experience CO “hot spots” because significant traffic congestion (i.e., to the level
necessary to create CO hot spots) would not occur.
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
III.e) Project construction will generate limited odors over the short term, mainly fumes from
gasoline- and diesel-powered construction equipment. These odors would be temporary and not
likely to be noticeable beyond the project limits. The painting of buildings or the installation of
concrete paving may also create temporary odors. SCAQMD Rule 1113 outlines standards for
paint applications, while Rule 1108 identifies standards regarding the application of asphalt.
Adherence to the standards identified in these SCAQMD Rules would reduce temporary odor
impacts to a less than significant level, and no mitigation is required.
Land uses generally associated with long-term objectionable odors include agricultural uses,
wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting operations,
refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding facilities. The proposed project is largely
residential so no food and/or waste odors are expected to result in significant odor impacts. The
housing units and commercial uses will be required to adhere to City waste storage
requirements (i.e., enclosed trash enclosures that are regularly emptied). Through the
adherence of these permits and requirements, the proposed project is not expected to generate
long-term objectionable odors. Because the project would not involve any substantial short-
term or long-term sources of strong negative odors, impacts are considered less than significant
and no mitigation is required.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
28
IV.a) The proposed project site is located on an urban infill site and is currently developed with
impervious surfaces (i.e., building and parking lot). The surrounding uses include: a church to
the north, single-family residential units and a Chevron gas station to the east, commercial units
to the south, across Las Tunas Drive, and a mix of single-family residential and commercial
units to the west. Trees surround the project site, and some of these are covered by the City’s
tree protection ordinance (see sub-section IV.e). However, there is no evidence these trees or
the project site support any candidate, sensitive, or special status species. Therefore, no impact
would occur with the development of the proposed project with regards to this issue. No
mitigation is required.
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IV.b) The project site does not contain any designated riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural communities. The site is completely developed with man-made improvements and
landscaping, and does not contain any natural drainages or riparian vegetation. Therefore,
there are no impacts in this regard, and no mitigation is required.
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IV.c) The project site and immediate surrounding area are completely developed with man-
made improvements and do not contain any natural drainages, federally protected wetlands, or
any biological resources that would be under the jurisdiction of federal or state resource
agencies. Therefore, there are no impacts in this regard, and no mitigation is required.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IV.d) There are no known native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species within the City of
Arcadia. The site also does not contain any vegetation other than landscaped ornamental trees,
which provide minimal biological resource value. The site does not contain any drainage
features that would support fish or other wildlife, nor does it contain any resources that would
assist any species that are migrating or native wildlife raising their young.
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
29
The site supports very limited wildlife species, mainly those that are tolerant of regular human
activity including ground squirrels, rodents, and songbirds such as finches, chickadees, and
mockingbirds. The existing landscaping on the project site is minimal, however, migratory and
raptorial birds, which might utilize the nearby trees, are covered by the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act and may be impacted by project construction if birds or nests are present in the trees
adjacent to the site during grading. While potential impacts to nesting birds are considered low,
Mitigation Measure BIO-1 is recommended to help ensure there will be no significant impact
to any bird species covered by the MBTA.
BIO-1 Tree removal should not occur during the local nesting season (February 1 to
September 15 for nesting birds and February 1 to June 30 for nesting raptors),
to the extent practicable. If any construction or tree removal occurs during the
nesting season, a nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist
prior to commencement of grading or removal of any trees on the property. If
the biologist determines that nesting birds are present, restrictions may be
placed on construction activities in the vicinity of the nest observed until the nest
is no longer active, as determined by a qualified biologist. The size of the
protective barrier will be determined by the biologist based on the location of the
nest, type of construction activities, the existing human activity in the vicinity of
the nest and the sensitivity of the nesting species. Grading and/or construction
may resume in this area when a qualified biologist has determined the nest is no
longer occupied and all juveniles have fledged. This measure shall be
implemented to the satisfaction of the City Planning Services.
With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, there will be no significant impacts in this
regard, and no additional mitigation is required.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IV.e) The City of Arcadia has a Tree Preservation Ordinance (TPO) that protects trees with a
diameter of 12 inches or greater. There are several trees that are “protected” under the TPO on
the site or where the canopies of trees adjacent to the site overhang the site. Therefore, a
qualified arborist has prepared a Tree Report as required by the TPO (see Appendix H). The
Tree Report evaluated a total of 36 onsite and 20 offsite trees, but found only six onsite trees
and 20 offsite trees met the protection criteria of the TPO (see Table F). Trees not covered
included those that were too small (single trunk less than 12 inches in diameter at breast
height) or were non-protected species (e.g., silk oak) which will be removed during project
construction. There are four “protected” oak trees located along the northern boundary of the
site, and 6 “protected” carrotwood trees along the western property boundary. There are also
two protected oak trees and one protected magnolia tree in the public right-of-way on Santa
Anita Avenue (i.e., street trees). The three street trees have canopies that extend over the
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
30
project site but the Tree Study these can been trimmed to allow onsite construction with no
significant harm to the street trees.
Table F: Project Tree Inventory
Number Species Location/Condition
Recommended
Action
ONSITE PROTECTED (6)
1 Victorian Box At the north property line Replace
5 Chinese Elm At the north property line Replace
ONSITE NOT PROTECTED (30)
11 Silk Oak At the northwest corner (<12” dbh) Remove
11 Lemon Bottle Brush At the north property line (multi-trunk) Remove
4 Carrotwood In the south parking lot (<12” dbh) Remove
2 Carrotwood In the south parking lot but outside the
setback requirements
Remove
1 Canary Island Date
Palm
In the south parking lot but outside the
setback requirements
Remove
1 Victorian Box At the north property line (<12” dbh) Remove
OFFSITE CITY STREET TREES (10)
7 Ficus On the north side of W. Live Oak Ave Replace
2 Holly Oak On the west side of Santa Anita Ave Trim
1 Magnolia On the west side of Santa Anita Ave Trim
OFFSITE NEIGHBORING TREES
5 Carrotwood Near the west property line Protect
4 Coast Live Oak
(Quercus agrifolia)
In the back yards of the northern church
property
Protect
1 Liquid Amber At the south/west property line (dead) Remove
Source: Pages 1-2, California Arbor Care. January 8, 2018.
dbh = diameter at breast height
The Tree Study concluded the project would result in the removal of 36 onsite trees, remove
and replace 7 offsite street trees, and impact 12 offsite trees that would require some form of
protection to avoid damage during project construction. The proposed project plans call for the
removal and replacement of the walls along the northern and western boundaries of the site,
which would likely result in the removal of some of the adjacent trees covered by the TPO.
The Tree Study recommended protecting the five carrotwood trees near the western boundary
of the site and the four oak trees north of the site. The Tree Study recommended tree
protection fencing be installed around each of the protected trees to prevent root compaction
from construction vehicle movement. Therefore, Based on the project Tree Study, the project
will be required to follow the “tree protection plan” directives outlined in Mitigation Measure
BIO-2 to meet the requirements of the TPO. In this way, potential impacts in this regard would
be reduced to less than significant levels.
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
31
BIO-2 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall demonstrate the
project landscaping plan and planned construction is consistent with the City’s
Tree Protection Ordinance and Tree Study prepared by California Arbor Care
dated January 8, 2018 (IS/MND Appendix H) or any subsequent revision or
addition approved by the City.. All tree protection activities shall be consistent
with the Tree Study and include but not be limited to:
1) The four Coast live oak trees located north of the site on the church and
residential property (Tree Study Pages 8-9, Trees 23, 24, 40, and 42) shall be
protected in place by incorporating a bridging technique over their root systems
within the new wall and trimming the canopy of the tree per Tree Study
specifications.
2) The wall footing near the five Carrotwood trees along the western boundary
of the site (Tree Study Pages 8-9, Trees 15-20) shall be designed to minimize
impacts on the tree roots per the Tree Study specifications.
3) The two Holly Oak and one Magnolia trees (offsite City street trees) along the
west side of Santa Anita Avenue (Tree Study Pages 8-9, Trees 43-45) shall be
trimmed to allow equipment or scaffolding clearance.
4) The seven Ficus trees (offsite City street trees) along the north side of W. Live
Oak Avenue/Las Tunas (Tree Study Pages 8-9, Trees 7-13) shall be removed and
replaced with appropriate street trees designated by the City.
5) Tree protection fencing shall be installed around the driplines of each
protected tree during construction per the specifications of the Tree Study. This
will help prevent root compaction from vehicles and help avoid damaging
protected trees while allowing equipment or scaffolding clearance during
construction.
6) During all construction activities, the following restrictions shall be observed
around all protected trees identified in the Tree Study:
* Avoid damaging the roots, stem, and branches with mechanical and
manual equipment.
* Avoid soil compaction by prohibiting the use of heavy equipment such as
backhoes and bobcats under the tree drip line.
* Do not store or park tools, equipment, vehicles, or chemicals under the
tree drip line.
* Avoid washing of equipment and tools such as wheel barrels, shovels,
and mechanical motors under the tree drip line.
* Prevent flooding and pooling of service water under the drip line.
* Avoid cutting tree roots whenever possible. This can be accomplished by
bridging roots, tunneling, or radial trenching. If roots must be cut use a
sharp tool that will make a clean flush cut and not tear the roots. If
possible all digging under the tree drip line should be done manually to
avoid tearing out of roots.
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
32
* Construction personnel shall be briefed on the importance of the
guidelines before construction begins and reminded of it during tailgate
meetings and as necessary. A printed copy shall be posted where
employees can be reminded of it.
With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2, the project is not expected to conflict
with this or any other local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, and no
additional mitigation is required.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IV.f) There are no adopted, approved, or proposed Habitat Conservation Plan; Natural
Community Conservation Plans; or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation
plans that cover habitat located within the City of Arcadia.9 Therefore, no impact with the
development of the project related to this issue and no mitigation is required.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined
in §15064.5?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
V.a) The existing commercial building and a parking lot on the site were built in 1968
according to the Los Angeles County Assessor information10. Since the building would be 50
years of age by the time the project was considered, LSA conducted an historical assessment
and determined it does not meet the requirements of listing for either the California Register of
Historical Resources or National Register of Historic Places, therefore, it is not considered a
historical resource. In addition, the City of Arcadia maintains a list of local historical resources
and the project site is not included on this list (Appendix G). Therefore, the proposed project
would not have a significant impact on historical resources, and no mitigation is required.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
9 Biological Resources, Arcadia General Plan Update, Draft Program EIR, 2010.
10 LA County Property Assessment Information System http://maps.assessor.lacounty.gov.
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
33
V.b) The project site has been completely disturbed by previous development and human
activity. Development of the proposed project will be relatively shallow and is not expected to
cause any significant impacts to archaeological resources on the site. However, it is still
possible, though unlikely, that archaeological resources may be found during excavation of the
project site. In addition, AB 52 requires Native American tribes to contact lead agencies if they
want to consult on development projects. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1
through CUL-4 below are based in part on consultation with the Gabrielino Band of Mission
Indians-Kizh Nation and will help ensure that unanticipated impacts to archaeological resources
will be reduced to less than significant levels.
CUL-1 Project Archaeologist. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a qualified
project archaeologist (see CUL-4) shall be retained and present at the pre-
grading conference to establish procedures for temporarily halting or re-
directing work to permit the sampling, identification and evaluation of artifacts if
potentially significant artifacts are uncovered. If any resources are discovered
during project grading, work shall be halted in that area so the project
archaeologist can be present to assess the significance of the find. The project
archaeologist shall observe the remaining earthmoving activities at the project
site consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(b), (c), and (d). The
monitor shall be equipped to record and salvage cultural resources that may be
unearthed during grading activities. The monitor shall be empowered to
temporarily halt or divert grading equipment to allow recording and removal of
the unearthed resources. The monitor shall prepare a summary memo report of
their work and submit it to the City Development Services Division within 60
days of the completion of grading.
CUL-2 Native American Monitor. The project applicant shall obtain the services of a
qualified Native American Monitor(s) during construction-related ground
disturbance activities. Ground disturbance is defined by the Tribal
Representatives from the Gabrielino Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation as
activities that include, but are not limited to, pavement removal, pot-holing or
auguring, grubbing, weed abatement, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and
trenching, within the project area. The monitor(s) must be approved by the
Tribal Representatives and will be present on-site during the construction
phases that involve any ground disturbing activities. The Native American
Monitor(s) will complete monitoring logs on a daily basis. The logs will provide
descriptions of the daily activities, including construction activities, locations,
soil, and any cultural materials identified. The monitor(s) shall possess
Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER)
certification. In addition, the monitor(s) will be required to provide insurance
certificates, including liability insurance, for any archaeological resource(s)
encountered during grading and excavation activities pertinent to the provisions
outlined in the California Environmental Quality Act, California Public Resources
Code Division 13, Section 21083.2 (a) through (k). The on-site monitoring shall
end when the project site grading and excavation activities are completed, or
when the Tribal Representatives and monitor have indicated that the site has a
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
34
low potential for archeological resources.
CUL-3 Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources. All archaeological
resources unearthed by project construction activities shall be evaluated by the
Qualified Archaeologist and Native Monitor. If the resources are Native American
in origin, the Tribe shall coordinate with the landowner regarding treatment and
curation of these resources. Typically, the Tribe will request reburial or
preservation for educational purposes. If a resource is determined by the
Qualified Archaeologist to constitute a “historical resource” pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5(a) or has a “unique archaeological resource”
pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(g), the Qualified
Archaeologist shall coordinate with the applicant and the City to develop a
formal treatment plan that would serve to reduce impacts to the resources. The
treatment plan established for the resources shall be in accordance with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5(f) for historical resources and Public Resources Code
Sections 21083.2(b) for unique archaeological resources. Preservation in place
(i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place is
not feasible, treatment may include implementation of archaeological data
recovery excavations to remove the resource along with subsequent laboratory
processing and analysis. Any historic archaeological material that is not Native
American in origin shall be curated at a public, non-profit institution with a
research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History Museum of Los
Angeles County or the Fowler Museum, if such an institution agrees to accept
the material. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, they shall be
donated to a local school or historical society in the area for educational
purposes.
CUL-4 Professional Standards. Archaeological and Native American monitoring and
excavation during construction projects will be consistent with current
professional standards. All feasible care to avoid any unnecessary disturbance,
physical modification, or separation of human remains and associated funerary
objects shall be taken. Principal personnel must meet the Secretary of Interior
standards for archaeology and have a minimum of 10 years of experience as a
principal investigator working with Tribal Cultural Resources in southern
California. The Qualified Archaeologist shall ensure that all other personnel are
appropriately trained and qualified.
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
V.c) The project site has been extensively disturbed in the past, and is currently covered with
man-made structures and improvements. However, it is possible, though not likely, that
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
35
megafaunal (ancient large mammal) or related paleontological resources may be found during
excavation of the project site, since such resources have occasionally been found during
excavations elsewhere in the LA Basin. To prevent impacts to unanticipated paleontological
resources, Mitigation Measure CUL-5 is recommended.
CUL-5 Paleo Monitor. If paleontological resources (fossils) are discovered during
project grading, work will be halted in that area until a qualified paleontologist
can be retained to assess the significance of the find. The project paleontologist
shall monitor remaining earthmoving activities at the project site and shall be
equipped to record and salvage fossil resources that may be unearthed during
grading activities. The paleontologist shall be empowered to temporarily halt or
divert grading equipment to allow recording and removal of the unearthed
resources. Any fossils found shall be evaluated in accordance with the CEQA
Guidelines and offered for curation at an accredited facility approved by the City
of Arcadia. Once grading activities have ceased or the paleontologist determines
that monitoring is no longer necessary, monitoring activities shall be
discontinued. This measure may be combined with CUL-1 at the discretion of the
City’s Planning/Community Development Administrator.
Implementation of this measure will help ensure there will be no significant impacts to
unexpected paleontological resources or unique geological features from project construction.
No additional mitigation measures are required.
d) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
V.d) The proposed project site does not contain any known human remains. However, there is
always a small possibility that ground-disturbing activities during construction may uncover
previously unknown buried human remains. Therefore, Mitigation Measure CUL-6 is
recommended:
CUL-6 Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and Associated Funerary
Objects. In the event of an accidental discovery or recognition of any human
remains, California State Health and Safety Code § 7050.5 dictates that no
further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary
findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to CEQA regulations and PRC §
5097.98. If human remains are found, the LA County Coroner’s office shall be
contacted to determine if the remains are recent or of Native American
significance. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall include a
note to this effect on the grading plans for the project.
Human remains are defined as any physical remains of a human being. The term
“human remains” encompasses more than human bones. In ancient as well as
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
36
historic times, Tribal Traditions included, but were not limited to, the burial of
associated cultural resources (Funerary objects) with the deceased, and the
ceremonial burning of human remains. These remains are to be treated in the
same manner as bone fragments that remain intact. Associated funerary objects
are objects that, as part of the death rite or ceremony of a culture, are
reasonably believed to have been placed with individual human remains either at
the time of death or later; other items made exclusively for burial purposes or to
contain human remains can also be considered as associated funerary objects.
NAGPRA guidance specifically states that the federal agencies will consult with
organizations on whose aboriginal lands the remains and cultural items might be
discovered, who are reasonably known to have a cultural relationship to the
human remains and other cultural items. Therefore, for this project site, it is
appropriate to consult with the Gabrielino Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation
as recommended by the NAHC.
Any discoveries of human skeletal material shall be immediately reported to the
County Coroner. The monitor will immediately divert work at minimum of 50 feet
and place an exclusion zone around the burial. The monitor will then notify the
Qualified Archaeologist and the construction manager who will call the coroner.
Work will continue to be diverted while the coroner determines whether the
remains are Native American. The discovery is to be kept confidential and secure
to prevent any further disturbance. If Native American, the coroner will notify the
NAHC as mandated by state law who will then appoint a Most Likely Descendent.
In the case where discovered human remains cannot be fully documented and
recovered on the same day, the remains will be covered with muslin cloth and a
steel plate that can be moved by heavy equipment placed over the excavation
opening to protect the remains. If this type of steel plate is not available, a 24
hour guard should be posted outside of working hours. The Tribe will make every
effort to recommend diverting the project and keeping the remains in situ and
protected. If the project cannot be diverted, it may be determined that burials
will be removed. The Tribe will work closely with the Qualified Archaeologist to
ensure that the excavation is treated carefully, ethically and respectfully. If data
recovery is approved by the Tribe, documentation shall be taken which includes
at a minimum detailed descriptive notes and sketches. Additional types of
documentation shall be approved by the Tribe for data recovery purposes.
Cremations will either be removed in bulk or by means as necessary to ensure
completely recovery of all material. If the discovery of human remains includes 4
or more burials, the location is considered a cemetery and a separate treatment
plan shall be created. The project applicant shall consult with the Tribe regarding
avoidance of all cemetery sites. Once complete, a final report of all activities is to
be submitted to the NAHC. The Tribe does NOT authorize any scientific study or
the utilization of any invasive diagnostics on human remains.
If the coroner determines the remains represent a historic non-Native American
burial, the burial shall be treated in the same manner of respect with agreement
of the coroner. Reburial will be in an appropriate setting. If the coroner
determines the remains to be modern, the coroner will take custody of the
remains.
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
37
Each occurrence of human remains and associated funerary objects will be
stored using opaque cloth bags. All human remains, funerary objects, sacred
objects and objects of cultural patrimony will be removed to a secure container
on site if possible. These items should be retained and reburied within six
months of recovery. There shall be no publicity regarding any cultural materials
recovered.
Implementation of this measure will help ensure there will be no significant impacts if human
remains are found during project grading. No additional mitigation measures are required.
VI. 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.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
iv) Landslides?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VI.a.i) The project and surrounding land uses are fully developed with a mix of single-family,
multi-family residential units, commercial buildings, a church, and a gas station. According to
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
38
the City of Arcadia General Plan11, the Raymond Hill Fault Zone and the Sierra Madre Fault Zone
are the only faults located in the City of Arcadia. The proposed project site is not located within
the boundaries of an Earthquake Fault Zone for fault rupture hazard as defined by the Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972.12 The closest known Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone is the
Raymond Fault located approximately 4.6 miles north of the project site. Therefore, the
potential for fault rupture at or near the project site is considered low. Because of these
reasons, a less than significant impact related to this issue would occur. No mitigation is
required.
VI.a.ii) Like all of southern California, the project site has and will continue to be subject to
ground shaking generated from activity on local and regional faults. The Raymond Hill Fault
Zone and Sierra Madre Fault Zone are the only faults traverse the City to the north, which have
the potential to cause moderate to large earthquakes that will result in intense ground shaking.
The Raymond Fault is located approximately 4.6 miles north of the project site.8 The project will
be design and construction in accordance with the currently 2016 California Building Code
(C.B.C), which will reduce impacts related to seismic ground shaking to less than significant
levels. No mitigation is required.
VI.a.iii) There are generally three factors which must exist in order for liquefaction to occur.
These factors are listed as follows:
1. A source of ground shaking, such as an earthquake, capable of generating soil mass
distortions;
2. A relatively loose silty and/or sandy soil; and
3. A relative shallow groundwater table (within approximately 50 feet below ground
surface) or completely saturated soil conditions that will allow positive pore pressure
generation.
The onsite subsurface were evaluated based off these three factors mentioned above.
Groundwater level is anticipated at a depth greater than 50 feet below the ground surface of
the site and materials below this depth are very dense. Additionally, the project site is not
located within a liquefaction zone.13 The project will be designed and constructed in accordance
with the current 2016 CBC. Therefore, construction of the project will have a less than
significant impact related to liquefaction. No mitigation measures are required.
VI.a.iv) Landslides can result from earthquake-related ground shaking failure of steep slopes
due to water saturation or unstable soil conditions. The project site is generally flat and is not
located within or near susceptible landslide zone.8 Therefore, a less than significant impact
would occur, and no mitigation is required.
11 Figure S-1: Regional Faults, Safety, City of Arcadia General Plan, November 2010.
12 Figure S-2: Alquist-Priolo Fault Rupture Hazard Zones, City of Arcadia General Plan, November 2010.
13 Figure S-3: Liquefaction and Landslide Hazards, City of Arcadia General Plan, November 2010.
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
39
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VI.b) The proposed project site slopes to the southeast at a gradient of 0.7 percent with
elevations ranging from 350 feet above mean sea level (amsl) at the northwest corner sloping
down to 346 feet amsl at the southeast corner. The site is currently covered over by buildings
and mainly impervious surfaces. Excavation and grading for the proposed project would
temporarily expose some onsite soils to erosion from wind or water. The project will be
designed and constructed to prevent erosion over both the short- and long-term, which will be
implemented through Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and HYD-1 through HYD-3. Therefore,
these potential impacts would be less than significant.
Because the project involves more than one acre, State and federal requirements call for the
preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
establishing erosion and sediment controls for construction activities. The project must also
comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations.
The project site is underlain by Urban Land-Palmview-Tujunga Complex, 0 to 5 percent slopes,14
having a very low runoff classification and the frequency of flooding is low. On site soils
consisted of alluvial deposits to the maximum depth explored (51.5 feet) although some minor
fills up to about 2.0 feet thick were encountered in borings B-3 and B-4.15 Urban Land-
Palmview-Tujunga Complex is identified as having a slight to moderate erosion potential, so the
proposed project is required to adhere to the City’s grading requirements, obtain an NPDES
permit, prepare a Standard Urban Stormwater Management Plan (SUSMP), and prepare an
SWPPP. These actions are outlined in Mitigation Measures HYD-1 through HYD-3 in
Section IX, Hydrology and Water Quality. Compliance with these measures will reduce potential
impacts associated with soil erosion hazards to less than significant levels.
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
onsite or offsite landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VI.c) Subsidence is the sudden sinking or gradual downward settling of the earth’s surface with
little or no horizontal movement. Subsidence is caused by a variety of activities, which includes,
but is not limited to, withdrawal of groundwater, pumping of oil and gas from underground, the
collapse of underground mines, liquefaction, and hydrocompaction. However, the City of
Arcadia is located on an alluvial plain that is relatively flat and expected to be stable. A
commercial building is currently developed on the project site. The project site is not located
14 Web Soil Survey, United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service.
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx (website accessed August 2, 2017).
15 Geotechnical Due-Diligence, Albus-Keefe and Associates, Inc., February 15, 2017.
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
40
within a landslide hazard area or liquefaction. Because of these reasons, impacts related to this
issue would be considered less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VI.d) Expansive soils generally have a substantial amount of clay particles, which can give up
water (shrink) or absorb water (swell). The change in the volume exerts stress on buildings and
other loads placed on these soils. The extent or range of the shrink/swell is influenced by the
amount and kind of clay present in the soil. The occurrence of these soils is often associated
with geologic units having marginal stability. Expansive soils can be widely dispersed and they
can occur in hillside areas as well as low-lying alluvial basins. The proposed project surface soils
are anticipated to possess a very low expansion potential, however, additional testing will be
required.12 The proposed project will have to be designed and constructed in accordance with
the most current 2016 California Building Codes. Mitigation Measure GEO-1 will ensure impacts
to expansive soils have a less than significant impact. No additional mitigation measures are
required.
GEO-1 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall demonstrate that
project plans have incorporated the conclusions and recommendations of the
final project geotechnical study prepared by Albus-Keefe & Associates, Inc.
During grading and construction, the project shall comply with requirements
outlined in the final project geotechnical study. This measure shall be
implemented to the satisfaction of the Arcadia Engineering Services Division.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal of waste
water?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VI.e) The proposed project would be connected to an existing sewer line along Live Oak/Las
Tunas Drive. No septic or alternative wastewater disposal systems are needed for the proposed
project. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts in this regard and no mitigation is
required.
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
41
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project:
a) Generate gas emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact
on the environment?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VII.a) LSA prepared a detailed assessment of greenhouse gas emission impacts for the
proposed project based on the project development characteristics (LSA 2018) (Appendix B).
During the construction of the project, expected equipment and vehicles will generate
greenhouse gases in small amounts. There currently are no identified thresholds for greenhouse
gas emissions. This section provides an analysis of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated
with the proposed project. This analysis examines the short-term construction and long-term
operational impacts of the proposed project as it relates to greenhouse gases. A detailed
assessment of project-related GHG emissions is included in Appendix B.
The project proposed 80 residential units including 3 live-work units, and 10,987 square feet of
commercial uses. Project-related emissions of GHGs have been modeled by including direct
emissions from project vehicular traffic. Indirect emissions from electric power plants
generating electricity, energy used to provide water, and the processing of solid waste were
accounted for taking into account the nature of the project. The project would utilize
quantifiable amounts of electricity, natural gas, water and generate solid waste that will
contribute CO2, CH4, and N2O emissions. The emissions of GHG resulting have been estimated
using parameters from both the State of California and the federal government.
Calculation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The project’s GHG emissions during construction and mobile sources during project operation
were estimated by using the CalEEMod 2016.3.1 computer model developed and maintained by
the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The project’s GHG emissions from
onsite equipment were estimated using the emission factors found on the SCAQMD website.
The proposed project would generate a total of 639.9 metric tons (MT) of CO2e GHGs during
construction plus 21.3 metric tons of CO2e each year amortized over a 30-year period consistent
with SCAQMD methodologies. The long-term GHG emissions of the project are estimated to be
2,264 metric tons of CO2e per year. As a worst case scenario, it is assumed the current on-site
uses are not generating any GHG emissions.
For comparison, the existing emissions from the entire SCAG region are estimated to be
approximately 176.79 MMT/yr of CO2e, and the existing emissions for the entire State are
estimated at approximately 496.95 MMT/yr of CO2e. The carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous
oxide emissions that would be associated with the proposed project is less than a thousandth of
one percent of California’s total emissions for carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide.
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
42
According to the LSA air quality analysis, the project’s short- and long-term GHG emissions
would be lower than the SCAQMD’s interim Tier 3 GHG emissions “efficiency” threshold for
residential or commercial projects of 3,000 MT/yr of CO2e even assuming worst-case conditions
(i.e., not accounting for the elimination of the ongoing GHG emissions from the existing service
station). Since projected short- and long-term GHG emissions are well below the SCAQMD’s
efficiency threshold, cumulative GHG impacts are less than significant and no mitigation
measures are required.
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VII.b) The City of Arcadia has adopted the following goals and policies under the City’s General
Plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in compliance with SB 375 and AB 32 relative to the
proposed project:
GOAL RS-2: Reducing Arcadia’s carbon footprint in compliance with SB 375 and AB 32.
Policy RS-2.1: Cooperate with the state to implement AB 32, which calls for reducing
greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and Executive Order S-3-05, which
calls for 1990 levels by 2020 and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.
Policy RS-2.2: Reduce per capita greenhouse gas emissions to 15% below 2005 levels by
2020, and total municipal greenhouse gas emissions to 15% below 2005 levels by 2020.
GOAL RS-5: Wise and creative energy use that incorporates new technologies for energy
generation and new approaches to energy conservation.
Policy RS-5.3: Require that all new development meets or exceeds the state and local
energy conservation requirements.
Policy RS-5.4: Investigate the options for adopting local “green” building standards that
address energy use in particular. Consider having City facilities serve as a model for
energy efficiency by incorporating state-of-the-art energy features in new public buildings
and significant remodeling of existing buildings.
The project is required to meet Title 24 energy conservation requirements and all applicable
Green Building Code requirements regarding energy and water conservation. With
implementation of these regulatory requirements, project-related GHG emissions will be less
than significant so the project will not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases, and no mitigation is
required.
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
43
VIII. 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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VIII.a) The project site is currently developed with a 58,000 square foot commercial building.
Surrounding uses include a church to the north, single-family residential and a Chevron gas
station to the east, commercial uses to the south, across Las Tunas Drive, and a mix of single-
family residential units and commercial to the west. The project proposed to construct 80
residential units including 3 live/work units, with 10,987 square feet of commercial space with a
parking lot. Phase 1 and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs) were prepared for the
project site in March of 2017 by Stantec (Appendix E). These reports characterize historical and
current conditions on the site regarding the following hazardous materials:
Agricultural Chemicals. The Phase I indicates the property may have been used for
agricultural purposes (i.e., as an orchard) prior to 1952. The orchard was removed and the
property became vacant until it was developed into the current commercial building around
1970. The Phase I recommended testing shallow soils due to the possibility of residual
organochlorine pesticides and heavy metals associated with herbicide application based on
the historical agricultural use of the property.
Dry Cleaner. The Palace Cleaner facility has historically and is currently using
tetrachloroethylene (PCE) in the cleaning of clothing. The dry cleaning machine is underlain
by secondary containment, but indications of spills on the concrete floor were observed near
the machine and in various locations around the unit. Drums containing waste products from
the dry cleaning machine were not stored in secondary containment, and evidence of past
spills was observed in the vicinity of the drums. As a result, the Phase I recommended a soil
and soil vapor survey to determine whether any hazmat releases had affected the property.
Gas Station. A former gasoline station was located at the northwest corner of South Santa
Anita Avenue and East Live Oak Avenue. The former service station received closure in 1996
after removal of the underground storage tanks (USTs), however, no soil vapor data was
collected at this facility as part of the closure. This facility reportedly contained two 12,000-
gallon USTs containing gasoline, one 7,500-gallon gasoline UST, one 5,000-gallon diesel
UST, and a waste oil UST. The facility received case closure on October 2, 1996 for a fuel
release into the underlying soil. Given that the facility is adjacent to the property and no soil
vapor data was collected, the Phase I recommended collection of soil vapor samples along
the common property lines with this site.
Asbestos. Given the age of the existing buildings on the Site (circa 1970), the Phase I
considered it likely that asbestos-containing materials (ACM) were present. The Phase I
recommended that a comprehensive pre-demolition ACM survey be completed prior to any
renovations that would result in disturbance of suspect ACM. This survey must be completed
in accordance with the sampling criteria of the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
44
(“AHERA”), and that a certified asbestos abatement contractor is retained to remove ACM in
accordance with all applicable laws. In addition, the Phase I report observed that a majority
of the property was paved with asphalt and could contain “Petromat” which contains
asbestos. The Phase I recommended sampling and testing the asphalt for the presence of
asbestos.
Lead-Based Paint. Given the age of the existing buildings (circa 1970), the Phase I report
considered it likely that lead-based paint (LBP) was present. The Phase I recommended a
LBP survey prior to any building demolition or renovations that could result in disturbance of
suspected LBP materials. If any LBP materials are found, the Phase I recommended the
materials be removed in accordance with all applicable laws.
As a result of the Phase I report, a Phase II testing report was prepared to address the
identified conditions involving hazardous materials on the project site.
Agricultural Chemicals. The Phase II report detected Dichlorodiphenylhichloroethylene
(DDE) above the regional screening levels (RSL) so limited removal of pesticide-impacted soil
will be necessary as part of project grading. DDE and other pesticides above the California
hazardous waste level will require containment on the property or disposal at an appropriate
state hazardous waste landfill.
Asbestos. The Phase II report evaluated potential asbestos in “Petromat” (an asphalt
stabilizing agent) by conducting five (5) asphalt coring locations throughout the property.
Based on a thorough inspection of the asphalt cores, the Phase II report found no Petromat
in any of the asphalt cores, so it concluded asbestos on onsite asphalt does not represent an
environmental concern and did not recommend any further investigation. However, the
onsite buildings would still need to be evaluated for the presence of ACMs prior to
demolition.
Lead-Based Paint. The onsite buildings and improvements would still need to be evaluated
for the presence of LBP prior to demolition.
Soil Vapor. The Phase II report detected concentrations of perchloroethylene (PCE) in soil
vapor above the residential screening levels, so it recommended completion of a human
health risk assessment (HHRA). Upon completion of that assessment, the Phase II report still
concluded that some type of vapor intrusion protection would be necessary. The Phase II
report further found that, although the collected data did not indicate remediation was
warranted, it did indicate vapor mitigation measures might be warranted. Based on the data
collected to date, the proposed building locations where vapor mitigation is anticipated to be
necessary is shown in Figure 7 below (Figure 3 from the Stantec Phase II report). The
preparer of the Phase II report indicated the County of Los Angeles Fire Department
(CLAFD) believed that all vapor barriers would need to initially be passive but designed to be
converted to active systems if needed.
In addition, the CLAFD also stated the barrier system would need to be designed to allow for
monitoring of vapors below and above the barrier system. The Phase II report recommended
that the CLAFD Hazardous Materials Division (and the Local Enforcement Agency for Los
Angeles County) be contacted to review and recommend the scope of additional assessment
SOURCE Angeleno Associates, 2018:NFEETI:\CTA1401_2\G\Onsite_Hazmat_Limits.cdr (2/20/2018)120060FIGURE7Onsite Hazmat LimitationsLas Tunas Mixed Use ProjectXUnits Requiring Vapor Barriers Currently EstimatedPotential Limits of Soil Vapor ImpactsXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
46
necessary to develop an approved remedial action plan (RAP) for the project site. The Phase
II report predicted that additional assessment of pesticide and soil vapor impacts would be
requested by CLAFD.
Based on the information in the Phase I and II ESA reports, the following measures are
recommended to ensure the site and surrounding area will not be significantly impacted by
existing hazmat conditions from leaking underground storage tanks or other potential sources.
Mitigation Measures
HAZ-1 ACM and LBP Surveys. Prior to the issuance of any demolition permits, the
applicant shall provide evidence to the City that a pre-demolition survey for
asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) and lead-based paint (LBP) conducted on
any buildings to be demolished. If for any reason ACM’s or LBP’s are detected,
Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 shall be implemented.
HAZ-2 ACM and LBP Remediation. In the event of any asbestos-containing materials
(ACMs) or lead-based paint (LBP) are detected found during the pre-construction
survey outlined in Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, the applicant shall provide evidence
to the City that all ACMs and LBP has been removed and disposed of according
to applicable laws and regulations, as outlined in “Steps to Lead Safe Removal,
Renovation, and Disposal” (U.S. EPA-740-K-11-001) issued October 2011
(www.epa.gov/lead) for LBP and “Standards for Demolition and Removal” (40
CFR Section 61.145) under the Asbestos National Emission Standard for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)(www.epa.gov/asbestos) for ACMs.
HAZ-3 Ag Chemical Testing. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant
shall provide evidence to the City that any area covered by the building permit
that has soils contaminated by agricultural chemicals identified in the Phase I
and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments for the project site has been
effectively remediated and/or removed from the site, or demonstrate that the
underlying soil does not exceed the applicable state Department of Toxic
Substances Control (DTSC) or California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22
hazardous waste criteria or contamination standards for commercial or
residential land uses as appropriate.
HAZ-4 Install PVMS System. Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, the
applicant shall demonstrate that a passive vapor mitigation system (PVMS) has
been installed as part of project construction and is operating at designed
specifications per the recommendations of the Phase II report (Stantec, March 8,
2017) including Figure 3 of the Stantec report regarding the location of vapor
barrier locations. The system shall be designed to preclude entry of water into
the system which would nullify potential contaminant measurements. This
system must have the ability to be converted to an active monitoring system if
the passive operation is not sufficient. This measure shall be implemented to the
satisfaction of the Fire Department, Building Services, and Planning Services in
consultation with the Los Angeles County Solid Waste Management Program/
Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) and/or the local Certified Unified Program
(CUPA) under the Los Angeles County Fire Department Health Hazardous
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
47
Materials Division as appropriate regarding certification of the PVMS. The City
shall contact the following LEA and County Fire Department representatives or
their successors to coordinate this effort:
Dorcas (Dee) Hanson-Lugo, R.E.H.S, MPA
Env. Health Specialist III
Solid Waste Management Program
Local Enforcement Agency (LEA)
5050 Commerce Dr. 1st Floor
Baldwin Park, CA 91706
(626) 430-5540 Main Line
(626) 430-5572 Direct Line
(626) 813-4839 Fax
dlugo@ph.lacounty.gov
The current contact information for the local Certified Unified Program
(CUPA) under the Los Angeles County Fire Department Health Hazardous
Materials Division is:
Richard Clark, MS, PE
Deputy Health Officer
Supervising Hazardous Materials Specialist
Site Mitigation Unit Supervisor
Health Hazardous Materials Division
Los Angeles County Fire Department
5825 Rickenbacker Road
Commerce, CA 90040
(213) 200-3831 cell
richard.clark@fire.lacounty.gov
HAZ-5 VOC Monitoring. Within one year after issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
for the entire residential development, the Passive Vapor Mitigation System
(PVMS) shall be tested and the results provided to the City Planning Services
Division. Indications of elevated Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) shall require
repair/redesign of the PVMS or, if deemed necessary by the City, installation of
an Active Vapor Mitigation System. Additional testing shall be conducted within
three months of any repairs or systems changes. The Developer shall submit a
copy of the paid contract for this testing within three weeks after the project
approval and the results provided to the City Planning Services Division. This
measure shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Fire Department and
Development Services Department.
HAZ-6 VOC Alternative. As an equivalent alternative to HAZ-4 and HAZ-5, the
applicant may obtain a certification of remediation from a licensed geotechnical
engineer after completion of onsite grading but prior to issuance of any building
permits. The certification must conclude the project and site will not constitute a
public health hazard or substantial risk beyond applicable standards, and cite the
applicable standards residential and commercial standards as appropriate. It
must further state that no active or passive vapor mitigation system is needed
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
48
based on the results of the site remediation, and must be supported by
appropriate onsite soil sampling and laboratory testing. If this measure is
implemented to the satisfaction of applicable divisions within the Development
Services Division, in consultation with the Los Angeles County Solid Waste
Management Program/Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) and/or the local Certified
Unified Program (CUPA) under the Los Angeles County Fire Department Health
Hazardous Material Division, the project will not have to implement HAZ-4 and
HAZ-5.
With implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-6, the project will not
have significant impacts related to existing hazardous materials as identified in the Phase I and
Phase II hazmat reports.
The project proposes to develop a new mixed use community which is not expected to use or
generate substantial or significant amounts of hazardous materials. There would be an
incremental impact in this regard from the proposed residential and commercial uses in the
form of cleaning materials, but compliance with existing federal, state, and local
laws/regulations regarding future hazardous materials would help ensure that these impacts are
less than significant, and no additional mitigation is required.
In addition, the project site contains utility poles and aerial-mounted utility lines some with
transformers visible within the public right-of-way. The project site plans do not indicate that
any existing power poles and/or lines will be removed, relocated, and undergrounded onsite. If
any relocation is necessary, the developer must coordinate with the appropriate utility company
to relocate utility lines (or other existing utilities). Based on this analysis, the project is not
expected to create any significant hazards to the public related to utilities, and no additional
mitigation is required.
VIII.b) The proposed project site is located in eastern Los Angeles County and is not expected
to have serpentine and ultramafic rock in the soils. Therefore, the potential risk for naturally
occurring asbestos is small. As described above in VIII.a) the project does not include any
hazardous uses. The project site is not listed on any Federal Superfund Sites (NPL), State
Response Sites, Voluntary Cleanup Sites, School Cleanup Sites, Permitted Sites, or Corrective
Action sites lists. In addition, Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-6 will help ensure
there will be no significant impacts onsite from potential vapor intrusion from past
contamination, asbestos or lead-based paint, or agricultural chemicals. Implementation of these
measures will reduce the potential impacts relative to reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials to less than significant levels.
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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
49
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile
of an existing or proposed school?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VIII.c) According to the Arcadia Unified School District website,16 the closest school to the
project site is the Longley Way Elementary (0.5 mile west). Additional schools located near
the project site include Cleminson Elementary School (0.5 mile south), and the Rio Hondo
Elementary School (0.65 mile southeast).17 The City’s General Plan indicated there are no
schools within a quarter mile of the project site. Therefore, a less than significant impact
related to this issue would occur, and no mitigation is required.
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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VIII.d) The project site is not listed on the State Cortese List or any Federal Superfund Sites
(NPL), State Response Sites, Voluntary Cleanup Sites, School Cleanup Sites, Permitted Sites, or
Corrective Action sites lists. Therefore, the project will have no impacts and no mitigation is
required.
e) For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VIII.e) The proposed project site is located approximately 1.1 mile north of the San Gabriel
Valley Airport, also known as the El Monte Airport. The project includes the demolition of the
existing commercial building to develop 80 residential units including 3 live/work units, and
10,987 square feet of commercial uses. The proposed project site is outside the Airport
Influence Area and the Airport Runway Protection Zone (RPZ).18 The project would not create
any airport-related safety hazards for people working or living at the proposed project site.
Therefore, the project will have no impacts related to airport activity, and no mitigation is
required.
16 http://site.ausd.net
17 Figure PR-4: AUSD School Locations, Parks, Recreation, and Community Resources, City of Arcadia General Plan, November
2010.
18 Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), http://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/obj/anet/Main.html (Accessed
September 27, 2017).
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
50
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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VIII.f) The proposed project is located approximately 1.1-mile north of the San Gabriel Valley
Airport, also known as the El Monte Airport. However, the project site is not located within two
miles of a private airstrip. Therefore, there is no impact in this regard.
g) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VIII.g) A commercial building currently occupies the project site. Police, fire, and paramedic
services are currently provided by the City to the entire area, including the project site.
Access to the residential and live/work units is provided by Las Tunas and Santa Anita Avenue
and access to the 8,500 square foot retail building is provided by Las Tunas Drive. The
proposed uses are consistent with the General Plan land use and zoning designations, and
are consistent with applicable portions of the City’s General Plan Safety Element and Local
Hazard Mitigation Plan. Development of the project site as proposed will not reduce the
existing level of emergency access or the ability to evacuate onsite uses if an emergency or
disaster occurs, so there will be no significant impacts in this regard and no mitigation is
required.
h) Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland
fires, including where wildlands are adjacent
to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VIII.h) The project site is currently occupied by an under-utilized commercial center. According
to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFire) mapping system the City
of Arcadia contains areas considered to be Very High Fire Hazards Zones.19 The map created by
CALFire has been adopted by the City to target these areas and implement stringent wild land
fire mitigation strategies. The proposed project site does not fall within any fire hazard zones,
and is not within close proximity to any wildlands and will not have a fire hazard impact.20
Review of proposed building plans is a standard part of the City’s development review process,
and the proposed project will be required to comply with any building design requirements of
the City Fire Department (see Section XIV, Public Services) to mitigate urban (non-wildland) fire
hazards. The closest fire station is Fire Department Station 105, located at 710 S. Santa Anita
19 Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA, Arcadia, CalFire, September 2011.
20 Figure S-6: Fire Hazard Zones, City of Arcadia General Plan, November 2010.
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
51
Avenue approximately 1.5 miles north of the project site. For these reasons, wildfire hazard
impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IX.a) The proposed project could have both short- and long-term impacts on water quality.
Short-Term Impacts. It is possible that runoff during grading and construction activities
could result in sediment and other urban pollutants into local drainage facilities. To protect
water quality over the short-term (i.e., during construction), the project will be required to
prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which is a written document that
describes the construction operator’s activities to comply with the requirements in the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination system (NPDES) permit. Required elements of an SWPPP
include (1) site description addressing the elements and characteristics specific to the project
site; (2) descriptions of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for erosion and sediment controls;
(3) BMPs for construction waste handling and disposal; (4) implementation of approved local
plans; and (5) proposed post-construction controls, including a description of local post-
construction erosion and sediment control requirements. The SWPPP is intended to facilitate a
process whereby the operator evaluates potential pollutant sources at the site and selects and
implements BMPs designed to prevent or control the discharge of pollutants in storm water
runoff.
During the construction period, the proposed project would use a series of BMPs to reduce
erosion and sedimentation. These measures may include, but not limited to, the use of gravel
bags, silt fences, hay bales, soil binders, etc. The construction contractor would be required to
operate and maintain these controls throughout the duration of onsite construction activities.
Long-Term Impacts. Once the proposed project is completed, it is possible that operation or
ongoing activities of project uses may contribute to long-term water quality impacts. To prevent
such impacts, the project is required to comply with the City’s Low Impact Development (LID)
Ordinance. Compliance with the LID Ordinance includes provisions that prior to grading of the
site, a Notice of Intent to comply with the State Construction Activity Storm Water Permit has
been filed, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan has been prepared, and an Erosion and
Sediment Control Plan submitted to and approved by the City. Additional requirements of the
LID Ordinance include retaining storm water runoff onsite for the Stormwater Quality Design
Volume (SWQDV) and minimizing hydromodification impacts to natural drainage systems.
When, as determined by the City, 100 percent onsite retention of the SWQDV is technically
infeasible, partially or fully, the infeasibility shall be demonstrated in the submitted LID Plan.
Required mitigation for storm water runoff that cannot be retained onsite may include but is not
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
52
limited to bioinfiltration BMPs and onsite water treatment to remove pollutants per the
requirement of the LID Ordinance.
The proposed project will be subject to NPDES requirements as well as the City of Arcadia’s
Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO). Adherence to NPDES requirements is required of
all development within the City, the incorporation of these requirements in the following
measures is designed to track both standard requirements and specific mitigation measures as
identified below:
Mitigation Measures
HYD-1 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall file a Notice of Intent
(NOI) with the State Water Resource Control Board to be covered under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction
Permit for discharge of storm water associated with construction activities. The
project developer shall submit to the City the Waste Discharge Identification
Number issued by the State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) as proof
that the project’s NOI to be covered by the General Construction Permit has
been filed with the SWRCB. This measure shall be implemented to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
HYD-2 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall submit to the State
Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) and receive approval for a project-
specific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP shall
include a surface water control plan and Erosion and Sediment Control Plan citing
specific measures to control onsite and off-site erosion during the entire grading
and construction period. In addition, the SWPPP shall emphasize structural and
nonstructural best management practices (BMPs) to control sediment and non-
visible discharges from the site. BMPs to be implemented may include (but shall
not be limited to) the following:
Potential sediment discharges from the site may be controlled by the
following: sandbags, silt fences, straw wattles, fiber rolls, a temporary debris
basin (if deemed necessary), and other discharge control devices. The
construction and condition of the BMPs are to be periodically inspected by
the SWRCB during construction, and repairs would be made as required.
Area drains within the construction area must be provided with inlet
protection. Minimum standards are sandbag barriers, or two layers of
sandbags with filter fabric over the grate, properly designed standpipes, or
other measures as appropriate.
Materials that have the potential to contribute non-visible pollutants to storm
water must not be placed in drainage ways and must be placed in temporary
storage containment areas.
All loose soil, silt, clay, sand, debris, and other earthen material shall be
controlled to eliminate discharge from the site. Temporary soil stabilization
measures to be considered include: covering disturbed areas with mulch,
temporary seeding, soil stabilizing binders, fiber rolls or blankets, temporary
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
53
vegetation, and permanent seeding. Stockpiles shall be surrounded by silt
fences and covered with plastic tarps.
Implement good housekeeping practices such as creating a waste collection
area, putting lids on waste and material containers, and cleaning up spills
immediately.
The SWPPP shall include inspection forms for routine monitoring of the site
during the construction phase.
Additional required BMPs and erosion control measures shall be documented
in the SWPPP.
The SWPPP would be kept on site for the duration of project construction and
shall be available to the State Water Resource Control Board for inspection.
The developer and/or construction contractor shall be responsible for performing
and documenting the application of BMPs identified in the project-specific
SWPPP. Regular inspections shall be performed on sediment control measures
called for in the SWPPP. Monthly reports shall be maintained and available for
City inspection. An inspection log shall be maintained for the project and shall be
available at the site for review by the City and the State Water Resource Control
Board as appropriate.
HYD-3 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall prepare a Low Impact
Development (LID) Plan, and the site plans shall illustrate the various long-term
water quality control features to be installed on this project consistent with the
City’s LID Ordinance as codified in the City’s Municipal Code (MC) Section 8,
Stormwater Management and Discharge Control, Sections 7810-7840. The LID
Plan and site development plans shall incorporate the following Best
Management Practices (BMPs) as outlined in MC Sections 7823 and 7828 as
appropriate to control pollutant runoff and to reduce impacts to water quality to
the maximum extent practicable:
Divert roof runoff to landscaped areas before discharge.
Divert surface flow to landscaped areas.
Maximize permeable areas and minimize impermeable areas per City MC
Section 7828(B).
Retain storm water runoff onsite per City MC Section 7828(C).
Provide biofiltration or other appropriate onsite treatment for runoff that
cannot be retained onsite per City MC Section 7828(C).
Maximize interception and water conservation by planting native and/or
drought-tolerant plants.
Install an irrigation system and provide landscape maintenance to minimize
water runoff.
Provide regular mechanical sweeping of private streets and parking lots.
Provide regular drainage facility inspection and maintenance per City LID
guidelines.
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
54
This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, City
Public Works Department, and City Planning Department as appropriate,
consistent with the City’s LID Ordinance.
With implementation of Mitigation Measures HYD-1 through HYD-3, potential short- and
long-term impacts of the proposed project on local and regional water quality will be reduced to
less than significant levels.
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net
deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (e.g., the
production rate of pre-existing nearby wells
would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been granted)?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IX.b) The City is a retail water supplier that serves the majority of its residents within the City.
In 2011 the City prepared the most recent Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) in
cooperation with other water serving agencies in the surrounding region. The City is a sub-
agency of the Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District (Upper District), a wholesale
water agency. The UWMP concluded the City could supply water to its customers until at least
2020 even under multiple drought year scenarios.21 The project does not involve a General Plan
Amendment or Zone Change, so the City in its UWMP has accounted for future water
consumption of existing and planned land uses, including residential and commercial uses such
as the proposed project.
The proposed project will incrementally increase potable water usage by introducing additional
employees and food preparation activities onto the site. The existing commercial uses onsite
have approximately 20 employees while the new commercial uses would likely have an
equivalent of employees (i.e., restaurant and/or retail). The site would have 232 additional
residents under the proposed project by introducing 80 additional housing units on the site and
assuming an average household size of 2.9 persons per unit. In addition, and a proposed
commercial uses could have up to 27 employees in total. The proposed project could consume
up to 36,778 gallons of water per day or 12.95 million gallons per year.22 According to the City
website,6 the City obtains its water from a combination of seven local groundwater wells plus
imported surface water from the Metropolitan Water District, although typical usage requires
mainly groundwater (pages 4-1 and 4-2, UWMP 2011).23
The project is also subject to NPDES requirements and will be designed and constructed to
ensure compliance with the water quality standards and waste discharge requirements.
Compliance with these regulations, along with all City water supply requirements, will ensure
21 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, Arcadia, Stetson Engineers, Inc. June 2011.
22 232 residents and 27 employees times 142 gallons/person/ day (UWMP goal) equals 36,778 gallons/day or 12.95 million
gallons/year.
23 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, Arcadia, Stetson Engineers, Inc., June 2011.
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
55
there will be no significant impacts related to groundwater supply or recharge resulting from the
proposed project.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or
river, in a manner that would result in
substantial erosion or siltation onsite or
offsite?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IX.c) The project site is fully developed and landscaped and does not contain any natural
drainage courses. There is also no historical evidence of localized ponding or flooding on the
project site. The proposed project includes landscaping that will reduce the potential for
erosion. Although the amount of erosion or siltation onsite might incrementally increase as a
result of development, there will be no long-term significant impacts with implementation of
Mitigation Measures HYD-1 through HYD-3. No additional mitigation measures are
required.
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or
river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner that
would result in flooding onsite or offsite?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IX.d) The site is already fully developed with structures and impervious surfaces, so
construction of the proposed project would not substantially increase the amount of runoff from
this site. There are no onsite streams or rivers, and drainage flows will remain essentially as
they are at present. Surface runoff general flows from the northwest corner to the southeast
corner of the property before draining into the City’s storm drain system in Las Tunas Drive and
S. Santa Anita Avenue. There is also no evidence the site or immediate surrounding area is
subject to flooding. The project area has minimal chance of flooding (Panel 06037C1675F,
September 26, 2008).24 Therefore, potential impacts of the proposed project on local drainage
and flooding are less than significant and no mitigation is required.
e) 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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IX.e) The existing site slopes down at 0.7 percent from northwest to southeast, toward Las
Tunas Drive and S. Santa Anita Avenue. The project site is currently developed with a
24 FEMA Flood Map Service Center: Search by Address, Food Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Panel 06037C1675F,
Effective September 26, 2017.
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
56
commercial building as well as parking lot. There are no surface drainage courses on the
project site, but the Arcadia Wash is located approximately 0.2 mile east of the site and the
Santa Anita Wash is located approximately 0.8 mile east of the site.
The proposed project would replace the existing commercial building and parking lot with 80
residential units including 3 live/work units, and 10,987 square feet of commercial uses. The
proposed project will add pervious landscaping areas to the site in the residential areas so it
will likely decrease the amount of runoff from the site. Since it will not create or contribute
runoff in addition to that already generated by the site, it is in compliance with the City’s flood
control requirements, and it will also implement Mitigation Measures HYD-1 through HYD-
3 outlined above. Therefore, a less than significant impact related to this issue would occur
and no additional mitigation measures are warranted.
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water
quality?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IX.f) The proposed project is in a developed urban setting and through adherence to City
water quality regulations and Mitigation Measures HYD-1 through HYD-3 would not
substantially degrade water quality. A less than significant impact would occur with
implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. No additional mitigation measures
are required.
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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IX.g) The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs)
identify areas subject to flooding during the 100-year storm event.25 The City of Arcadia is not
located within any 100-year flood hazard areas.26 Because the project site is not located within
a floodplain, the proposed project would not impede or redirect flood flows. Therefore, no
impacts associated with this issue would occur and no mitigation is required.
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures that would impede or redirect flood
flows?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
25 Note that the term “100-year” is a measure of the size of the flood, not how often it occurs. The “100-year flood” is a flooding
event that has a one percent chance of occurring in any given year.
26 Hydrology and Water Quality, Arcadia General Plan Update, Draft Program EIR, 2010.
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
57
IX.h) The proposed project site is not within a 100-year flood hazard zone. Since the proposed
project would not place structures that would impede or redirect flood flows, there would be no
impact in regard to this issue, and no mitigation is required.
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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IX.i) Construction and operation of the proposed project would not cause or increase the
likelihood of failure of a levee or dam that could result in flooding. The project site is located
approximately within the flood hazard zone of the Santa Anita Dam, which is approximately 13
miles north of the project site. To comply with State dam safety regulations, the water level
behind the Santa Anita Dam is restricted to be no higher than an elevation of 1,230 feet to
meet the California Divisions of Safety of Dams seismic safety requirements and to reduce the
potential magnitude of downstream flooding (GP DEIR, 2009). In addition, the project will be
required to comply with the City’s Municipal Code Article III, Chapter 10 – Floodplain
Management which requires that all new construction be built in accordance with the City’s
Floodplain Management Regulations According to the City’s General Plan Safety Element, the
Santa Anita Dam is regulated by and monitored for structural safety by the California
Department of Water Resources, Division of Safety or Dams in accordance with Division 3 of the
California State Water Code. The General Plan states that only under a severe earthquake
scenario along the Sierra Madre fault would damage and cause the release of water from the
Santa Anita Dam. However, the General Plan does not identify any development specific
mitigation that would reduce this impact. Therefore, due to the highly unlikely scenario that
would result in flooding due to the failure of the Santa Anita Dam and compliance with the
City’s Municipal Code would result in less than significant impacts related to flooding and no
mitigation is required.
j) Expose people or structures to inundation by
seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IX.j) The site is not located near the Pacific Ocean or within a tsunami or mudflow hazard area.
The project site is near the Santa Anita Dam which has the potential to form a seiche due to
seismic activity. However, as described above in IX.i compliance with the City’s General Plan
Policy 4.8-5 would reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels and no mitigation is
required.
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
58
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X.a) The project site is in an urbanized area and is surrounded by developed uses. Directly
north of the site is a Presbyterian church, a mix of one and two-story single-family residential
and commercial buildings are located to the west, a mix of one-story single-family residential
buildings and commercial buildings, including a Chevron gas station is located east of the
project site, across S. Santa Anita Avenue, and commercial buildings are located south of the
project site, across Las Tunas Drive. A Starbucks is located directly southeast of the proposed
project site. Commercial uses to the south, across Las Tunas Drive include auto repair stations,
and a car wash. Residents walking in the area can pass through the project site as present.
The underlying zoning is Mixed Use with the proposed entitlement process for this project being
a Lot Line Adjustment; a Tentative Tract Map No. TTM 17-05; Multi-Family Architectural Design
Review; a Protected Tree Encroachment Permit; a Protected Healthy Tree Removal Permit; and
Planned Development (PD). The applicant will be adjusting the lot lines between the two
existing lots but the PD will lie over the two lots to ensure it is consistent with the base zoning.
The commercial component (lot) is 8,500 square feet including a fast casual sit-down restaurant
will be on the 0.71 acre lot and the other 4.22 acre lot will have 80 residential condominium
units including 3 live-work units with 2,487 square feet of commercial. Demolition of the
existing commercial building and construction of the residential units and commercial uses on
the project site would not physically divide an established community due to existing
surroundings being a mix of residential and commercial land uses. Therefore, the proposed
project will not divide an existing community. Development of the proposed project would have
a less than significant impact related to this issue, and no mitigation is warranted.
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but
not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X.b) The City of Arcadia is a charter city as opposed to a general law city. Arcadia’s General
Plan designates the proposed project area as Mixed Use (Maximum 30 ac/du) and the zoning
is also Mixed Use. The mixed use project consists of 80 residential condominium units
including 3 live/work units with 2,487 square feet of commercial space, and an additional
8,500 square feet of commercial uses (fast casual restaurant and/or retail) on 4.93 acres with
a gross density of 16.2 dwelling units per acre for the project site (80/4.93). The proposed
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
59
project also includes a total of approximately 27,012 square feet of public open space and
approximately 13,849 square feet of private space (i.e., patio, porch, decks). Because the
existing zoning General Plan Land Use designation for the Specific Plan area allows up to 30
dwelling units per acre, the project would not require a zone change. The project
characteristics are consistent with the existing General Plan land use designation, City zoning,
and the City’s land use vision for the project area. Therefore, the project would not conflict
with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation. A less than significant impact would
occur and no mitigation is required.
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X.c) The project site is not designated for any type of habitat protection under the City’s
General Plan, and is not covered by any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural
Community Conservation Plan. Therefore, there will be no impacts in this regard, and no
mitigation is required.
XI. 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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XI.a) The project site is within the fully developed area of Arcadia, and does not contain, nor is
it designated as, a source of mineral resources (e.g., construction aggregate). Therefore, there
will be no impacts in this regard and no mitigation is required.
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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XI.b) See response XI.a. No impact related to this issue would occur, and no mitigation is
required.
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
60
XII. 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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XII.a) Short-Term Impacts. LSA prepared a detailed assessment of noise impacts for the
proposed project based on the project development characteristics (LSA 2018) (Appendix D).27
The assessment indicates that short-term noise impacts would be associated with demolition of
existing facilities, and grading and erecting of buildings onsite during construction of the
proposed project. Noise associated with the use of construction equipment is estimated to be
between 55 and 85 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet from the active construction area for the
site preparation phase. The maximum noise level generated by each scraper and dozer is
assumed to be approximately 85 dBA Lmax at 50 feet from heavy equipment. Each doubling of
the sound sources with equal strength increases the noise level by 3 dBA. Assuming that each
piece of construction equipment operates at same distance from the other equipment, the
worst-case combined noise level during construction would be 88 dBA Lmax at 50 feet from
active construction area. The existing traffic noise levels without the project is based on a usage
factor of 40 percent, the worst-case combined noise level during construction would be 84 dBA
Leq at a distance of 50 feet from the active construction area. It should be noted the
construction hours will be from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and between
8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturday. No construction shall be permitted outside of these hours
or on Sunday and government code holidays.
According to the Noise Impact Analysis, the residences nearest to the project site are north and
northwest of the project boundary. These residences may be subject to short-term,
intermittent, maximum noise levels would reach 88 dBA Lmax or higher during demolition.24 The
City has a Noise Ordinance that limits construction hours, but it does not have a temporary
noise impact threshold. It should be noted that construction related noise levels are short-term
and would cease once project construction is complete. Because construction-related short-term
noise levels would be higher than existing ambient noise levels in the project area today, the
following mitigation is recommended to help ensure there will be no significant noise impacts on
local residents during construction.
Mitigation Measures
NOI-1 Prior to issuance of grading and building permits, the developer shall prepare a
Construction Noise Control Plan (CNCP) and will submit the plan the City for review
and approval. The plan shall include but will not be limited to the following:
During all project site excavation and grading, contractors shall equip all
construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and
maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers’ standards.
27 Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis Memorandum, Olson Residential Project, LSA Associates, Inc., Janurary 20, 2018.
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
61
The project contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so
that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the
project site (i.e. north and northwest).
The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will
create the greatest distance between construction-related noise sources
and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project
construction.
The construction contractor shall use light construction equipment (e.g.
small bulldozers and trucks) within 5 feet of the northern and western
project construction boundaries to the extent practical reduce potential
noise and vibration impacts on adjacent land uses.
During all project site construction, the construction contractor shall limit all
construction-related activities, including maintenance of construction
equipment and the staging of haul trucks, to between the hours of 7:00
a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on
Saturday. No construction is permitted on Sundays and government code
holidays.
With implementation of the various aspects of this measure, the proposed project will not have
any significant short-term noise impacts on adjacent sensitive residential land uses.
Long-Term Impacts. Noise from vehicular traffic trips and mechanical equipment associated
with the proposed project incrementally increase ambient noise levels surrounding the project
site. At present, the site experiences ambient noise levels ranging from 60, 65, 70 dBA CNEL.
Table G summarizes the existing traffic noise levels without and with project for retail option
while Table H summarizes the existing traffic noise levels without and with project for the
restaurant option.
For the purposes of this noise assessment, an increase of 3 dB is considered a potentially
significant impact as that is the threshold for human hearing to discern a change in noise levels.
Most of the ambient noise in the project area is the result of existing traffic on Santa Anita
Avenue and Las Tunas Drive/Live Oak Avenue.
Santa Anita Avenue
The proposed on-site retail building on the project site is located approximately 280-feet from
the roadway centerline and would be exposed to traffic noise of 59 dBA CNEL. Since there is no
exterior noise standard for retail uses, no mitigation measures would be required. Assuming the
same distance as the retail option, the restaurant would be exposed to approximately the same
amount of traffic noise as the retail option. The closest residential building is Building 1 located
approximately 60 feet from the roadway centerline and would be exposed to traffic noise levels
of 70 dBA CNEL. The exterior noise level would exceed the City’s exterior noise standard of 65
dBA CNEL for outdoor living areas. However, since Building 1 does not have any outdoor
recreation areas, patios, or balconies, no mitigation measures would be required to reduce
exterior noise level to 65 dBA CNEL or below.
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT INITIAL STUDY 62 Table G: Existing Traffic Noise Levels Without and With Project (Retail Option) Roadway Segment Existing Without Project Existing With Project ADT Centerline to 70 dBA CNEL (ft) Centerline to 65 dBA CNEL (ft) Centerline to 60 dBA CNEL (ft) CNEL (dBA) 50 ft from Centerline of Outermost Lane ADT Change in ADT Centerline to 70 dBA CNEL (ft) Centerline to 65 dBA CNEL (ft) Centerline to 60 dBA CNEL (ft) CNEL (dBA) 50 ft from Centerline of Outermost Lane Increase over Existing CNEL (dBA) 50 ft from Centerline of Outermost Lane Santa Anita Avenue North of Live Oak Avenue 24,546 62 116 241 67.4 25,035 489 62 117 245 67.5 0.1 Las Tunas Drive/Live Oak Avenue West of Santa Anita Avenue 29,625 67 130 273 68.3 29,835 210 67 130 274 68.4 0.1 Source: Compiled by LSA Associates, Inc. (2017). Note: Noise modeling performed using “Soft” setting and urban traffic percentages. ADT = average daily traffic CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level ft = foot/feet dBA = A-weighted decibels Table H: Existing Traffic Noise Levels Without and With Project (Restaurant Option) Roadway Segment Existing Without Project Existing With Project ADT Centerline to 70 dBA CNEL (ft) Centerline to 65 dBA CNEL (ft) Centerline to 60 dBA CNEL (ft) CNEL (dBA) 50 ft from Centerline of Outermost Lane ADT Change in ADT Centerline to 70 dBA CNEL (ft) Centerline to 65 dBA CNEL (ft) Centerline to 60 dBA CNEL (ft) CNEL (dBA) 50 ft from Centerline of Outermost Lane Increase over Existing CNEL (dBA) 50 ft from Centerline of Outermost Lane Santa Anita Avenue North of Live Oak Avenue 24,546 62 116 241 67.4 25,091 545 118 245 245 67.5 0.1 Las Tunas Drive/Live Oak Avenue West of Santa Anita Avenue 29,625 67 130 273 68.3 29,859 234 130 274 274 68.4 0.1 Source: Compiled by LSA Associates, Inc. (2017). Note: Noise modeling performed using “Soft” setting and urban traffic percentages. ADT = average daily traffic CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level ft = foot/feet dBA = A-weighted decibels
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
63
Based on the EPA’s Protective Noise Levels (1978), interior noise levels with windows and doors
open at the proposed on-site retail building would be 47 dBA CNEL (59 dBA - 12 dBA = 47 dBA)
and be 35 dBA CNEL (59 dBA - 24 dBA = 35 dBA) with windows and doors closed. The interior
noise levels at the retail building would not exceed the City’s interior retail noise standard of 65
dBA CNEL. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. For proposed on-site residences,
interior noise levels with windows and doors open at the frontline units would be 59 dBA CNEL
(71 dBA - 12 dBA = 59 dBA) and 47 dBA CNEL (71 dBA - 24 dBA = 47 dBA) with windows and
doors closed. Interior noise levels at the frontline units with windows and doors open and
closed would exceed the City’s interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL. Therefore, Mitigation
Measures NOI-2 and NOI-3 would be required to frontline unit adjacent to Santa Anita
Avenue. As the proposed project would provide air conditioning as a standard feature, no
additional mitigation measures are required for the building facade along Santa Anita Avenue.
Las Tunas Drive/Live Oak Avenue
The proposed onsite commercial building on the project site is located approximately 60 feet
from the centerline and would be exposed to traffic noise of 70 dBA CNEL. Since there is no
exterior noise standard for retail uses, no mitigation measures would be required. Assuming the
same distance as the retail option, the restaurant would be exposed to approximately the same
amount of traffic noise as the retail option. The closest proposed on-site residential building are
Buildings 7, 8, 9 and 10, which are located approximately 50 feet from the Las Tunas Drive/Live
Oak Avenue centerline and would be exposed to traffic noise of 70 dBA CNEL. This exterior
noise level would exceed the City’s exterior noise standard of 71 dBA CNEL for outdoor living
areas. However, residents in this mixed use project adjacent to Las Tunas and Santa Anita
Avenue (including the 3 live/work units) would need to be notified that noise levels may be
higher than a typical suburban residential area (see Mitigation Measure NOI-4). In addition,
Mitigation Measure NOI-5 will help reduce potential noise impacts from proposed
commercial uses on the adjacent proposed residential uses.
Based on the Protective Noise Levels (EPA 1978), interior noise levels with windows and doors
open at the proposed on-site retail building would be 58 dBA CNEL (70 dBA - 12 dBA = 58 dBA)
and 46 dBA CNEL (70 dBA - 24 dBA = 46 dBA) with windows and doors closed. The interior
noise levels at the retail building would not exceed the City’s interior noise standard of 65 dBA
CNEL. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. For proposed on-site residences, interior
noise levels with windows and doors open at the frontline units would be 59 dBA CNEL (71 dBA
- 12 dBA = 59 dBA) and 47 dBA CNEL (71 dBA - 24 dBA = 47 dBA) with windows and doors
closed. Interior noise levels at the frontline units would exceed the City’s interior noise standard
of 45 dBA CNEL. With implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-2 through Mitigation
Measure NOI-4, a less than significant impact would occur. Because the proposed project is
expected to provide air conditioning as a standard feature, no additional mitigation measures
are required.
Mitigation Measures
NOI-2 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall show proof to the
City’s Planning Services that windows with Sound Transmission Class STC-29 or
higher ratings have been installed on frontline units adjacent to Santa Anita
Avenue.
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
64
NOI-3 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall show proof to the
City’s Planning Services that mechanical ventilation systems such as air
conditioning will be installed on residential units to ensure that windows can
remain closed for prolonged periods of time.
NOI-4 Prior to issuance of the first occupancy permit, the applicant shall provide the
City with a copy of a notice that will be provided to prospective tenants or buyers
of the live/work units along Las Tunas and the residential units facing Santa
Anita Avenue that states noise levels may be higher than a typical suburban
residential area.
NOI-4 Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for the new commercial building, a
minimum six-foot high block wall shall be constructed west side of the new
commercial site and the north side of both the new commercial site and
Starbucks to help reduce potential noise impacts on project residents by 4 dBA.
This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Planning
Services.
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XII.b) Vibration refers to groundborne noise and perceptible motion. Groundborne vibration is
almost exclusively a concern inside buildings and is rarely perceived as a problem outdoors,
where the motion may be discernible, but without the effects associated with the shaking of a
building, there is a less adverse reaction. According to Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
guidelines, vibration levels up to 102 VdB will not result in structural damage to buildings. Table
I shows the vibration level for equipment that could potentially be used during construction.
Table J shows the human response to different levels of groundborne noise and vibration.
Table I: Vibration Source Amplitudes for Construction Equipment
Equipment
Reference PPV/LV at 25 ft
PPV (in/sec) LV (VdB)
Large Bulldozer 0.089 87
Loaded Trucks 0.076 86
Jackhammer 0.035 79
Sources: Federal Transit Administration (2006) (except Hanson 2001 for vibratory rollers).
ft = feet in/sec = inches per second
LV = velocity in decibels PPV = peak particle velocity
VdB = vibration velocity decibels
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
65
Table J: Human Response to Groundborne Noise and Vibration
Vibration
Velocity
Level
Noise Level
Human Response
Low
Frequency1
Mid
Frequency2
65 VdB 25 dBA 40 dBA Approximate threshold of perception for many humans.
Low-frequency sound usually inaudible; mid-frequency
sound excessive for quiet sleeping areas.
75 VdB 35 dBA 50 dBA Approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and
distinctly perceptible. Many people find transit vibration
at this level unacceptable. Low-frequency noise
acceptable for sleeping areas; mid-frequency noise
annoying in most quiet occupied areas.
85 VdB 45 dBA 60 dBA Vibration acceptable only if there are an infrequent
number of events per day. Low-frequency noise
unacceptable for sleeping areas; mid-frequency noise
unacceptable even for infrequent events with
institutional land uses such as schools and churches.
Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA 2006).
1 Approximate noise level when vibration spectrum peak is near 30 Hz.
2 Approximate noise level when vibration spectrum peak is near 60 Hz.
dBA = A-weighted decibels
Hz = Hertz
VdB = vibration velocity decibels
During site grading, vibration may be felt at the residences to the north and northwest. Table I
lists the projected vibration level from various construction equipment expected to be used on
the project site to the nearest buildings in the project vicinity. For typical construction activity,
the equipment with the highest vibration generation potential is the large bulldozer, which
would generate 87 VdB at 25-feet. The nearest sensitive receptors to the project would be
approximately 10 feet from the project boundary to the north. The closest building associated
with the church to the north and commercial building to the west is approximately 15-feet and
65-feet, respectively, from the project construction boundary. As shown in Table K, the closest
residences to the north and west would experience vibration levels of up to 99 VdB (0.352 PPV
[in/sec]). The closest building associated with the church to the north and commercial building
to the west would experience vibration levels of up to 94 VdB (0.191 PPV [in/sec]) and 75 VdB
(0.021 PPV [in/sec]), respectively. Other adjacent buildings in the project area are farther away
and would experience lower vibration levels.
Construction vibration levels at residential structures from construction equipment or activity
would exceed the FTA threshold of 94 VdB (0.2 in/sec PPV) for building damage when
bulldozers and loaded trucks operate approximately 10 ft from the project construction
boundary. Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 will ensure impacts to vibration are
considered less than significant, no additional mitigation is required. Although construction
vibration levels at residential uses would have the potential to result in annoyance, these
vibration levels would no longer occur once construction of the project is complete.
Construction vibration levels at the closest building associated with the church and commercial
building from construction equipment or activity would not exceed the FTA threshold of 94 VdB
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
66
(0.2 PPV [in/sec]) and 98 VdB (0.3 PPV [in/sec]), respectively, for building damage. Although
construction vibration levels at buildings associated with the church and commercial uses would
have the potential to result in annoyance, these vibration levels would no longer occur once
construction of the project is completed. Therefore, construction vibration levels would be less
than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-1. No additional
mitigation measures are required.
Existing streets surrounding the project area are paved, smooth, and unlikely to cause
significant groundborne vibration. In addition, the rubber tires and suspension systems of buses
and other on-road vehicles make it unusual for on-road vehicles to cause groundborne noise or
vibration problems. It is therefore assumed that no such vehicular vibration impacts would
occur and that no vibration impact analysis of on-road vehicles is necessary.
Table K: Summary of Construction Equipment and Activity Vibration
Land Use Direction
Equipment/
Activity
Reference
Vibration
Level
(VdB) at
25 feet
Reference
Vibration
Level
(PPV) at
25 feet
Distance
(feet)
Maximum
Vibration
Level
(VdB)
Maximum
Vibration
Level
(PPV)
Residential North/
West
Large
Bulldozers 87 0.089 10 99 0.352
Loaded
Trucks 86 0.076 10 98 0.300
Church North
Large
Bulldozers 87 0.089 25 94 0.191
Loaded
Trucks 86 0.076 25 93 0.164
Office West
Large
Bulldozers 87 0.089 65 75 0.021
Loaded
Trucks 86 0.076 65 73 0.018
Source: Compiled by LSA (2017).
Note: The FTA-recommended building damage threshold is 0.2 PPV (in/sec) or approximately 94 VdB at the receiving
residential/church structure and 0.3 PPV (in/sec) or approximately 98 VdB at the receiving commercial structure.
ft = foot/feet
in/sec = inch/inches per second
FTA = Federal Transit Administration
PPV = peak particle velocity
VdB = vibration velocity decibels
c) Substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XII.c) Current noise levels on the project site are relatively low and are related to activities of
the existing under-utilized commercial center. The proposed project would demolish the existing
buildings and replace them with 80 residences including 3 live/work units, and 10,987 square
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
67
feet of commercial uses, plus attendant landscaping and parking areas. The project noise study
indicated that the closest resident from the project construction boundary are within 50-feet
and would be exposed to construction noise reaching 88 dBA Lmax or higher (page 17, LSA
2017). However, with the proposed Mitigation Measure NOI-1, the proposed project is not
expected to result in significant adverse noise impacts or noise levels in excess of identified
standards. For a more detailed analysis, see Section XII.a above.
d) Substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XII.d) Although activity on the site will increase as a result of the new land uses and
construction, the analysis provided in Section XII.a demonstrates that the proposed project will
not generate significant noise impacts over the short term for either onsite or offsite uses with
the implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1.
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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XII.e) The project site is located within two miles of a public airport (San Gabriel Valley
Airport) but the airport does not have an adopted land use plan that would restrict land uses on
the project site. The proposed project would be located outside the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour.
Based on the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Protective Noise Levels (EPA
1978), with a combination of exterior walls, doors, and windows, standard construction for
Southern California (warm climate) buildings would provide more than 24 dBA in exterior-to-
interior noise reduction with windows and doors closed, and 12 dBA or more with windows and
doors open (the national average is 25 dBA with windows closed and 15 dBA with windows
open). With windows and doors open, the interior noise levels at these buildings would be 53
dBA CNEL (i.e., 65 dBA - 12 dBA = 53 dBA). With windows and doors closed, interior noise
levels would be 41 dBA CNEL (65 dBA - 24 dBA = 41 dBA). The potential noise level with
windows and doors open or closed from aircraft noise would not exceed the City’s interior noise
standard of 65 dBA CNEL for retail uses. Also, the potential noise level with windows and doors
open from aircraft noise would not exceed the City’s interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL for
residential uses, except when windows and doors are open. Therefore, mechanical ventilation
systems such as air conditioning would be required to ensure that windows and doors can
remain closed for a prolonged period of time (Mitigation Measure NOI-3). Because the
proposed project would provide air conditioning as a standard feature, no additional mitigation
measures are required. The proposed project would therefore have no impacts related to
exposure of residents or workers to excessive airport noise levels, and no mitigation is required.
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
68
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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XII.f) The project site is not located within the influence area of a private airstrip.28 The
proposed project would therefore have no impact related to exposure of residents or workers to
excessive airstrip noise levels, and no mitigation is required.
XIII. 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)?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIII.a) The project includes the construction of 80 multi-family residential condominium units
including 3 live work units with 2,487 square feet of commercial uses, and a 8,500 square-foot
commercial building (fast casual restaurant and /or retail). Based on the City of Arcadia General
Plan of 2.9 persons per household,29 the project is expected to generate approximately 232
persons. Additionally, the project is expected to generate up to 2730 employees within the City of
Arcadia with a total of 259 additional persons generated from the proposed project. The
underlying zoning is Mixed Use (maximum 30 du/ac with 1.0 FAR). Because the project is
designated as Mixed Use and the project is consistent with the land use designation, this
increase in population has been anticipated and planned for in the City’s General Plan. The
project does not include any significant infrastructure improvements or the extension of roads
that could indirectly induce growth in the City. Therefore, no significant growth-inducing impact
would occur and no mitigation is required.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIII.b) The site does not currently contain any housing units, so construction of the proposed
project would not result in displacement of existing housing or construction of replacement
28 Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), http://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/obj/anet/Main.html (Accessed
September 27, 2017).
29 Housing Element, Arcadia General Plan, November 2010.
30 Southern California Association of Governments, Employment Density Study Summary Report, October 31, 2001. 8,5000
square feet divided by 344 square feet/employee equals 24 employees but using 27 as worst case to account for live/work
units.
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
69
housing elsewhere in the City or nearby County areas. No significant housing impacts are
expected, and no mitigation is required.
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIII.c) The site has an existing commercial building and does not currently contain any
housing units. Therefore, no impacts are expected in this regard and no mitigation is required.
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision
of new or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
i. Fire Protection?
ii. Police Protection?
iii. Schools?
iv. Parks?
v. Other Public Facilities?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIV.a.i) The proposed project includes the demolition of the existing commercial building and
construct 80 residential units including 3 live/work units, and 10,987 square feet of commercial
uses. The construction of the proposed residential and commercial buildings would increase the
demand for fire protection, prevention, and emergency medical services in the City. Efficient
response times are critical in addressing fire and medical emergencies. Reductions in the
emergency response time or the distance between fire/medical facilities and the site of an
emergency would result in improved service to save lives and property.
Emergency response services are provided by the Arcadia Fire Department, which is a Class I,
all-risk department that addresses both wildland and urban fires. The closest fire station is Fire
Department Station 105, located at 710 S. Santa Anita Avenue approximately 1.5 miles north of
the project site. Station 105 is equipped with one engine, one truck company, one rescue
ambulance, and a battalion chief vehicle, reserve engine, and one State-owned fire engine.23
The average response time to the majority of incidents is four to five minutes. Rarely do
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
70
Department personnel take six minutes or more to respond to calls for service.31 The response
time for fire personnel is approximately 5 minutes.
The proposed project is expected to generate approximately 232 persons and employee
approximately 27 persons. The proposed project will have to comply with Policy S-5.11 of the
City’s General Plan stating the project will be required to pay their fair share costs associated
with any necessary increases in public safety equipment, facilities, and staffing to provide life
safety protection. Because of the variety and proximity of existing fire protection services, no
new or expanded fire stations are required to serve the project site. No significant impact would
occur; therefore, no mitigation is required.
XIV.a.ii) The construction of the proposed 80 residential units including 3 live/work units, and
10,987 square feet of commercial uses would incrementally increase the demand for police
protection. Law enforcement is provided by the City of Arcadia Police Department. The nearest
police station to the project site is located at 250 W. Huntington Drive, approximately 2 miles
north of the project site. The Arcadia Police Department has over 75 sworn peace officers and
support staff.32
The proposed project is expected to generate approximately 232 persons and approximately 27
employees. As mentioned above, the proposed project will have to comply with Policy S-5.11 of
the City’s General Plan stating the project will be required to pay their fair share costs
associated with any necessary increases in public safety equipment, facilities, and staffing to
provide life safety protection. The proposed project may incrementally increase demand for
police services. However, the project is consistent with the City’s intended use of the site based
on the Specific Plan land uses. Therefore, the slight increase in population and police services
have been accounted for in the City’s planning efforts, and will not require the expansion or
construction of new police facilities. A less than significant impact would occur, and no
mitigation is warranted.
XIV.a.iii) The project is located within the Arcadia Unified School District (AUSD) which
includes 11 schools. The project includes the demolition of an existing commercial building to
develop 80 residential units including 3 live/work units, and 10,987 square feet of commercial
uses. The closest elementary, middle, and high schools to the project site are as follows:
Longley Way Elementary School located at 2601 Longley Way, approximately 0.5 mile
west of the project site.
Richard Henry Dana Middle School located at 1401 S. 1st street, approximately 1 mile
north of the project site.
Arcadia High School located at 180 Campus Drive, approximately 1.4 miles north of the
project site.
Based on the AUSD student generation factor of 1.6 students per residential unit,33 the
proposed project may increase attendance at AUSD schools by approximately 128 additional
31 Fire Protection and Emergency Services, Safety, Arcadia General Plan, November 2010.
32 Safety, City of Arcadia General Plan, November 2010.
33 Table 4.13-7 Student Generation, City of Arcadia General Plan EIR, 2010. (Calculated the average of the three student
generation factors)
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
71
students. As of 2016-2017, the AUSD enrolled approximately 9,525 students;34 therefore, the
project would increase capacity of AUSD to 9,653 students.
The AUSD imposes development fees for residential development. Per California Government
Code, “The payment or satisfaction of a fee, charge, or other requirement levied or imposed…
are hereby deemed to be full and complete mitigation of the impacts… on the provision of
adequate school facilities.” The project will be required to pay these development fees in
accordance with Government Code 65995 and Education Code 17620. Therefore, impacts would
be less than significant. No mitigation is warranted.
XIV.a.iv) The project proposed the construction of 80 residential units including 3 live/work
units, and 10,987 square feet commercial uses. The residential units are expected to generate
approximately 232 person and employ up to 27 persons. The project includes approximately
27,012 square feet of public open space.
The closest park is Longley Way Elementary School which is considered a joint-use park and
facility, providing 2.56 acres. Longley Way Elementary is located approximately 0.5-mile west of
the project site. Additionally, Bicentennial Park is a 0.63 acre public park located approximately
0.7 mile northeast of the project site. Bicentennial Park is equipped with greenspace,
playground, and two tennis courts.
XIV.a.v) It is reasonable to conclude the payment of required development impact fees, taxes,
and other payments by the owners of the proposed development would sufficiently offset any
incremental increase in demand for governmental services. In the absence of any substantial
increase in population, the construction of new or expansion of existing governmental facilities
is not required. No significant impact to these facilities would occur; therefore, no mitigation is
required.
XV. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
34 Ed Data Education Data Partnership, 2017. https://www.ed-data.org/district/Los-Angeles/Arcadia-Unified (Accessed September
29, 2017.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities
or require the construction or expansion or
recreational facilities, which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
72
XV.a.b) The project site is currently developed with a 58,000 square foot commercial building.
The project proposes 80 residential units including 3 live/work units, and 10,987 square feet of
commercial uses. The project is expected to generate a total of 232 persons and up to 27
employees.35 The project includes approximately 27,012 square feet of public open space. The
proposed project includes approximately 18,930 square feet of open space and approximately
13,849 square feet of private open space (i.e., patio, porch, deck). These passive recreational
areas will be landscaped with trees to provide shade and shrubs and groundcover.
The closest park is Longley Way Elementary School which is considered a joint-use park and
facility, providing 2.56 acres. Longley Way Elementary is located approximately 0.5-mile west
of the project site. The joint-use amenities include a baseball diamond, multipurpose athletic
field, and basketball courts. Additionally, Bicentennial Park is a 0.63 acre public park located
approximately 0.7-mile northeast of the project site. Bicentennial Park is equipped with
greenspace, playground, and two tennis courts.
As discussed in Checklist Item XIII, the proposed project would not result in a substantial
increase in population within the City (232 persons). In the absence of an increased demand,
the project would not result in substantial physical deterioration of existing park facilities or
require the construction of a new or substantial physical deterioration of existing park facilities
or require the construction of a new or expansion of existing park facilities. In compliance with
the General Plan, the developer would also be required to pay applicable Development Impact
Fees (DIF) for park facilities which would reduce potential impacts to park or recreation
facilities to less than significant levels. No mitigation is required.
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Would the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or
policy establishing measures of effectiveness
for the performance of the circulation system,
taking into account all modes of
transportation including mass transit and
non-motorized travel and relevant
components of the circulation system,
including but not limited to intersections,
streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian
and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVI.a) The proposed project would result in both short- and long-term traffic impacts.
Short-Term Impacts. The project is less than 5 acres in size and earthwork onsite will require
the export of approximately 15,000 cubic yards of soil, mainly for the remediation of past
hazmat contamination (see Section VIII). However, there are no significant traffic impacts
expected by the truck trips needed to transport this material) and no “haul-related” mitigation is
35 Southern California Association of Governments, Employment Density Study Summary Report, October 31, 2001. Maximum
8,5,00 square feet divided by 344 square feet/employee equals 24 employees but using 27 to account for live/work employees
as well.
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
73
necessary. The project engineer36 estimates it will require up to 5 months for demolition and
grading and 24 months for construction (total of 29 months), short-term traffic impacts from
project construction equipment are also expected to be less than significant. Construction
activities may require a dozen or more workers be present at one time on the site, but a project
of this size would not be expected to have a worker force that would generate enough traffic to
approach or exceed the County’s CMP criteria (i.e., 50 additional peak hour trips at any
intersection). In addition, these impacts would be temporary during construction and would
cease upon completion of project construction. Therefore, short-term traffic impacts of the
project are considered to be less than significant.
Long-Term Impacts. A trip generation analysis (TGA) was prepared for the proposed project
by LSA in February 2018 (Appendix C). Table L summarizes the trip generation data from the
TGA for the proposed project, the existing commercial center with its limited occupancy, and
the commercial center if it were fully occupied or operational. For traffic from existing uses,
traffic counts at the center driveways were conducted. It should also be noted this trip
generation comparison is a “worst-case” analysis and does not take into account any trip
reductions from transit (bus) or other non-vehicular sources (e.g., walking, bicycle). Table L
indicates the proposed project would generate a total of 2,081 average daily trips (ADT) with 76
a.m. peak hour trips and 178 p.m. peak hour trips. By comparison, the existing commercial
center currently generates 1,382 total ADT but would generate 4,766 total ADT if it were fully
occupied. The proposed uses would generate 699 more daily trips compared to the existing
commercial center, but with 87 fewer peak hour trips during the a.m. hours and 42 fewer peak
hour trips during the p.m. hours. By comparison, if the existing commercial center were
operating at full capacity, it would generate over twice as much overall traffic as the proposed
project at buildout (4,766 vs. 2,081 daily trips). Therefore, under the proposed retail use, the
proposed project is then considered to be consistent and less intensive than the existing use,
and a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) will not be required. Because of this, traffic impacts in this
regard are considered less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Table L: Project Trip Generation
Land Use A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Daily Total
Existing Commercial Center
Current Partial Occupancy
Potential Full Occupancy
162
112
221
416
1,382
4,766
Proposed Project
Residential Units (80 condos)
Fast Casual Restaurant
TOTAL
35
41
76
42
136
178
465
1,616
2,081
Difference
Proposed Project vs. Partially Occupied Center
Proposed Project vs. Fully Occupied Center
-86
-36
-43
-238
-699
-2,685
Source: Table A (Alternative 3), LSA Trip Generation Memorandum, February 20, 2018 (Appendix C).
36 John Reekstin, Applicant, The Olson Company. Email dated September 29, 2017.
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
74
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion
management program, including, but not
limited to level of service standards and travel
demand measures, or other standards
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or
highways?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVI.b) The project trip generation analysis (TGA, Appendix C) indicated the project would
generate approximately 2,081 daily trips, which is far less traffic than the existing commercial
center would generate at full occupancy. Although the project would generate 699 more daily
trips compared to the existing commercial center, peak hour trips under the proposed project
would be 86 trips fewer during the a.m. hours and 43 trips fewer during the p.m. hours than
the traffic generated at the site’s current occupancy. This data indicates the project will not
conflict with the Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program (CMP) guidelines and
thus would have no significant impacts relative to the applicable congestion management
program after implementation of the proposed project, as outlined in Section XVI.a above.
Therefore, there would be no significant impacts in this regard, and no mitigation is needed.
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels or
a change in location that result in substantial
safety risks?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVI.c) The proposed project site is located approximately 1.1 mile north of the San Gabriel
Valley Airport, also known as the El Monte Airport. The project includes the demolition of the
existing commercial building to develop 80 residential units including 3 live/work units, and
10,987 square feet of commercial uses. The proposed project site is outside the Airport
Influence Area and the Airport Runway Protection Zone (RPZ). The proposed project does not
include uses or components that would affect air traffic, so no substantial safety risks would
result from project implementation. No significant impacts would occur, and no mitigation is
required.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVI.d The project is on a small infill site (under 5 acres) located on one corner of a major
intersection with no long roadway segments within the property. The design of roadways must
provide adequate sight distance and traffic control measures. This provision is normally realized
through roadway design to facilitate roadway traffic flows. Roadway improvements in and
around the project site would be designed and constructed to satisfy all City requirements for
street widths, corner radii, intersection control as well as incorporate design standards tailored
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
75
specifically to site access requirements. Adherence to applicable City requirements would ensure
the proposed development would not include any sharp curves or dangerous intersections.
Therefore, no substantial increase in hazards due to a design feature would occur, resulting in a
less than significant impact. No mitigation is required.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVI.e) The Arcadia Police Department (located at 250 West Huntington Drive) is approximately
2-miles north of the project site, and the Arcadia Fire Department Station 106 (located at 630 S.
Baldwin Avenue) is approximately 2-miles northwest of the project site. Traffic associated with
project construction may have a temporary effect on existing traffic circulation patterns.
However, the proposed project is in an urban setting and direct access to the site will be
available via Santa Anita Avenue, Las Tunas Drive, and Live Oak Avenue. Due to the proximity
of emergency services, the urban setting, and availability of access to the site, impacts to
emergency access will be less than significant. The proposed project will also comply with all of
the City’s requirements for emergency access. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts,
and no mitigation is required.
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or
pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease
the performance or safety of such facilities?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVI.f) The proposed project is mixed use mainly residential project with a limited amount of new
commercial development. The inherent nature of the project would reduce the number of vehicle
trips taken by future residents. In addition, the project is located near the following bus stops:
Santa Anita/Live Oak; Las Tunas/Live Oak; and Las Tunas/El Monte. The Baldwin/Huntington
intersection is identified by the Metro route map as a major connection point between several
area bus routes. In addition, the City’s Gold Line (light rail) station in the downtown area is now
open and located approximately 2.3 miles north of the project site. For these reasons, the
proposed project would be consistent with City policies supporting public transit, bicycle, and
pedestrian facilities. Impacts will be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
76
XVII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in
Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a
site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is
geographically defined in terms of the size and
scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object
with cultural value to a California Native American
Tribe, and that is:
(a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVII.a) The project site has been completely disturbed by previous development and human
activity. Development of the proposed project will be relatively shallow and is not expected to
cause any significant impacts to archaeological resources on the site. However, it is still
possible, though unlikely, that archaeological resources may be found during excavation of the
project site. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-4 and CUL-6
(previously recommended in Section V, Cultural Resources) will help ensure that unanticipated
impacts to tribal cultural resources will be reduced to less than significant levels.
Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in
Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a
site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is
geographically defined in terms of the size and
scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object
with cultural value to a California Native American
Tribe, and that is:
(b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the resource to a
California Native American tribe.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVII.b) Under Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), a Lead Agency must now evaluate a project’s
potential impact to a “tribal cultural resource.” A tribal cultural resource is defined as a site,
feature, place, cultural landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California
Native American tribe, which may include non-unique archaeological resources previously
subject to limited review under CEQA. The Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians- Kizh Nation
Native American tribe has requested notification of projects within the City. A consultation letter
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
77
was mailed to the tribe on September 11, 2017. The Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh
Nation tribe responded during the City’s AB 52 consultation process for the project., and did not
request a consultation, however, mitigation measures such as Mitigation Measures CUL-1
through CUL-4 and CUL-6 (previously recommended in Section V, Cultural Resources,
including Native American Monitoring) will be followed to ensure that unanticipated impacts to
tribal cultural resources will be properly addressed if they occur.
XVIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements
of the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVIII.a) Local governments and water districts are responsible for complying with federal
regulations, both for wastewater plant operation and the collection systems (e.g., sanitary
sewers) that convey wastewater to the wastewater treatment facility. Proper operation and
maintenance is critical for sewage collection and treatment as impacts from these processes can
degrade water resources and affect human health. For these reasons, publicly owned treatment
works (POTWs) receive Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) to ensure that such wastewater
facilities operate in compliance with the water quality regulations set forth by the SWRCB.
WDRs, issued by the State, establish effluent limits on the kinds and quantities of pollutants
that POTWs can discharge. These permits also contain pollutant monitoring, record-keeping,
and reporting requirements. Each POTW that intends to discharge into the nation’s waters must
obtain a WDR prior to initiating its discharge.
Implementation of the proposed project would result in the development of 80 residential units
including 3 live/work units, and 10,987 square feet of commercial uses. The project site is
located within the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, a public agency consisting of 24
independent special districts serving about 5.6 million people in Los Angeles County. The
service area covers approximately 850 square miles and encompasses 78 cities and
unincorporated territory with Los Angeles County. Arcadia lies within District No. 15, which also
serves the cities of Sierra Madre, Temple City, Rosemead, El Monte, San Gabriel, La Puente,
and Baldwin Park and adjacent unincorporated areas. The Sanitation Districts manage a joint
sewer outfall system that conveys collected sewage treatment plants located in Whittier (San
Jose Creek West Water Reclamation Plan) and Carson (Carson Joint Water Pollution Control
Plant).37
Wastewater generated by the City of Arcadia (City) is treated at one or more of the following:
The Joint Water Pollution Control Plant located in the City of Carson, which has a capacity of
400 million gallons per day (MGD) and currently produces an average recycled water flow of
253.4 mgd (146.6 mgd remaining); the San Jose Creek Water Reclamation Plant (WRP) located
adjacent to the City of Industry, which has a capacity of 100 mgd and currently processes an
37 Circulation and Infrastructure Element, Arcadia General Plan, November 2010.
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
78
average flow of 64.6 mgd (35.4 mgd remaining); the Whittier Narrows WRP located near the
City of South El Monte, which has a capacity of 15 mgd and currently produces an average
recycled water flow of 7.3 mgd (7.7 mgd remaining); and/or the Los Coyotes WRP located in
the City of Cerritos, which has a capacity of 37.5 mgd and currently produces an average
recycled water flow of 20.4 mgd (17.1 mgd remaining).38
The 80 condominiums (approx. 232 residents) would generate approximately 15,600 gallons
per day or 5.7 million gallons per year.39 The 10.987 square feet of commercial uses (approx.
27 employees including the 3 live/work units) would generate approximately 2,700gpd or
985,500 gallons per year. The overall total of waste generated by the project would be 18,300
gpd or 6.7 million gallons per year.40 Therefore, the increased wastewater flow from the
proposed project can be accommodated with the existing design capacity of the Joint Water
Pollution Control Plant, San Jose Creek Water Reclamation Plant, the Whittier Narrows Water
Reclamation Plant, and/or the Los Coyotes Water Reclamation Plant. There are existing 8” VCP
sewer lines on Las Tunas Drive and Santa Anita Avenue. The applicant has submitted to the
City for review a Sewer Study which indicates there is adequate capacity and no mitigation is
required.
The project would discharge its wastewater into the sanitary sewer collection and treatment
systems provided by the City of Arcadia and the County of Los Angeles, respectively. Prior to
the issuance of grading permits, the project applicant would be required to satisfy City and
County requirements related to the payment of fees and/or the provision of adequate
wastewater facilities. The project would comply with the waste discharge prohibitions and water
quality objectives established by the State Water Resources Control Board and the City by
implementing Mitigation Measures HYD-1 through HYD-3. By implementing these
measures, project impacts related to this issue would be reduced to a less than significant level
and no mitigation is required.
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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVIII.b) Water and wastewater services are provided to the project site by the City of Arcadia
Public Works Services Department. The Department obtains water from groundwater. The City
also provides sewer service collection to the local area. Wastewater generated from the project
site is treated at one or more of the following: The Joint Water Pollution Control Plant; San Jose
Creek Water Reclamation Plant; Whittier Narrows Water Reclamation Plant; and/or the Los
Coyotes Water Reclamation Plant which is operated by the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles
County.41
38 Personal email with Adriana Raza, Will Serve Program, Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, August 23, 2017.
39 80 condos x 195 gpd = 15,600 gpd x 365 days per year = 5.7 million gallons per year
40 Generation factors per unit were derived from Personal email with Adriana Raza, Will Serve Program, Sanitation Districts of Los
Angeles County, September 29, 2017.
41 Personal email with Adriana Raza, Will Serve Program, Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, August 23, 2017.
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
79
As noted in Response XVIII.a, the project is expected to generate 18,300 gallons of waste per
day or 6.7 million gallons per year.
There is an existing 12-inch water main in Santa Anita Avenue that is available for domestic
and/or fire service. The City Public Works Department will require CFA to provide calculations to
determine the maximum domestic demand and maximum fire demand in order to verify the
required water service size. There is an existing sewer main available on Santa Anita Avenue
and Live Oak Avenue and both are available and capable of meeting the anticipated project
demand.42
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project applicant would be required to satisfy City
requirements related to the payment of fees and/or the provision of adequate wastewater
facilities. Therefore, because there are existing water and wastewater facilities that have
sufficient capacity to serve the proposed project, no new water or wastewater treatment
facilities will be constructed and no significant environmental effects would occur. No mitigation
is required.
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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVIII.c) Existing storm drains are located within S. Santa Anita Avenue and Las Tunas Drive.
The site will be designed so that runoff from the site drains to the existing storm drains within
existing roads per the requirements of the City’s Public Works Services Department. The
proposed project will also pay the City’s established Development Impact Fee (DIF) for drainage
to help offset costs for new storm water drainage facilities. Therefore the proposed project will
have a less than significant impact on these facilities, and no mitigation is required.
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVII.d) Water service is provided to the project site by the City of Arcadia Public Works
Services Department. The department obtains groundwater from the Main San Gabriel and
Raymond Groundwater Basins according to the City’s Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP)
2010 Update. In addition, the proposed project does not meet the threshold to prepare a
project-specific Water Supply Assessment (WSA) under SB 610. Therefore, impacts related to
water supply are considered to be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
42 Write-up from Project Applicant (Olsen Residential).
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
80
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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVIII.e) The proposed project would not substantially increase the area population or
otherwise induce substantial new population growth, as outlined in the previous Section XIII,
Population and Housing. Therefore, impacts related to wastewater are less than significant, and
no mitigation is required.
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project’s solid waste disposal needs?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVIII.f) The project is anticipated to generate 232 residents and 27 employees. Based on a
generation rate of 4.4 pounds43 of solid waste per person per day, the proposed project would
generate approximately 1,140 pounds of solid waste per day44 or 416,100 pounds per year.45
The City of Arcadia does not contract with a particular landfill. However, the existing service
station contracts with one of three commercial waste haulers to dispose of trash generated on
the site. The proposed project would likely contract with the same or a similar company in the
area. Because the project would not generate a substantial amount of waste, landfills that serve
the City of Arcadia would have sufficient capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste
either at the amount estimated above, and half of the expected waste would be recycled.
Therefore, no significant impact would occur regarding solid waste disposal and no mitigation is
required.
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVIII.g) The proposed project would be required to comply with applicable elements of AB
1327, Chapter 18 (California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991), and other
applicable local, state, and federal solid waste disposal standards, thereby ensuring that the
solid waste stream to the waste disposal facilities is reduced in accordance with existing
43 Municipal Solid Waste, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, March 2016.
https://archive.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/web/html/ (Accessed September 28, 2017).
44 259 × 4.4 equals 1,140 lbs per day.
45 1,140 × 365 days per year equals 416,100 lbs per year.
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
81
regulations. Impacts associated with this issue would be considered less than significant, and no
mitigation is required.
XIX. 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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIX.a) The project site already supports an existing commercial use and is fully developed.
Development of the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts to important
plants or wildlife or the environment with implementation of the recommended Mitigation
Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2, HAZ-1 through HAZ-5, and HYD-1 through HYD-3.
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects.)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIX.b) As presented in the discussion of environmental checklist questions I through XVIII, the
project has no impact, a less than significant impact, or a less than significant impact with
implementation of mitigation with respect to all environmental issues. Due to the limited scope
of direct physical impacts to the environment associated with this development project, the
project is not expected to have significant cumulative impacts within the City or surrounding
areas.
c) Does the project have environmental effects
that will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIX.c) In general, impacts to human beings from the project may occur due to air pollutant
emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, and noise. The South Coast Air Basin is currently
designated as a non-attainment area for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5. Development of the project
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
82
would contribute to air pollutant emissions on a short-term basis. The proposed project would
be required to comply with regional rules that assist in reducing short-term air pollutant
emissions. The purpose of SCAQMD Rule 403 is to reduce the amount of particulate matter in
the atmosphere resulting from man-made fugitive dust sources. As discussed in Checklist
Question II, construction and operation of the proposed project would result in less than
significant impacts to air quality and no mitigation is required.
In addition, potential impacts related to potential aesthetics, cultural resources, geotechnical
constraints, hazardous materials, water resources, noise, and transportation/traffic impacts
have also been addressed in the appropriate sections, including CUL-1 through CUL-6, GEO-
1, HAZ-1 through HAZ-6, HYD-1 through HYD-3, and NOI-1 through NOI-5 respectively.
With implementation of these measures, potential impacts of the project in these areas will be
reduced to less than significant levels.
As detailed in the preceding responses, development of the proposed project would not result,
either directly or indirectly, in adverse hazards and noise effects, resulting in a corresponding
less than significant impact to human beings.
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
83
SECTION 5 LIST OF PREPARERS
5.1 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
Kent Norton, AICP, REPA (Project Manager, Phase I and II Peer Review)
Lynn Calvert-Hayes, AICP (Principal in Charge)
Jason Lui (Noise Assessment)
Akshay Newgi (Air Quality/GHG)
Ambarish Mukherjee (Trip Generation Study)
Elisa Bechtel (Historical Assessment)
Margaret Gooding (Graphics)
5.2 CITY OF ARCADIA
Lisa Flores (Planning/Community Development Administrator)
Vanessa Quiroz (Assistant Planner)
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
84
SECTION 6 REFERENCES
AKAI 2017a “Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Multi-Family and Single-Family
Residential Project, 17 Las Tunas Drive, Arcadia, California.” Albus-Keefe
& Associates, Inc. (AKAI). February 20, 2017.
Arcadia 2010 “City of Arcadia General Plan.” City of Arcadia. November 2010.
CalEPA 2016a “Managing Hazardous Waste,” California Environmental Protection
Agency (CalEPA) and Department of Toxic Substances Control, website
accessed August 10, 2017. http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/hazardouswaste.
CAL 2017 “California’s 2016 Per Capita Disposal Rate Estimate,” CalRecycle, August
15, 2017. http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/lgcentral/goalmeasure/
disposalrate/MostRecent/default.htm (Accessed September 28, 2017).
Caltrans 2001 “Transportation Related Earthborne Vibrations (Caltrans Experiences)”.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Division of
Environmental Analysis, Office of Noise, Air Quality, and Hazardous
Waste Management. Technical Advisory, Vibration. TAV-02-01-R9601.
February 20, 2001.
Caltrans 2017 California Department of Transportation Scenic Highway, California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans), website accessed August 2,
2017. http://www.dot.ca.gov/design/lap/livability/scenic-highways/.
CAPCOA 2008 “CEQA & Climate Change: Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas
Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality
Act,” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA),
January 2008.
CARB 2007 “Proposed Early Actions to Mitigate Climate Change in California,”
California Air Resources Board (CARB), April 20, 2007.
CCR 2014 “California Health and Safety Code,” Section 7050.5, California Code of
Regulations (CCR). July 2014.
CDC 2016 “Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program,” California Department of
Conservation (CDC), Division of Land Resource Protection. Website
accessed July 26, 2017.
DTSC 2016 “Hazardous Waste and Substance Site (Cortese) List,” California
Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC), website accessed
August 10, 2017. http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public.
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
85
FEMA 2016 “Flood Limit Data and Mapping,” U.S. Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA), Flood Insurance Rate Map Program, website accessed
August 9, 2017.
Geotracker 2016 “Geotracker” database of hazardous material sites maintained by the
Regional Water Quality Control Board, website accessed August 10,
2017.
IWMB 2006 “Waste Disposal and Diversion Findings for Select Industry Groups.”
Integrated Waste Management Board, California Environmental
Protection Agency. 2006.
MIG 2016 “City of Arcadia Zoning Map.” MIG, Inc. 2016.
SCAG 2001 Employee Density Study Summary Report, Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG), adopted October 31, 2001.
SCAG 2008 “Final 2008 Regional Comprehensive Plan,” Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG), adopted October 2, 2008.
SCAG 2012a “2012-2035 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities
Strategy,” Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG),
adopted April 2012.
SCAG 2012b “Growth Forecast Appendix of the Regional Transportation Plan/
Sustainable Communities Strategy” Southern California Association of
Governments, adopted April 2012. http://rtpscs.scag.ca.gov/Documents/
2012/pfinal/SR/2012pfRTP_GrowthForecast.pdf.
SCAQMD 2013 “Air Quality Management Plan,” South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD), 2013.
SCAQMD 2016 SCAQMD website accessed September 2017. www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/
handbook/LST.
SCSI 2017a “Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Proposed Arcadia Residential,
17 Las Tunas Drive, Arcadia, California.” Stantec Consulting Services,
Inc. (SCSI). February 6, 2017.
SCSI 2017b “Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, Proposed Arcadia Residential,
17 Las Tunas Drive, Arcadia, California.” Stantec Consulting Services,
Inc. (SCSI). March 8, 2017.
LSA 2018a “Trip Generation Assessment, Olson Residential Project, 17 Las Tunas
Avenue, Arcadia, California.” LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA). February 2018
LSA 2018b “Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emission Memorandum for the Olson
Residential Project, 17 Las Tunas Drive, Arcadia, California.” LSA
Associates, Inc. (LSA). February 20, 2018.
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
86
LSA 2018c “Noise Impact Assessment, Olson Residential Project, 17 Las Tunas
Avenue, Arcadia, California.” LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA). February 20,
2018.
USDA 2016 “Web Soil Survey,” United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm (Accessed
August 2, 2017).
USEPA 1998 “AP-42 Emission Factors, Natural Gas Combustion,” U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA), July 1998. www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/
ch01/final.
USEPA 2004a “EPA420-P-04-016: Update of Methane and Nitrous Oxide Emission
Factors for On-Highway Vehicles,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA), prepared by ICF Consulting. November 2004.
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/ngm.
USEPA 2004b “EPA430-K-03-004, Direct HFC and PFC Emissions from Use of
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment.” U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA), Climate Leaders, October 2004.
http://www.epa.gov/climateleaders/documents/resources/
refrige_acequipuseguidance.pdf.
USFWS 2011 “HCP/NCCP Planning Areas, Southern California,” U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS), October 2011.
USGS 1988 Mt. Wilson 7.5-minute quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1988.
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
87
SECTION 7 SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
BIO-1 Tree removal should not occur during the local nesting season (February 1 to
September 15 for nesting birds and February 1 to June 30 for nesting
raptors), to the extent practicable. If any construction or tree removal occurs
during the nesting season, a nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a
qualified biologist prior to commencement of grading or removal of any trees
on the property. If the biologist determines that nesting birds are present,
restrictions may be placed on construction activities in the vicinity of the nest
observed until the nest is no longer active, as determined by a qualified
biologist. The size of the protective barrier will be determined by the
biologist based on the location of the nest, type of construction activities, the
existing human activity in the vicinity of the nest and the sensitivity of the
nesting species. Grading and/or construction may resume in this area when a
qualified biologist has determined the nest is no longer occupied and all
juveniles have fledged. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction
of the City Planning Services.
BIO-2 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall demonstrate the
project landscaping plan and planned construction is consistent with the
City’s Tree Protection Ordinance and Tree Study prepared by California Arbor
Care dated January 8, 2018 (IS/MND Appendix H) or any subsequent revision
or addition approved by the City.. All tree protection activities shall be
consistent with the Tree Study and include but not be limited to:
1) The four Coast live oak trees located north of the site on the church and
residential property (Tree Study Pages 8-9, Trees 23, 24, 40, and 42) shall be
protected in place by incorporating a bridging technique over their root
systems within the new wall and trimming the canopy of the tree per Tree
Study specifications.
2) The wall footing near the five Carrotwood trees along the western
boundary of the site (Tree Study Pages 8-9, Trees 15-20) shall be designed
to minimize impacts on the tree roots per the Tree Study specifications.
3) The two Holly Oak and one Magnolia trees (offsite City street trees) along
the west side of Santa Anita Avenue (Tree Study Pages 8-9, Trees 43-45)
shall be trimmed to allow equipment or scaffolding clearance.
4) The seven Ficus trees (offsite City street trees) along the north side of W.
Live Oak Avenue/Las Tunas (Tree Study Pages 8-9, Trees 7-13) shall be
removed and replaced with appropriate street trees designated by the City.
5) Tree protection fencing shall be installed around the driplines of each
protected tree during construction per the specifications of the Tree Study.
This will help prevent root compaction from vehicles and help avoid
damaging protected trees while allowing equipment or scaffolding clearance
during construction.
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
88
6) During all construction activities, the following restrictions shall be
observed around all protected trees identified in the Tree Study:
* Avoid damaging the roots, stem, and branches with mechanical and
manual equipment.
* Avoid soil compaction by prohibiting the use of heavy equipment such as
backhoes and bobcats under the tree drip line.
* Do not store or park tools, equipment, vehicles, or chemicals under the
tree drip line.
* Avoid washing of equipment and tools such as wheel barrels, shovels,
and mechanical motors under the tree drip line.
* Prevent flooding and pooling of service water under the drip line.
* Avoid cutting tree roots whenever possible. This can be accomplished by
bridging roots, tunneling, or radial trenching. If roots must be cut use a
sharp tool that will make a clean flush cut and not tear the roots. If
possible all digging under the tree drip line should be done manually to
avoid tearing out of roots.
* Construction personnel shall be briefed on the importance of the
guidelines before construction begins and reminded of it during tailgate
meetings and as necessary. A printed copy shall be posted where
employees can be reminded of it.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
CUL-1 Project Archaeologist. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a qualified
project archaeologist (see CUL-4) shall be retained and present at the pre-
grading conference to establish procedures for temporarily halting or re-
directing work to permit the sampling, identification and evaluation of
artifacts if potentially significant artifacts are uncovered. If any resources are
discovered during project grading, work shall be halted in that area so the
project archaeologist can be present to assess the significance of the find.
The project archaeologist shall observe the remaining earthmoving activities
at the project site consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(b),
(c), and (d). The monitor shall be equipped to record and salvage cultural
resources that may be unearthed during grading activities. The monitor shall
be empowered to temporarily halt or divert grading equipment to allow
recording and removal of the unearthed resources. The monitor shall
prepare a summary memo report of their work and submit it to the City
Development Services Division within 60 days of the completion of grading.
CUL-2 Native American Monitor. The project applicant shall obtain the services
of a qualified Native American Monitor(s) during construction-related ground
disturbance activities. Ground disturbance is defined by the Tribal
Representatives from the Gabrielino Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation as
activities that include, but are not limited to, pavement removal, pot-holing
or auguring, grubbing, weed abatement, boring, grading, excavation,
drilling, and trenching, within the project area. The monitor(s) must be
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
89
approved by the Tribal Representatives and will be present on-site during
the construction phases that involve any ground disturbing activities. The
Native American Monitor(s) will complete monitoring logs on a daily basis.
The logs will provide descriptions of the daily activities, including
construction activities, locations, soil, and any cultural materials identified.
The monitor(s) shall possess Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency
Response (HAZWOPER) certification. In addition, the monitor(s) will be
required to provide insurance certificates, including liability insurance, for
any archaeological resource(s) encountered during grading and excavation
activities pertinent to the provisions outlined in the California Environmental
Quality Act, California Public Resources Code Division 13, Section 21083.2
(a) through (k). The on-site monitoring shall end when the project site
grading and excavation activities are completed, or when the Tribal
Representatives and monitor have indicated that the site has a low potential
for archeological resources.
CUL-3 Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources. All
archaeological resources unearthed by project construction activities shall be
evaluated by the Qualified Archaeologist and Native Monitor. If the
resources are Native American in origin, the Tribe shall coordinate with the
landowner regarding treatment and curation of these resources. Typically,
the Tribe will request reburial or preservation for educational purposes. If a
resource is determined by the Qualified Archaeologist to constitute a
“historical resource” pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a) or has
a “unique archaeological resource” pursuant to Public Resources Code
Section 21083.2(g), the Qualified Archaeologist shall coordinate with the
applicant and the City to develop a formal treatment plan that would serve
to reduce impacts to the resources. The treatment plan established for the
resources shall be in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f)
for historical resources and Public Resources Code Sections 21083.2(b) for
unique archaeological resources. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is
the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place is not feasible,
treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery
excavations to remove the resource along with subsequent laboratory
processing and analysis. Any historic archaeological material that is not
Native American in origin shall be curated at a public, non-profit institution
with a research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History
Museum of Los Angeles County or the Fowler Museum, if such an institution
agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the archaeological
material, they shall be donated to a local school or historical society in the
area for educational purposes.
CUL-4 Professional Standards. Archaeological and Native American monitoring
and excavation during construction projects will be consistent with current
professional standards. All feasible care to avoid any unnecessary
disturbance, physical modification, or separation of human remains and
associated funerary objects shall be taken. Principal personnel must meet the
Secretary of Interior standards for archaeology and have a minimum of 10
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
90
years of experience as a principal investigator working with Tribal Cultural
Resources in southern California. The Qualified Archaeologist shall ensure
that all other personnel are appropriately trained and qualified.
CUL-5 Paleo Monitor. If paleontological resources (fossils) are discovered during
project grading, work will be halted in that area until a qualified
paleontologist can be retained to assess the significance of the find. The
project paleontologist shall monitor remaining earthmoving activities at the
project site and shall be equipped to record and salvage fossil resources that
may be unearthed during grading activities. The paleontologist shall be
empowered to temporarily halt or divert grading equipment to allow
recording and removal of the unearthed resources. Any fossils found shall be
evaluated in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines and offered for curation at
an accredited facility approved by the City of Arcadia. Once grading activities
have ceased or the paleontologist determines that monitoring is no longer
necessary, monitoring activities shall be discontinued. This measure may be
combined with CUL-1 at the discretion of the City Development Services
Division.
CUL-6 Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and Associated
Funerary Objects. In the event of an accidental discovery or recognition of
any human remains, California State Health and Safety Code § 7050.5
dictates that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has
made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to CEQA
regulations and PRC § 5097.98. If human remains are found, the LA County
Coroner’s office shall be contacted to determine if the remains are recent or
of Native American significance. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the
developer shall include a note to this effect on the grading plans for the
project.
Human remains are defined as any physical remains of a human being. The
term “human remains” encompasses more than human bones. In ancient as
well as historic times, Tribal Traditions included, but were not limited to, the
burial of associated cultural resources (Funerary objects) with the deceased,
and the ceremonial burning of human remains. These remains are to be
treated in the same manner as bone fragments that remain intact. Associated
funerary objects are objects that, as part of the death rite or ceremony of a
culture, are reasonably believed to have been placed with individual human
remains either at the time of death or later; other items made exclusively for
burial purposes or to contain human remains can also be considered as
associated funerary objects. NAGPRA guidance specifically states that the
federal agencies will consult with organizations on whose aboriginal lands the
remains and cultural items might be discovered, who are reasonably known
to have a cultural relationship to the human remains and other cultural items.
Therefore, for this project site, it is appropriate to consult with the Gabrielino
Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation as recommended by the NAHC.
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
91
Any discoveries of human skeletal material shall be immediately reported to
the County Coroner. The monitor will immediately divert work at minimum of
50 feet and place an exclusion zone around the burial. The monitor will then
notify the Qualified Archaeologist and the construction manager who will call
the coroner. Work will continue to be diverted while the coroner determines
whether the remains are Native American. The discovery is to be kept
confidential and secure to prevent any further disturbance. If Native
American, the coroner will notify the NAHC as mandated by state law who
will then appoint a Most Likely Descendent. In the case where discovered
human remains cannot be fully documented and recovered on the same day,
the remains will be covered with muslin cloth and a steel plate that can be
moved by heavy equipment placed over the excavation opening to protect
the remains. If this type of steel plate is not available, a 24 hour guard
should be posted outside of working hours. The Tribe will make every effort
to recommend diverting the project and keeping the remains in situ and
protected. If the project cannot be diverted, it may be determined that
burials will be removed. The Tribe will work closely with the Qualified
Archaeologist to ensure that the excavation is treated carefully, ethically and
respectfully. If data recovery is approved by the Tribe, documentation shall
be taken which includes at a minimum detailed descriptive notes and
sketches. Additional types of documentation shall be approved by the Tribe
for data recovery purposes. Cremations will either be removed in bulk or by
means as necessary to ensure completely recovery of all material. If the
discovery of human remains includes 4 or more burials, the location is
considered a cemetery and a separate treatment plan shall be created. The
project applicant shall consult with the Tribe regarding avoidance of all
cemetery sites. Once complete, a final report of all activities is to be
submitted to the NAHC. The Tribe does NOT authorize any scientific study or
the utilization of any invasive diagnostics on human remains.
If the coroner determines the remains represent a historic non-Native
American burial, the burial shall be treated in the same manner of respect
with agreement of the coroner. Reburial will be in an appropriate setting. If
the coroner determines the remains to be modern, the coroner will take
custody of the remains.
Each occurrence of human remains and associated funerary objects will be
stored using opaque cloth bags. All human remains, funerary objects, sacred
objects and objects of cultural patrimony will be removed to a secure
container on site if possible. These items should be retained and reburied
within six months of recovery. There shall be no publicity regarding any
cultural materials recovered.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
GEO-1 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall demonstrate that
project plans have incorporated the conclusions and recommendations of the
final project geotechnical study prepared by Albus-Keefe & Associates, Inc.
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
92
During grading and construction, the project shall comply with requirements
outlined in the final project geotechnical study. This measure shall be
implemented to the satisfaction of the Arcadia Engineering Services Division.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
HAZ-1 ACM and LBP Surveys. Prior to the issuance of any demolition permits, the
applicant shall provide evidence to the City that a pre-demolition survey for
asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) and lead-based paint (LBP) has been
conducted on any buildings to be demolished. If for any reason ACM’s or
LBP’s are detected, Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 shall be implemented.
HAZ-2 ACM and LBP Remediation. In the event of any asbestos-containing
materials (ACMs) or lead-based paint (LBP) are detected found during the
pre-construction survey outlined in Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, the applicant
shall provide evidence to the City that all ACMs and LBP has been removed
and disposed of according to applicable laws and regulations, as outlined in
“Steps to Lead Safe Removal, Renovation, and Disposal” (U.S. EPA-740-K-11-
001) issued October 2011 (www.epa.gov/lead) for LBP and “Standards for
Demolition and Removal” (40 CFR Section 61.145) under the Asbestos
National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP)(www.epa.gov/asbestos) for ACMs.
HAZ-3 Ag Chemical Testing. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the
applicant shall provide evidence to the City that any area covered by the
building permit that has soils contaminated by agricultural chemicals
identified in the Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments for the
project site has been effectively remediated and/or removed from the site, or
demonstrate that the underlying soil does not exceed the applicable state
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) or California Code of
Regulations (CCR) Title 22 hazardous waste criteria or contamination
standards for commercial or residential land uses as appropriate.
HAZ-4 Install PVMS System. Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, the
applicant shall demonstrate that a passive vapor mitigation system (PVMS)
has been installed as part of project construction and is operating at
designed specifications per the recommendations of the Phase II report
(Stantec, March 8, 2017) including Figure 3 of the Stantec report regarding
the location of vapor barrier locations. The system shall be designed to
preclude entry of water into the system which would nullify potential
contaminant measurements. This system must have the ability to be
converted to an active monitoring system if the passive operation is not
sufficient. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Fire
Department, Building Services, and Planning Services in consultation with the
Los Angeles County Solid Waste Management Program/Local Enforcement
Agency (LEA) and/or the local Certified Unified Program (CUPA) under the
Los Angeles County Fire Department Health Hazardous Materials Division as
appropriate regarding certification of the PVMS. The City shall contact the
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
93
following LEA and County Fire Department representatives or their
successors to coordinate this effort :
Dorcas (Dee) Hanson-Lugo, R.E.H.S, MPA
Env. Health Specialist III
Solid Waste Management Program
Local Enforcement Agency (LEA)
5050 Commerce Dr. 1st Floor
Baldwin Park, CA 91706
(626) 430-5540 Main Line
(626) 430-5572 Direct Line
(626) 813-4839 Fax
dlugo@ph.lacounty.gov
The current contact information for the local Certified Unified Program
(CUPA) under the Los Angeles County Fire Department Health
Hazardous Materials Division is:
Richard Clark, MS, PE
Deputy Health Officer
Supervising Hazardous Materials Specialist
Site Mitigation Unit Supervisor
Health Hazardous Materials Division
Los Angeles County Fire Department
5825 Rickenbacker Road
Commerce, CA 90040
(213) 200-3831 cell
richard.clark@fire.lacounty.gov
HAZ-5 VOC Monitoring. Within one year after issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy for the entire residential development, the Passive Vapor
Mitigation System (PVMS) shall be tested and the results provided to the City
Planning Services Division. Indications of elevated Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs) shall require repair/redesign of the PVMS or, if deemed
necessary by the City, installation of an Active Vapor Mitigation System.
Additional testing shall be conducted within three months of any repairs or
systems changes. The Developer shall submit a copy of the paid contract for
this testing within three weeks after the project approval and the results
provided to the City Planning Services Division. This measure shall be
completed to the satisfaction of the City Fire Department and Development
Services Department.
HAZ-6 VOC Alternative. As an equivalent alternative to HAZ-4 and HAZ-5, the
applicant may obtain a certification of remediation from a licensed
geotechnical engineer after completion of onsite grading but prior to issuance
of any building permits. The certification must conclude the project and site
will not constitute a public health hazard or substantial risk beyond applicable
standards, and cite the applicable standards residential and commercial
standards as appropriate. It must further state that no active or passive
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
94
vapor mitigation system is needed based on the results of the site
remediation, and must be supported by appropriate onsite soil sampling and
laboratory testing. If this measure is implemented to the satisfaction of
applicable divisions within the Development Services Division, in consultation
with the Los Angeles County Solid Waste Management Program/Local
Enforcement Agency (LEA) and/or the local Certified Unified Program (CUPA)
under the Los Angeles County Fire Department Health Hazardous Material
Division, the project will not have to implement HAZ-4 and HAZ-5.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES
HYD-1 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall file a Notice of
Intent (NOI) with the State Water Resource Control Board to be covered
under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General
Construction Permit for discharge of storm water associated with construction
activities. The project developer shall submit to the City the Waste Discharge
Identification Number issued by the State Water Resource Control Board
(SWRCB) as proof that the project’s NOI to be covered by the General
Construction Permit has been filed with the SWRCB. This measure shall be
implemented to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
HYD-2 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall submit to the State
Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) and receive approval for a project-
specific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP shall
include a surface water control plan and Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
citing specific measures to control onsite and offsite erosion during the entire
grading and construction period. In addition, the SWPPP shall emphasize
structural and nonstructural best management practices (BMPs) to control
sediment and non-visible discharges from the site. BMPs to be implemented
may include (but shall not be limited to) the following:
Potential sediment discharges from the site may be controlled by the
following: sandbags, silt fences, straw wattles, fiber rolls, a temporary
debris basin (if deemed necessary), and other discharge control devices.
The construction and condition of the BMPs are to be periodically
inspected by the SWRCB during construction, and repairs would be made
as required.
Area drains within the construction area must be provided with inlet
protection. Minimum standards are sandbag barriers, or two layers of
sandbags with filter fabric over the grate, properly designed standpipes,
or other measures as appropriate.
Materials that have the potential to contribute non-visible pollutants to
storm water must not be placed in drainage ways and must be placed in
temporary storage containment areas.
All loose soil, silt, clay, sand, debris, and other earthen material shall be
controlled to eliminate discharge from the site. Temporary soil
stabilization measures to be considered include: covering disturbed areas
with mulch, temporary seeding, soil stabilizing binders, fiber rolls or
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
95
blankets, temporary vegetation, and permanent seeding. Stockpiles shall
be surrounded by silt fences and covered with plastic tarps.
Implement good housekeeping practices such as creating a waste
collection area, putting lids on waste and material containers, and
cleaning up spills immediately.
The SWPPP shall include inspection forms for routine monitoring of the
site during the construction phase.
Additional required BMPs and erosion control measures shall be
documented in the SWPPP.
The SWPPP would be kept on site for the duration of project construction
and shall be available to the State Water Resource Control Board for
inspection.
The developer and/or construction contractor shall be responsible for
performing and documenting the application of BMPs identified in the
project-specific SWPPP. Regular inspections shall be performed on sediment
control measures called for in the SWPPP. Monthly reports shall be
maintained and available for City inspection. An inspection log shall be
maintained for the project and shall be available at the site for review by the
City and the State Water Resource Control Board as appropriate.
HYD-3 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall prepare a Low
Impact Development (LID) Plan, and the site plans shall illustrate the various
long-term water quality control features to be installed on this project
consistent with the City’s LID Ordinance as codified in the City’s Municipal
Code (MC) Section 8, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control,
Sections 7810-7840. The LID Plan and site development plans shall
incorporate the following Best Management Practices (BMPs) as outlined in
MC Sections 7823 and 7828 as appropriate to control pollutant runoff and to
reduce impacts to water quality to the maximum extent practicable:
Divert roof runoff to landscaped areas before discharge.
Divert surface flow to landscaped areas.
Maximize permeable areas and minimize impermeable areas per City
MC Section 7828(B).
Retain storm water runoff onsite per City MC Section 7828(C).
Provide biofiltration or other appropriate onsite treatment for runoff
that cannot be retained onsite per City MC Section 7828(C).
Maximize interception and water conservation by planting native
and/or drought-tolerant plants.
Install an irrigation system and provide landscape maintenance to
minimize water runoff.
Provide regular mechanical sweeping of private streets and parking
lots.
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
96
Provide regular drainage facility inspection and maintenance per City
LID guidelines.
This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Engineer,
City Public Works Department, and City Planning Department as appropriate,
consistent with the City’s LID Ordinance.
NOISE
NOI-1 Prior to issuance of grading and building permits, the developer shall prepare
a Construction Noise Control Plan (CNCP) and will submit the plan the City for
review and approval. The plan shall include but will not be limited to the
following:
During all project site excavation and grading, contractors shall equip all
construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and
maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers’ standards.
The project contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so
that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the
project site.
The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that
will create the greatest distance between construction-related noise
sources and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all
project construction.
The construction contractor shall use light construction equipment (e.g.
small bulldozers and trucks) within 5 feet of the northern and western
project construction boundaries to the extent practical to reduce potential
noise and vibration impacts on adjacent land uses.
During all project site construction, the construction contractor shall limit
all construction-related activities, including maintenance of construction
equipment and the staging of haul trucks, to between the hours of 7:00
a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on
Saturday. No construction is permitted on Sundays and government code
holidays.
NOI-2 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall show proof to
the City’s Planning Department that windows with STC-29 or higher ratings
have been installed on frontline units adjacent to Santa Anita Avenue.
NOI-3 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall show proof to
the City’s Planning Department that mechanical ventilation systems such as
air conditioning will be installed on residential units to ensure that windows
can remain closed for prolonged periods of time.
NOI-4 Prior to issuance of the first occupancy permit, the applicant shall provide the
City with a copy of a notice that will be provided to prospective tenants or
buyers of the live/work units along Las Tunas and the residential units facing
Santa Anita Avenue that states noise levels may be higher than a typical
suburban residential area.
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
97
NOI-5 Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for the new commercial
building, a minimum six-foot high block wall shall be constructed west side of
the new commercial site and the north side of both the new commercial site
and Starbucks to help reduce potential noise impacts on project residents by
4 dBA. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City
Planning Services.
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
Appendix A:
Project Information (on CD)
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
Appendix B:
Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Study (on CD)
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
Appendix C:
Trip Generation Assessment (on CD)
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
Appendix D:
Noise Assessment (on CD)
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
Appendix E:
Hazmat Studies (on CD)
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
Appendix F:
Geotechnical Study (on CD)
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
Appendix G:
Historical Assessment (on CD)
LAS TUNAS MIXED USE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
Appendix H:
Tree Study (on CD)