The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Packet – Part 2 of 3 – Item No. 3, Attachment No. 4 – IS/MND Only Attachment No. 4 Attachment No. 4 Draft Initial Study/MND, Response to Comments, and MMRP Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Arcadia Hotel and Annex (Hotel Indigo) Project Prepared for: City of Arcadia 240 W. Huntington Drive Arcadia, California 91007 Prepared by: 38 N. Marengo Avenue Pasadena, California 91101 FEBRUARY 2020 Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material. 11663.01 i February 2020 Table of Contents SECTION PAGE NO. ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .............................................................................................................................. V 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Project Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1.1 Previously Approved Development Project.............................................................................. 1 1.1.2 Proposed Project ....................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Document Contents and Format ........................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Public Review Process ........................................................................................................................... 3 1.4 Mitigation Measures .............................................................................................................................. 4 2 PROJECT SETTING AND DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................ 13 2.1 Project Location ................................................................................................................................... 13 2.2 Existing Conditions and Setting .......................................................................................................... 13 2.2.1 On-Site Land Uses.................................................................................................................. 13 2.2.2 Transit Priority Area ............................................................................................................... 14 2.2.3 Surrounding Land Uses ......................................................................................................... 14 2.3 Project Description .............................................................................................................................. 15 2.3.1 Hotel Indigo ............................................................................................................................ 15 2.3.2 Parking and Pedestrian Improvements ................................................................................ 16 2.3.3 Landscape Improvements ..................................................................................................... 17 2.3.4 Off-Site Improvements ........................................................................................................... 17 2.3.5 Short-Term Construction Activities ....................................................................................... 17 2.4 Discretionary Actions ........................................................................................................................... 18 3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................... 19 3.1 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................................ 19 3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ................................................................................................... 25 3.3 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................................. 27 3.4 Biological Resources ........................................................................................................................... 40 3.5 Cultural Resources .............................................................................................................................. 44 3.6 Energy .................................................................................................................................................. 47 3.7 Geology and Soils ................................................................................................................................ 53 3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................................................ 57 3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ..................................................................................................... 65 3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................................................................... 70 3.11 Land Use and Planning ....................................................................................................................... 77 3.12 Mineral Resources .............................................................................................................................. 78 3.13 Noise .................................................................................................................................................... 80 ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 ii February 2020 3.14 Population and Housing ...................................................................................................................... 89 3.15 Public Services .................................................................................................................................... 90 3.16 Recreation ............................................................................................................................................ 93 3.17 Transportation ..................................................................................................................................... 94 3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................. 114 3.19 Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................................................ 116 3.20 Wildfire ............................................................................................................................................... 121 3.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ................................................................................................. 123 4 REFERENCES AND PREPARERS................................................................................................................ 127 4.1 References Cited ............................................................................................................................... 127 4.2 List of Preparers and Contributors ................................................................................................... 133 APPENDICES A Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Calculations B Tree Survey C Sacred Lands File and Native American Contacts List Request D Preliminary Low Impact Development Report E Noise Measurement Data Sheets F Transportation Impact Analysis G Architectural Design Review and Variance Application FIGURES 1 Project Location ............................................................................................................................................ 1345 2 Zoning ............................................................................................................................................................ 137 3 Surrounding Land Uses .................................................................................................................................. 139 4A Site Plan ........................................................................................................................................................... 141 4B Enlarged Site Plan ........................................................................................................................................... 143 4C Building Perspectives ...................................................................................................................................... 145 5A Building C Elevations ...................................................................................................................................... 147 5B Building D Elevations ...................................................................................................................................... 149 6 Preliminary Landscape Plan ........................................................................................................................... 151 7 Noise Measurement Locations ...................................................................................................................... 153 8 Vicinity Map ..................................................................................................................................................... 155 9 Existing Lane Configurations .......................................................................................................................... 157 10 Existing Traffic Volumes (Weekday AM Peak Hour) ...................................................................................... 159 11 Existing Traffic Volumes (Weekday PM Peak Hour) ...................................................................................... 161 12 Existing Traffic Volumes (Saturday PM Peak Hour) ...................................................................................... 163 ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 iii February 2020 13 Location of Related Projects .......................................................................................................................... 165 14 Existing with Project Traffic Volumes (Weekday AM Peak Hour) .................................................................. 167 15 Existing with Project Traffic Volumes (Weekday PM Peak Hour) .................................................................. 169 16 Existing with Project Traffic Volumes (Saturday PM Peak Hour) .................................................................. 171 TABLES 1 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................................................................ 4 2 Hotel Building Components .............................................................................................................................. 16 3 General Plan, Development Code, and Municipal Code Consistency Analysis ............................................. 21 4 SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds .................................................................................................. 30 5 Construction Assumptions for Air Quality Modeling ........................................................................................ 32 6 Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions - Unmitigated .............................. 33 7 Estimated Maximum Daily Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Unmitigated .............................. 34 8 Construction Localized Significance Threshold Analysis ................................................................................ 36 9 Construction Equipment Diesel Demand for Off-Road Equipment ................................................................ 48 10 Construction Worker Gasoline Demand .......................................................................................................... 49 11 Construction Vendor Diesel Demand ............................................................................................................... 49 12 Construction Haul Truck Diesel Demand......................................................................................................... 50 13 Annual Mobile Source Demand (Gasoline and Diesel) ................................................................................... 51 14 Estimated Annual Construction GHG Emissions ............................................................................................. 60 15 Estimated Annual Operational GHG Emissions ............................................................................................... 61 16 Ambient Measured Noise Levels...................................................................................................................... 81 17 Construction Equipment Maximum Noise Levels ........................................................................................... 82 18 Construction Noise Model Results Summary .................................................................................................. 83 19 Off-Site Traffic Noise (Existing and Existing-with-Project) ............................................................................... 87 20 Off-Site Traffic Noise (Future and Future-with-Project) ................................................................................... 87 21 Summary of Volume to Capacity Ratios/Delays and Levels of Service Weekday AM, PM, and Saturday PM Peak Hours .......................................................................................................................... 99 22 Related Projects List and Trip Generation ..................................................................................................... 102 23 Project Trip Generation ................................................................................................................................... 105 24 Street Segment Analysis Summary Existing and Future Weekday and Weekend Conditions ................... 107 25 Existing Transit Routes ................................................................................................................................... 111 ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 iv February 2020 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 11663.01 v February 2020 Acronyms and Abbreviations Acronym/Abbreviation Definition ACM asbestos-containing material AIN Assessor Identification Number APD Arcadia Police Department AQMP Air Quality Management Plan BMP best management practice CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model CALGreen California Green Building Standards Code Cal/OSHA California Division of Occupational Safety and Health CalRecycle California Department of Resources, Recycling, and Recovery Caltrans California Department of Transportation CARB California Air Resources Board CHRIS California Historical Resources Information System CEQA California Environmental Quality Act City City of Arcadia CMP Congestion Management Plan CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level County County of Los Angeles CUP Conditional Use Permit dB Decibel dBA A-weighted decibel DOC California Department of Conservation DOGGR California Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resource DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control DWR California Department of Water Resources EB eastbound EIR Environmental Impact Report EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency IS/MND Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration FAR Floor Area Ratio FHWA Federal Highway Administration GHG greenhouse gas gpm gallons per minute GWP global warming potential HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning kW kilowatt LACSD Sanitation District of Los Angeles County LACM Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County LARWQCB Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board Leq time-averaged equivalent noise level LID Low Impact Development LOS level of service LST Localized Significance Threshold LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 vi February 2020 Acronym/Abbreviation Definition MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act mgd million gallons per day MM mitigation measure MRZ Mineral Resource Zone MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System MT metric ton MWD Metropolitan Water District of Southern California NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System PRIMP Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program RCNM Roadway Construction Noise Model ROW right-of-way RTP/SCS Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy SB Senate Bill SCAB South Coast Air Basin SCAG Southern California Association of Governments SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SCCIC South Central Coastal Information Center SCE Southern California Edison sf square feet SVP Society of Vertebrate Paleontology SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board TAC toxic air contaminant TCR tribal cultural resource UWMP Urban Water Management Plan V/C Volume-to-capacity VHFHSZ Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone VMT vehicle miles traveled VOC volatile organic gas WB westbound WRP Water Reclamation Plant 11663.01 1 February 2020 1 Introduction 1.1 Project Overview The City of Arcadia (City) has prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Arcadia Hotel and Annex Project (Hotel Indigo or proposed Project), located in downtown Arcadia in northeast Los Angeles County (County). The proposed Project site is located at two addresses: 125 West Huntington Drive and 175 Colorado Place. The Project site is located on one legal parcel with the following four Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN) for tax purposes: 5775-015-024, 5775-015-025, 5775-015-026, and 5775-015-027. As part of the Project, the hotel will receive a new address (123 W. Huntington Drive), which will replace the 175 Colorado Place address. 1.1.1 Previously Approved Development Project The approximately 4.59-acre Project site is the location of a previously approved development project. On January 22, 2013, the Arcadia Planning Commission approved the construction of four new buildings on the Project site, and on February 5, 2013, the City Council affirmed the Planning Com buildings, as follows: Building 1: A 163,468 square-foot (sf), four-level parking structure Building 2: A 19,995 sf, three-story medical office building Building 3: A 19,441 sf, three-story medical office building with 3,000 sf of ground floor restaurant Building 4: A 24,819 sf, three-story general office building with 1,600 sf of ground floor restaurant The existing 60,811 sf, three-story office building (formerly occupied by Parsons Engineering) would remain. Four modifications, which included concessions to allow new windows facing residential properties, designated loading spaces in lieu of required parking, special front yard setbacks, and to allow trash enclosures to be located within the 20-foot rear yard setback were approved with the previously approved project. Additionally, the 2013 project included a City right-of-way dedication of 3,192 sf, thereby reducing the lot area to 200,085 sf. The Lot Line Adjustment No. LLA 12-03, Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. CUP 11-18, Modification NO. MP 12-10, and Architectural Design Review No. ADR 11-29 including additional conditions, were approved by the City. Subsequently, portions of the previously approved 2013 project were constructed, including the parking structure (Building 1) and the two medical office buildings (Buildings 2 and 3). 1.1.2 Proposed Project The current development proposal is to build a new hotel. This Project would include the conversion of the existing general office use (formerly occupied by Parsons Engineering) and the construction of a new five-story tower that is located near the corner of Huntington Drive and San Rafael Avenue. The proposed Project site includes the same property boundary as the 2013 submittal but would only involve changes to the eastern portion of the site. The two recently constructed medical office buildings (hereafter referred to as Building A and B) and the new parking structure are proposed to remain as-is. Under the proposed Project, the existing 60,811 sf, three-story office building (former Worley Parsons Building, hereafter referred to as Building C) would continue to remain on the Project site but would be redeveloped from the existing office use into a hotel. ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 2 February 2020 In summary, the proposed Project includes a hotel (renovated Building C) and a hotel annex (new Building D) on the Project site. Building C would be remodeled to allow for 76,754 sf of hotel and appurtenant uses. The first floor includes a lobby/lounge, restaurant, kitchen, fitness room, management offices, meeting rooms, and banquet hall space. The second and third floors would accommodate 90 hotel rooms. Building D would be constructed as a 61,538 sf, five-story hotel building on the southeastern portion of the Project site that includes the hotel spa, café, outdoor patios and an additional 75 hotel rooms. In total, 165 new hotel rooms would be constructed on the Project site. Building A, Building B, and the existing parking structure would be left as is and protected in place during construction of the proposed Project. 1.2 Document Contents and Format Because of the substantive differences between the proposed Project and the originally proposed and approved project and 2013 IS/MND, the City has determined that it is appropriate to prepare a new IS/MND to evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed Project. As such, if approved, this IS/MND would become the primary environmental compliance documentation pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the proposed Project. Relevant information from the 2013 IS/MND may be incorporated into this IS/MND, where appropriate, and is referenced accordingly. The CEQA applies to proposed projects initiated by, funded by, or requiring discretionary approvals from state or local government agencies. The proposed Project constitutes a project as defined by CEQA (California Public Resources Code, Section 21065). The City of Arcadia is the CEQA lead agency for the proposed Project. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(d), an Initial Study must contain the following: 1) A description of the project including the location of the project; 2) An identification of the environmental setting; 3) An identification of environmental effects by use of a checklist, matrix, or other method, provided that entries on a checklist or other form are briefly explained to indicate that there is some evidence to support the entries. The brief explanation may be either through a narrative or a reference to another information source such as an attached map, photographs, or an earlier EIR or negative declaration. A reference to another document should include, where appropriate, a citation to the page or pages where the information is found. 4) A discussion of the ways to mitigate the significant effects identified, if any; 5) An examination of whether the project would be consistent with existing zoning, plans, and other applicable land use controls; and, 6) The name of the person or persons who prepared or participated in the Initial Study. An Initial Study (IS) has been prepared by the City, as the lead agency, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines to evaluate potential environmental effects and to determine whether an Environmental Impact Report, a Negative Declaration, or a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) should be prepared for the proposed Project. The Initial Study has also been prepared to satisfy CEQA requirements of other agencies that may provide approvals, permits, and/or funding for the proposed Project. In accordance with CEQA G identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the Applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 3 February 2020 review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the lead Project determined that the Project could cause some potentially significant impacts on the environment, but as shown in the environmental analysis contained herein, those potentially significant impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels through the implementation of mitigation measures. Consequently, an MND has been be prepared for the proposed Project. makers must review and consider the MND in its discretion to approve, revise, or deny the Project, as appropriate. The MND will serve as the primary environmental document pursuant to CEQA for implementation of the Project, including all required discretionary approvals. This IS/MND is composed of four sections. Section 1 provides a general overview of the proposed Project, CEQA requirements related to the Project, the public review process, and a summary of the mitigation measures required. Section 2 provides a description of the environmental setting and the proposed Project components, anticipated construction schedule, and operational characteristics. Section 3 includes the CEQA Initial Study checklist, which provides an assessment of potential environmental impacts and identifies mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant. Section 4 provides a list of staff and consultants involved in preparing the IS/MND. The IS/MND also includes appendices that contain technical memoranda and/or data files related to air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (see Appendix A), biological resources (see Appendix B), cultural resources (see Appendix C), low impact development (Appendix D), noise (see Appendix E), traffic (see Appendix F), and an architectural design review and variance application (See Appendix G). 1.3 Public Review Process In accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, a public review period for this IS/MND commenced on Thursday, February 13th, 2020 and will conclude on Thursday, March 5th, 2020. The IS/MND has been distributed for review to interested and involved public agencies, responsible/trustee agencies, organizations, and private individuals that have requested in writing to be informed of the proposed Project. A hardcopy of the IS/MND is also available for public review during regular business hours at: City of Arcadia Planning Services Division 240 West Huntington Drive Arcadia, California 91007 and City of Arcadia Library (Circulation Desk) 20 W. Duarte Road Arcadia, California 91007 An electronic copy of the IS/MND can be viewed at: https://www.arcadiaca.gov/government/city-departments/ development-services/planning/current-significant-projects In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15073, the IS/MND will be available for public review for not less than 20 days. Because this proposed Project does not require review by any state agencies, a minimum 20-day public ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 4 February 2020 review period is appropriate. During the public review period, the public will have the opportunity to provide written proposed Project will also be based on the information contained in this document. In reviewing the IS/MND, interested members of the public should focus on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing potential Project impacts on the environment, as well as the sufficiency of any mitigation measures proposed to reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. Comments on the IS/MND should be submitted by the end of the public review period and must be postmarked by Thursday, March 5th, 2020. Please Luis Torrico, Senior Planner City of Arcadia Development Services Department 240 West Huntington Drive Arcadia, California 91007 ltorrico@arcadiaca.gov 1.4 Mitigation Measures Prior to mitigation, Project implementation would result in potentially significant impacts to Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Noise, and Tribal Cultural Resources. However, mitigation measures (MMs) have been developed to avoid or reduce these impacts to levels considered less than significant. These MMs would be included in the Contractor Specifications and bid documents, as appropriate, and verified as part of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. These MMs must be implemented to the satisfaction of the City and are listed below in Table 1, Mitigation Measures. Table 1. Mitigation Measures Potential Impact Mitigation Measure Biological Resources Project construction has the potential to disrupt nesting birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). MM BIO-1. Commencement of construction activities shall avoid the February 1 through August 31 bird nesting season to the greatest extent feasible. If construction activities begin within this nesting season, a survey for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within 7 days of the commencement of construction activities, but not prior to this 7-day window. The area surveyed shall include all clearing/construction areas, as well as areas within 100 feet of the boundaries of these areas, or as otherwise determined by the biologist. If no active bird nests are identified on, or within 100 feet of the limits of the proposed disturbance area, no further action is necessary and construction activities could commence. For any off-site areas that are inaccessible, the qualified biologists may survey the off-site area with binoculars to capture the full 100-foot survey area. If active nests are found during pre-construction surveys or at any time throughout the course of construction activities during the nesting bird season, all clearing/construction activities within a minimum of 100 feet of the nest shall be postponed until a wildlife biologist has identified the nesting species. If the bird species is not protected under the MBTA and/or the California Fish and Game Code, no further action is required and construction activities may proceed. If the avian species is protected under the MBTA and/or the California Fish and Game Code, a minimum buffer zone shall be established by the qualified biologist based on the type ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 5 February 2020 Table 1. Mitigation Measures Potential Impact Mitigation Measure of bird/raptor species identified and the construction buffer shall be established on site through the erection of cones/flagging/fencing to clearly delineate the protection zone. All construction activities shall avoid this protection zone until a qualified biologist has confirmed that the nest(s) is no longer active and the nest is vacated, and there is no evidence of second nesting attempts. Upon completion of any site survey for nesting birds conducted by a qualified biologist, documentation of the survey activity, findings, and any resulting actions taken shall be prepared and submitted to the City. Cultural Resources Archaeological resources could potentially be discovered/unearthed during Project construction. MM-CUL-1. In the event that archaeological resources are unearthed during ground- disturbing activities, the construction contractor shall immediately cease all earth- disturbing activities within 100 feet of the discovery and shall retain a qualified Standards. Construction activities may continue in other areas outside of the designated protection zone, which shall be delineated with cones, flagging, or fencing. The archaeologist shall evaluate the significance of the find and determine whether QA Guidelines. If the archaeological find is determined to be a resource, the archaeologist shall formulate a Mitigation Plan in consultation with the City of Arcadia that satisfies the requirements of the above-listed Code Sections. Upon approval of the Mitigation Plan by the City, the Project shall be implemented in compliance with the Plan. If the Archaeologist determines that the resource is not significant, s/he shall record the evaluation and submit the recordation form to the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC). The archaeologist shall prepare a report of the results of any study prepared as part of a testing or Mitigation Plan, following accepted professional practice. The report shall follow guidelines of the California Office of Historic Preservation although format will be dependent on the nature of the archaeological investigation required. Copies of the report shall be submitted to the City and to the CHRIS at the SCCIC. Geology and Soils Paleontological resources could potentially be discovered/unearthed during Project construction. MM-GEO-1. Prior to commencement of any grading activity on-site, the Applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist per the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) (2010) guidelines. The paleontologist shall prepare a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) for the project. The PRIMP shall be consistent with the SVP (2010) guidelines and should outline requirements for preconstruction meeting attendance and worker environmental awareness training, where monitoring is required within the project area based on construction plans and/or geotechnical reports, procedures for adequate paleontological monitoring and discoveries treatment, and paleontological methods (including sediment sampling for microvertebrate fossils), reporting, and collections management. The qualified paleontologist shall attend the preconstruction meeting and a paleontological monitor shall be on-site during all rough grading and other significant ground-disturbing activities in previously undisturbed, fine-grained older Quaternary alluvial fan deposits. These deposits may be encountered at depths as shallow as 5-10 feet below ground surface. In the event that paleontological resources (e.g., fossils) are unearthed during grading, the paleontological monitor will temporarily halt and/or ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 6 February 2020 Table 1. Mitigation Measures Potential Impact Mitigation Measure divert grading activity to allow recovery of paleontological resources. The area of discovery will be roped off with a 50-foot radius buffer. Once documentation and collection of the find is completed, the monitor will remove the rope and allow grading to recommence in the area of the find. Noise The Project would not exceed any construction- related noise standards in Municipal Code. However, to be conservatively protective of adjacent residences during construction activities, MM- NOI-1 includes best practices that would reduce construction noise levels at the adjacent residential property line. MM-NOI-1. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project Applicant shall provide a Construction Noise Control Plan (CNCP) to the City for review and approval. The CNCP shall include best management practices to reduce short-term construction noise. Enforcement of the CNCP shall be accomplished by field inspections during construction activities and/or documentation of compliance, to the Development Services Department. Recommended best management practices may include, but not be limited to, the following: All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers consistent with the manufacturer specifications and standards. Construction noise reduction methods such as shutting off idling equipment, maximizing the distance between construction equipment staging areas and adjacent residences, and use of electric air compressors and similar power tools, rather than diesel equipment, should be used where feasible. Stationary equipment should be placed as far away from the adjacent residential property boundary as feasible and positioned such that emitted noise is directed away from or shielded from sensitive receptors. Acoustically attenuating shields, shrouds, or enclosures may be placed over stationary equipment. 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. Construction hours, allowable workdays, and the phone number of the job superintendent should be clearly posted at all construction entrances to allow surrounding property owners to contact the job superintendent, if necessary. In the event the City receives a complaint, appropriate corrective actions should be implemented and a r Development Services Department. Operation of the HVAC system and/or emergency generator has the potential to generate noise in excess of City standards, which could adversely affect sensitive noise receptors. MM-NOI-2 The Project Applicant shall retain an acoustical specialist to review the level plans to ensure that the equipment specifications and plans for HVAC and emergency backup generator incorporate features to ensure that operational noise will not exceed relevant noise standards at nearby noise-sensitive land uses (e.g., residential). Such features could include, but not be limited to, the specification of quieter equipment, relocation of facilities to be of further distance from residential homes, and/or the provision of acoustical enclosures. The acoustical specialist shall certify in writing to the City that the equipment specifications and Tribal Cultural Resources Tribal Cultural Resources could potentially be discovered/unearthed during Project construction. MM-TCR-1. Should a possible TCR be encountered, construction activities within 50 feet of the discovery shall be temporarily halted and the City notified. The City will notify Native American tribes that have been identified by the NAHC to be traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the Project. If the potential resource is archaeological in nature, appropriate management requirements shall be ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 7 February 2020 Table 1. Mitigation Measures Potential Impact Mitigation Measure implemented as outlined in MM-CUL-1. If the City determines that the potential resource is a TCR (as defined by PRC, Section 21074), tribes consulting under AB 52 would be provided a reasonable period of time, typically 5 days from the date of a new discovery is made, to conduct a site visit and make recommendations regarding future ground disturbance activities as well as the treatment of any discovered TCRs. A qualified archaeologist shall implement a plan for the treatment and disposition of any discovered TCRs based on the nature of the resource and considering the recommendations of the tribe(s). Implementation of proposed recommendations will be made based on the determination of the City that the approach is reasonable and feasible. ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 8 February 2020 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 9 February 2020 Environmental Checklist Form 1. Project Title: Arcadia Hotel and Annex (Hotel Indigo) Project 2. Lead agency name and address: City of Arcadia Development Services Department 240 West Huntington Drive Arcadia, California 91007 3. Contact person and phone number: Luis Torrico, Senior Planner (626) 574-5442 4. Project location: 125 West Huntington Drive and 175 Colorado Place, Arcadia 5. address: Pacific Design Group C/O Donnie Jurgensen 150 El Camino Real, Suite 112 Tustin, CA 92780 6. General plan designation: (C) Commercial 7. Zoning: (C-G) General Commercial Zone with a Downtown Overlay 8. Description of project: The proposed Project includes the construction of the Hotel Indigo to be located in the existing Worley Parsons Building (Building C), which would be remodeled to allow for 76,754 sf of hotel and appurtenant uses. Building C would be remodeled, as follows: the first floor would be renovated to include a lobby/ lounge, restaurant, kitchen, fitness room, management offices, meeting rooms, and banquet hall space; the second and third floors would be remodeled to accommodate 90 hotel rooms. Also, a new, 61,538-square-foot, five-story building (Building D) would be constructed on the site and would include a hotel spa, café, outdoor patios and an additional 75 hotel rooms, for a Project-wide total of 165 hotel rooms. See Section 2, Project Setting and Description, for details. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: The proposed Project site is surrounded by single-family residential land uses to the north, commercial land uses to the east, recreational, and hotel to the south, and commercial land uses and the Santa Anita Race Track to the west. 10. Other pu blic agencies whose approval is required: There are no public agencies, other than the City of Arcadia, whose approval is required for the proposed Project 11. Have California Native American t ribes tradit ionally and c u ltu rally affilia ted with the pro ject a rea re quested consu ltation pursuant to Public Resou rces Co de s ec tion 210 8 0.3.1 ? See Section 3.18, Tribal Cultural Resources. ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO)PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 11 February 2020 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 1. answers that are adequately supported answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply t answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significan determination is made, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required. 4. st describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they in (5) below, may be cross-referenced). 5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c. from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a pro effects in whatever format is selected. 9. The explanation of each issue should identify: a. The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b. The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. 11663.01 12 February 2020 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 11663.01 13 February 2020 2 Project Setting and Description 2.1 Project Location As shown in Figure 1, Project Location, the proposed Project site is located in downtown Arcadia in northeast Los Angeles County. The proposed Project site is located at two addresses: 125 West Huntington Drive and 175 Colorado Place. The Project site is located on one legal parcel with APN: 5775-015-024. The Project site is bound by Colorado Place to the south, San Juan Drive to the west, San Rafael Road to the east, and residential homes on Santa Cruz Road to the north. Regional access to the Project site is via Interstate (I) 210, exiting Santa Anita Avenue to Colorado Place. 2.2 Existing Conditions and Setting 2.2.1 On-Site Land Uses the zoning for the Project site is General Commercial (C-G) with a Downtown Overlay. Figure 2, Zoning, provides an overview of the land designation and zoning of the Project site and surrounding areas. The C-G Zone is intended to provide areas for the development of retail and service uses, offices, restaurants, public uses, and similar and compatible uses and it implements the General Plan Commercial designation (City of Arcadia 2016a). The maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) permitted under the C-G Zone and under the Downtown Overlay Zone is 1.0 for new development and the maximum height permitted for new buildings is 48 feet. The proposed Project would have a FAR of 0.85 and thus would be compatible with the C- proposed Project would include a five-story building (Building D), which would be 63 feet 10 inches in height above average grade. Given the 48-foot height restriction, the Project would be subject to a height variance, which will be processed concurrently with Project approvals. Additionally, Project approval would be subject to a CUP, which is required in order to develop hotel land uses in the C-G Zone, and Site Plan and Design Review. As shown on Figure 1, the Project site includes Building A, Building B, Building C, a three-story parking structure and two surface parking lots; one small surface parking lot on the northwestern corner of the Project site and one o Place. Buildings A and B, the northwestern surface parking lot and the three-level parking structure would remain as-is under the proposed Project. Building C (the former Worley Parsons Building) is vacant under existing conditions and would be redevelop northeastern corner would be partially demolished to accommodate the construction of Building D, the hotel annex building. Existing landscaping on the Project site includes 38 intermittent ornamental trees, four of which are protected City trees within the public sidewalk between the Project site and San Rafael Road. Additionally, planter beds containing shrubbery, trees, and groundcover surround the Project site and are dispersed throughout the existing surface parking lots. Access to the Project site is provided via three driveways, as follows: Ingress/egress off San Rafael Road to the east, which provides access to the northeastern surface parking lot. A primary two-lane driveway located in the center of the Project site off Colorado Place, which provides access to both the three-level parking structure and the northeastern surface parking lot. Ingress/egress west of the Project site off San Juan Drive, which provides access to the small northwestern surface parking lot and to the three-level parking structure. ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 14 February 2020 2.2.2 Transit Priority Area Senate Bill (SB) 743 [Public Resources Code (PRC) §21099(d)] sets forth new guidelines for evaluating project -use residential, or employment center project on an infill site within a transit priority area (TPA) shall not be considered significant impacts on the en - planning horizon included in a Transportation Improvement Program adopted pursuant to Section 450.216 or site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the project located on property zoned for commercial uses with a floor area ratio of no less than 0.75 and that is located has been previously developed, or on a vacant site where at least 75% of the perimeter of the site adjoins, or is separated only by an improved public right-of-way from, parcels that are developed with qualified urban uses. This state law supersedes the aesthetic impact thresholds in the 2019 CEQA Guidelines, including those established for aesthetics, obstruction of views, shading, and nighttime illumination. All development on the Project site is within a TPA due to its proximity to the Metro Gold Line Stop (0.5-mile northeast), as well as the intersection of the Metro and Foothill Transit bus routes, which have a frequency service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods (0.25-mile east). The proposed Project refers specifically to the hotel development (i.e., the remodel of the existing Building C and the construction of Building D) and associated surface parking/pedestrian improvements, which are within 0.5-mile of a major transit stop and thus, within the boundaries of the TPA (SCAG 2019). As explained in Section 2.2.1, On-Site Land Uses, the Project site is zoned General Commercial (C-G) with a Downtown Overlay and, as such, meets the rking impacts would not be considered significant impacts pursuant to PRC Section 21099(d). 2.2.3 Surrounding Land Uses As shown on Figure 3, Surrounding Land Uses, the proposed Project site is surrounded by low density residential to the north; commercial land uses to the east, recreational, commercial, and hotel uses to the south, and horse racing land uses to the south and west. Nearby land uses to the south of the Project site include surface parking associated with the Santa Anita Race Track, a new Le Méridien Hotel at the former Santa Anita Inn site (currently under construction) with a new mixed-use project, and the Arcadia Community Regional Park. Further south is the Civic Center Athletic Field Recreation Area, City of Arcadia City Hall, the Police Department and the Santa Anita Golf Course. The Methodist Hospital, which is a not-for-profit regional institution, is located 0.3-mile south of the Project site. Nearby land uses to the west include the Peppers Mexican Grill and Cantina located on the corner of San Juan Drive and Colorado Place, and Santa Anita Race Track surface parking. Nearby land uses to the north consist entirely of single-family residential uses. Nearby land uses to the east, along Huntington Drive, include Citizens Business Bank and strip mall commercial with surface parking, Rusnak/Arcadia Mercedes-Benz Dealership, and ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 15 February 2020 There are three schools within the general vicinity of the Project site: Barnhart School, located approximately 0.15- mile north of the Project site; Excelsior School, located approximately 0.16-mile east of the Project site; and First Avenue Middle School, located approximately 0.37-mile southeast of the Project site. The closest parks to the Project site are the Arcadia Community Regional Park, located directly southeast of the Project site, and Newcastle Park, located 0.34-mile north of the Project site. The Los Angeles Arboretum and Botanical Gardens are located approximately 0.8-mile west of the Project site, on the other side of the Santa Anita Racetrack. Regional access to the Project site is provided via the I-210, which travels in an east-west direction and lies approximately 0.5-mile north of the Project site. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) classifies the I-210 as an Eligible State Scenic Highway (not officially designated) where it traverses the City (Caltrans 2011). Local access to the Project site is provided via Huntington Drive and Colorado Place, which intersect at the Project site. Colorado Place in the vicinity of the Project site is Historic Route 66. There are no existing bicycle lanes on Huntington Drive or Colorado Place near the Project site; however, public sidewalks abutting the Project site on Colorado Place, San Rafael Road and San Juan Drive provide pedestrian access to the Project site and surrounding land uses. Metro bus line no. 79 and Foothill Transit Line no. 187 have bus stops located along Huntington Boulevard in the vicinity of the Project site. 2.3 Project Description 2.3.1 Hotel Indigo As previously described, the approximately 4.59-acre Project site is currently located at 125 West Huntington Drive and 175 Colorado Place. As part of the Project, the hotel will receive a new address (123 W. Huntington Drive), which will replace the 175 Colorado Place address. The Project site includes two recently constructed medical office buildings and parking garage, one general office building, and surface parking. As shown on Figure 4a, Site Plan, Building A, Building B, the northwestern surface parking lot, and the existing parking structure would be left as is and protected in place during construction of the proposed Project. The proposed Project would only redevelop the eastern portion of the site with the proposed Hotel Indigo (Buildings C and D), as well as surface parking and sidewalk/pedestrian improvements. Figure 4b, Enlarged Site Plan, identifies the portion of the Project site that would remain and the portion of the Project site that would be redeveloped. Figure 4c, Building Perspectives, provides various depictions of the proposed structures and architectural details. Building C is the existing Worley Parsons office building, which would be remodeled to allow for 76,754 sf of hotel and appurtenant uses. Building C would be remodeled, as follows: the first floor would be renovated to include a lobby/ lounge, restaurant, kitchen, fitness room, management offices, meeting rooms, and banquet hall space; the second and third floors would be remodeled to accommodate 90 hotel rooms. Details of the proposed interior changes to Building C are described in Table 2, Hotel Building Components, below. The façade of Building C would be comprised primarily of aluminum and glass with stucco in neutral colors (e.g., grey, tan, olive green). As shown on Figure 5a, Building C Elevations, Building C would include a centrally located exterior, architectural projection, and would be approximately above average grade at its tallest point. Building D is a new, 61,538 sf, five-story building on the southeastern portion of the Project site. Building D would serve as the hotel annex building and includes the hotel spa, café, outdoor patios and an additional 75 hotel rooms. Details of the proposed interior of Building D are described in Table 2, under Project Details below. The façade of Building D would be comprised of white stucco with neutral-colored (e.g., grey, tan, olive green) accents. Building D would include aluminum and glass design features with large windows fronting each side of the building. As shown on Figure 5b, Building D Elevations, Building D would include architectural projections of various heights, and would be in height above average grade at its tallest point. ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 16 February 2020 Given that Building A and Building B would not be altered, for the purpose of this documen specifically to the hotel development (i.e., the remodel of the existing Building C and the construction of Building D) and associated surface parking/pedestrian improvements. The proposed Project includes outdoor garden amenities, including a swimming pool, bike lockers, and approximately 12,212 sf of landscaping, encompassing 13.5% 2 shows the proposed floor-by-floor uses for Building C and Building D. Table 2. Hotel Building Components Building/Floor Project Details Total Size (Square feet) Building C 76,754 Basement Maintenance area, electrical room, laundry room and employee break room 2,726 1st Floor Lobby, lounge, banquet and meeting rooms, gym, restaurant, dining room and 11 guest rooms 24,664 2nd Floor 39 guest rooms and waiting area 24,870 3rd Floor 40 guest rooms, waiting area, executive lounge and balcony 24,494 Building D 61,538 1st Floor Hotel spa, banquet rooms. Kitchen, and lobby 14,414 2nd Floor Patio, café, waiting area and 20 guest rooms 13,124 3rd Floor 20 guest rooms and waiting area 12,836 4th Floor 20 guest rooms and waiting area 12,849 5th Floor 15 guest rooms and waiting area 8,315 Source: Project Site Plans 2.3.2 Parking and Pedestrian Improvements Development Code section 9103.07.060, the proposed Project would be required to provide 471 parking spaces. On-site parking provided by the Project would include 482 stalls; four loading parking zones, 95 surface parking spaces and 387 spaces within the three-level parking garage. The Project would also include 30 bike racks and 24 bike lockers, 38 fuel-efficient vehicle parking spaces and 15 electric vehicle parking spaces. Details of the proposed parking are shown, in part, in Figure 4b and are as follows: The existing parking structure, which comprises 387 parking spaces, including 52 fuel efficient spaces and 23 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) spaces would be left as is. The 95 surface parking spaces would be dispersed throughout the Project site as follows: o 24 parking spaces would remain on the northwestern corner of the Project site o 71 parking spaces, including 15 electric vehicle parking spaces, four loading spaces and eight (six regular and two van accessible) ADA compliant parking spaces would be dispersed throughout the remaining portion of the northeastern surface lot. The proposed bike racks would be located adjacent to the circular arrival/drop off zone and in the northeastern parking lot, adjacent to San Rafael Road. The proposed bike lockers would be placed immediately north of Building C, adjacent to the new circular arrival/drop-off zone. ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 17 February 2020 2.3.3 Landscape Improvements As shown in Figure 6, Preliminary Landscape Plan, the proposed Project would include approximately 12,212 sf of landscaping improvements, including 690 sf of planting on the second floor deck and 175 sf of planting on the sixth floor deck. Seven existing trees (four within the public sidewalk fronting San Rafael Road and three abutting (see Appendix B). The remaining Development Code, Section 9702.01, no protected tree shall be removed or have its protected zone encroached upon without the approval of a Tree Permit. Landscaping proposed under the Project would include groundcover, shrubbery, trees and turf/lawn areas, as well as colored concrete paving with sandblast finish in neutral colors (e.g., mesa bluff, beige and grey). The proposed swimming pool would be located between Building C and Building D and would be landscaped with five 24-inch diameter Marina Strawberry Trees and paved with colored concrete with sandblasted finish in mesa bluff. The northeastern surface parking lot would be landscaped with 36-inch diameter London Plane trees. Additionally, seven vegetated bioswales would be constructed around the Project site in order to reduce pollution in any potential surface water runoff. The southern perimeter of the Project site, fronting Huntington Drive, would be landscaped with 36-inch diameter London Plane Trees, 36-inch diameter Naked Coral Trees, and 24-inch diameter Marina Strawberry Trees. 2.3.4 Off-Site Improvements The proposed Project would not include any off-site improvements. 2.3.5 Short-Term Construction Activities As shown on Figure 4b, demolition would include the removal of the existing vegetation, including removal of 34 trees on site (the four City street trees in the sidewalk between the Project site and San Rafael Road would be protected in place). Additionally, demolition would include the removal of the surface parking, two light poles, and two enclosed trash enclosures dispersed throughout the northeastern parking lot to accommodate the new Building D and associated parking and landscaping. Project demolition activities would begin in approximately the first quarter of 2020, and construction activities would last approximately 20 months. Construction activities would occur in one phase, with the occupancy of Building C expected in the first quarter of 2021 and the occupancy of Building D occurring in the fourth quarter of 2021. Construction activities could take place Monday to Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and Saturday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 18 February 2020 2.4 Discretionary Actions This IS/MND is intended to serve as the primary environmental document pursuant to CEQA for actions associated with the Hotel Indigo, including discretionary approvals required to implement the Project. In addition, this IS/MND is the primary reference document for the formulation and implementation of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project, in accordance with Section 15097 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The City of Arcadia may approve the IS/MND if it finds, on the basis of the whole Project record, that there is no substantial evidence that the Project would have a significant effect on the environment. review and approval include, but are not limited to: 1. Adoption of the IS/MND 2. Approval of a Height Variance within the Downtown Overlay Zone. 3. Approval of a CUP for the construction of a hotel in a Commercial Zone. 4. Approval of a Protected Tree Permit (If any protected trees are proposed for removal or have their protection zone encroached into). 5. Site Plan and Design Review 6. Architectural Design Review 11663.01 19 February 2020 3 Environmental Impact Analysis 3.1 Aesthetics Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less Than Significant Impact. Scenic vistas generally refer to views of expansive open space areas or other natural features, such as mountains, undeveloped hillsides, large natural water bodies, or coastlines. Less commonly, certain urban settings or features, such as a striking or renowned skyline, may also represent a scenic vista. Scenic vistas generally refer to views that are accessible from public vantage points, such as d scenic vistas in the City. However, views of the San Gabriel Mountains to the north are readily available and provide an aesthetic backdrop for the City (City of Arcadia 2010a). Views of the San Gabriel Mountains are generally south roadway corridors, which are often obscured by distance, street trees, freeway/light rail overpasses, and other urban features, such as utility lines, buildings, and signage. Potential effects of the proposed Project on public views of the San Gabriel Mountains are characterized below. Colorado Place: Colorado Place is a generally east-west running arterial that borders the southern perimeter of the Project site. Views of the San Gabriel Mountains to the north from Colorado Place adjacent to the Project site are limited and generally obstructed by existing building massing and streetscaping, including trees and utility poles. Building C would require interior renovations only and would not alter the existing public views of the mountains. The proposed Project includes the construction of a new, 61,538 sf hotel annex building (Building D). With approval of a height variance, Building D would be in height above average grade, which would be approximately one story ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO)PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 20 February 2020 taller than surrounding multistory buildings, including Building C, which is approximately 44 in height above average grade at its tallest point. Given this, existing views of the San Gabriel Mountains to the north would be further obstructed by the proposed Building D. San Juan Drive: San Juan Drive is a small, local connector street that runs in a southwest-northeast direction and connects Colorado Place to Santa Cruz Road. Existing views of the San Gabriel Mountains from the San Juan Drive right-of-way (ROW) are partially obscured by single-story residential development and streetscaping, including trees and utility poles. The proposed Project would not include any construction in the San Juan Drive ROW and upon operation, would not result in any changes to the existing views of the San Gabriel Mountains from San Juan Drive. San Rafael Road: San Rafael Road is a small, local connector street that runs in a north-south direction and connects Huntington Drive to San Antonio Road and San Luis Rey Road. Existing views of the San Gabriel Mountains from the San Rafael Road ROW are predominantly clear with only partial obstructions from existing single-story residential development and streetscaping, including trees and utility poles to the north. The proposed Project would not include any construction in the San Rafael Road ROW and upon operation, would not result in any changes to the existing views of the San Gabriel Mountains. Arcadia Community Regional Park: The Arcadia Community Regional Park is a large public park that is maintained by the Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation. The park is located southeast of the proposed Project site, across Huntington Drive. Existing views of the San Gabriel Mountains from the Arcadia Community Regional Park are predominantly clear with only partial obstructions from the existing two- and three-story buildings on the Project site. In general, the visual quality of views of the San Gabriel Mountains from the Arcadia Community Regional Park is moderate due to the presence of interceding streetscaping, including trees and utility poles to the north. The proposed Project includes the construction of a new, 61,538 sf hotel annex building (Building D). With approval of a height variance, Building D would be in height above average grade, which would be approximately one story taller than surrounding multistory buildings, including Building C, which is approximately in height above average grade at its tallest point. Given this, existing views of the San Gabriel Mountains to the north would be further obstructed by the proposed Project. In summary, views of the San Gabriel Mountains are available from one or more public viewpoints, including roadways and the Arcadia Community Regional Park, surrounding the Project site. However, these existing views are limited due to obstructions typical of urban development, such as utility poles, street trees, and commercial and residential development. The proposed Project would introduce new development to the Project site, which would reach a height of above average grade. The new Building D would have the potential to further obstruct existing views of the San Gabriel Mountains beyond the existing conditions from motorists and pedestrians along Colorado Place. However, motorists and pedestrians are transient, and their views of the mountains are fleeting and would only briefly be affected by Building D as they pass the site. Colorado Place is not a north-south corridor in the vicinity of the Project site; therefore, longer-term views of the mountains for pedestrians and motorists would not be affected. Additionally, views of the mountains from recreational visitors to the Arcadia Community Regional Park would not be affected by the proposed Project because existing views are already limited by existing development. Partial obstructions of these views of the San Gabriel Mountains are prevalent throughout the City and the region and are part of the existing condition of the visual environment. As such, the introduction of a new structure on the Project site would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista of the San Gabriel Mountains. Additionally, as stated in Section 2.2.2, the proposed Project is within a TPA and, as such, ing impacts would not ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 21 February 2020 be considered significant impacts pursuant to PRC Section 21099(d). The proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on scenic vistas. No mitigation is required. b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact. The proposed Project is not within the immediate vicinity of a state designated scenic highway). The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) classifies the I-210 as an Eligible State Scenic Highway (not officially designated) where it traverses the City (Caltrans 2011). However, the Project site is located 0.5-mile south of the I-210 and would not be visible from the highway. Additionally, as stated in Section 2.2.2, the proposed Project is within a TPA and, as such, aesthetic and parking impacts would not be considered significant impacts pursuant to PRC Section 21099(d). As such, the proposed Project would have no impact on any scenic resources within a state scenic highway. No mitigation is required. c) In non-urbanized areas, would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? Less Than Significant Impact. The City has undertaken an update to the Design Guidelines for various development types, which was made available for public review and comment in June 2019. The Draft Commercial/Mixed Use Design Guidelines provide direction to project applicants about site planning and building placement; public and private open spaces; pedestrian and vehicular access; and massing and scale. Other topics addressed include guidelines related to architectural style, awnings, rooflines, articulation, windows/doors, colors/materials, landscaping, equipment and service areas, site furnishing, lighting, and public art. The guidelines are intended as a reference point for a common understanding of the minimum qualitative design expectations within the City. The General Plan policies specific to the aesthetic character and quality of development within the City, as well as the applicable City Municipal Code requirements that affect aesthetic character are listed and analyzed in Table 3, General Plan, Development Code, and Municipal Code Consistency Analysis. Table 3. General Plan, Development Code, and Municipal Code Consistency Analysis Applicable Policy/Regulation Consistency Analysis General Plan Policy LU-1.1: Promote new infill and redevelopment projects that are compatible with surrounding existing uses. Consistent. The proposed Project would be an infill development project. The proposed Project would be consistent with the designated C-G zone with City approval of a CUP (to allow for hotel uses is a commercial zone) and approval of a height variance (to allow for the construction of the hotel annex building, which would exceed the 40-foot height requirement for the C-G zone). The proposed Project would be under the allowable FAR (of 1.0) for the Downtown Overlay C-G zone and would adhere to the minimum setbacks required under Section 9102.03.030. As such, the compatible with surrounding existing uses. ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 22 February 2020 Table 3. General Plan, Development Code, and Municipal Code Consistency Analysis Applicable Policy/Regulation Consistency Analysis Policy LU-1.2: Promote new uses of land that provide diverse economic, social, and cultural opportunities, and that reinforce the characteristics that make Arcadia a desirable place to live. Consistent. The proposed Project is a hotel development project, which, upon completion would provide hospitality amenities to the general public, including hotel, restaurant, and venue amenities. The proposed Project would contribute to the economic diversity of the City by providing a commercial amenity that can support visitors to the downtown areas of Arcadia, as well as surrounding communities. The Project would be Commercial/Mixed Use Design Guidelines to ensure the structures c aesthetics and community character. Policy LU-1.4. Encourage the gradual redevelopment of incompatible, ineffective, and/or undesirable land uses. Consistent. The proposed Project would redevelop an existing structure that has been underutilized and/or vacant for years, thereby eliminating an ineffective land use in the downtown area. Policy LU-2.1: Ensure that trees planned in the public right-of-way continue to be well maintained where they exist, are planted in areas where they are currently lacking, and encourage replacement of undesirable tree species in public right-of-ways. Consistent. The proposed Project would include approximately 12,212 sf of new landscaping, which would include trees throughout the Project site. The Project would adhere to the requirements of Chapter 7, Tree sycamores, and mature trees as significant aesthetic and ecological resources that benefit current and future residents of the City. The proposed Project would require the removal of 34 ornamental trees, but would protect the four City trees located in the sidewalk between the Project site and San Rafael Road in place during construction. The proposed Landscape Plan, illustrated in Figure 6, would be subject to City review and approval. Policy LU-2.2. Emphasize the use of public spaces and design that are oriented toward the pedestrian and use of transit throughout the community. Consistent. Huntington Drive is identified in the General Plan as a major corridor with large mature trees, and a secondary gateway opportunity is identified near the Project site. The proposed Project has frontage on Huntington Drive, which encourage pedestrian connectivity to the Gold Line Station, which is within 0.5-mile of the Project site. Policy LU-2.6: Ensure the aesthetic quality and pedestrian orientation of the implementing the recommendations of this Community Design section, as well as the Architectural Design Guidelines for commercial and industrial properties. Consistent. The proposed Project would be required to comply with the Commercial/Mixed Use Design Guidelines. Project plans would be Policy LU-6.1: Encourage all new commercial development, through the use of entitlement incentives and/or requirements, to provide public gathering spaces and pedestrian facilities and connections. Consistent. The proposed Project is a hotel development project, which, upon completion would provide hospitality amenities to the general public, including hotel, restaurant, and venue amenities. The proposed Project has frontage on Huntington Drive, which encourage pedestrian connectivity to the Gold Line Station, which is within 0.5-mile of the Project site. Additionally, the proposed Project includes a Landscaping Plan (see Figure 6) that includes paved, well lit, and landscaped on-site pedestrian amenities that front onto Huntington Drive. Policy LU-6.4: Encourage design approaches that create a cohesive, vibrant look and that minimize the appearance of expansive parking lots on major commercial corridors for new or redeveloped uses. Consistent. The proposed Project would redevelop the existing expansive surface parking lot with a new hotel annex building, landscaping, and upgraded parking (including parking for fuel-efficient vehicles). The proposed parking would remain to the rear of the property and would not front the primary pedestrian corridor of Huntington Drive. As such, views of the proposed parking would be minimized. ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 23 February 2020 Table 3. General Plan, Development Code, and Municipal Code Consistency Analysis Applicable Policy/Regulation Consistency Analysis Policy LU-6.6: Develop landscaping that efficient landscape ordinance and façade standards for commercial properties, and require all new development to adhere to them. Encourage the improvement of rundown buildings by offering entitlement incentives. Consistent. The proposed Project would include approximately 12,212 sf of new landscaping, which would include trees throughout the Project site. The Project would adhere to the requirements of Chapter 7, Tree , which recognizes oaks, sycamores, and mature trees as significant aesthetic and ecological resources that benefit current and future residents of the City. The proposed Project would require the removal of 34 ornamental trees, but would protect the four City trees located in the sidewalk between the Project site and San Rafael Road in place during construction. Additionally, the proposed Landscape Plan, illustrated in Figure 6, would be subject to City review and approval. The proposed Project would re- design the interior of an existing underutilized building, thereby resulting in improvements to the current condition. Policy LU-6.11: Provide mature street trees, continuous landscaping (that includes drought-tolerant plants), and pedestrian amenities along corridors and within districts to create a more visually pleasing and cohesive streetscape. Consistent. The proposed Project does not require the removal of any street trees. New trees and landscaping would be planted in accordance Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance. Policy LU-6.12: Create pedestrian connections along corridors and districts that link surrounding neighborhoods and provide a more pedestrian-friendly atmosphere. Consistent. The proposed Project would redevelop the existing expansive surface parking lot with a new hotel annex building, landscaping, and upgraded parking. The proposed parking would remain to the rear of the property and would not front the primary pedestrian corridor of Huntington Drive. The proposed Project has frontage on Huntington Drive, which encourage pedestrian connectivity to the Gold Line Station, which is within 0.5-mile of the Project site. Municipal Code Section 9701, Tree Preservation Consistent. The Project would adhere to the requirements of Chapter 7, sycamores, and mature trees as significant aesthetic and ecological resources that benefit current and future residents of the City. The proposed Project would require the removal of 34 ornamental trees, but would protect the four City trees located in the sidewalk between the Project site and San Rafael Road in place during construction. Additionally, the proposed Landscape Plan, illustrated in Figure 6, would be subject to City review and approval. Development Code Section 9102.03.020, Land Use Regulations and Allowable Uses Consistent. The proposed Project would be consistent with the designated C-G zone with City approval of a CUP (to allow for hotel uses is a commercial zone) and approval of a height variance (to allow for the construction of the hotel annex building, which would exceed the 40-foot height requirement for the C-G zone). The proposed Project would be under the allowable FAR (of 1.0) for the Downtown Overlay C-G zone and would adhere to the minimum setbacks required under Section 9102.03.030. ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 24 February 2020 Table 3. General Plan, Development Code, and Municipal Code Consistency Analysis Applicable Policy/Regulation Consistency Analysis Section 9103.01.120, Exterior Lighting Consistent. The proposed Project would be required to comply with the exterior lighting standards to balance safety and security needs for lighting that also avoids light trespass (spill light), light pollution, and glare onto surrounding properties. Section 9103.11.070, Permanent Signs by Zone Locations and Allowed Sign Area. Consistent. The proposed Project would be required to comply with -G zone. The Project would Commercial/Mixed Use Design Guidelines to ensure the structures complim design aesthetics and community character. Section 9103.09.040 (C), Landscape Requirements for Commercial, Mixed Use, and Industrial Zones Consistent. The proposed Project would include approximately 12,212 sf of new landscaping, which would include shrubs, groundcover, trees, and turf throughout setbacks, parkways, open areas, plazas, paseos, and non-work areas that are visible from a public street/alley or from a parking lot available to the general public. The proposed Landscape Plan, illustrated in Figure 6, would be subject to City review and approval. Section 9107.19, Site Plan and Design Review Consistent. Commercial/Mixed Use Design Guidelines to ensure the structures . As described above in Table 3, the proposed Project would be consistent with th policies, Development Code, and Municipal Code Sections that pertain to the preservation of the aesthetic character of the City. With approval of a CUP and a Height Variance, the proposed Project would be in visual agreement with the designations. Furthermore, proposed Project design would add architectural and landscape features that would improve the visual quality of the Project site and the Project area as a whole compared to existing conditions. Additionally, as stated in Section 2.2.2, the proposed Project is within a TPA and, as such, the pursuant to PRC Section 21099(d). For these reasons, the proposed Project would not conflict with applicable zoning and/or other regulations governing scenic quality, and impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less Than Significant Impact. Lighting is of most concern when it may spill over or trespass from a Project site onto sensitive surrounding land uses, such as residential properties, resulting in a potential nuisance. The proposed Project is located within the Downtown Overlay Zone and is surrounded by low density residential to the north; commercial land uses to the east, recreational, commercial, and hotel land uses to the south, and horse racing land uses to the south and west. Existing sources of daytime and nighttime light include streetlights, business identification signs and lit windows. Any lighting that would be implemented as part of th Development Code, Section 9103.01.120, which establishes the standards for exterior lighting in the City.1 In summary, the standards 1 City of Arcadia Development Code. Article IX: Division and Use of Land, Chapter 1, Section 9103.01.120 - Exterior Lighting. ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 25 February 2020 require: lighting be shielded or recessed so that glare is contained within the property boundaries; lighting be directed downward away from adjoining properties; lighting cannot illuminate more than 1.0 foot-candle on any property within a residential zone; lighting must be appropriate in scale, intensity, and height; lighting cannot be blinking/flashing or have high-intensity brightness; and fixtures must be full-cutoff fixtures to avoid glare and up-light. Similarly, extraneous glare associated with the use of highly reflective building materials (glass, steel etc.) could result in nuisance to surrounding land uses. The proposed Project would include some reflective building materials such as glass and steel; however, these materials would be utilized in a manner consistent with Development Code, Section 9103.10.070, which requires that any proposed land use or activity producing glare be shielded so that glare is not perceptible beyond the property line.2 Additionally, as stated in Section 2.2.2, the proposed Project is within a TPA and, as such, on aesthetic and parking impacts would not be considered significant impacts pursuant to PRC Section 21099(d). As such, and with compliance with City regulations, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact regarding the creation of a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. No mitigation is required. 3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding 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? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? 2 City of Arcadia Development Code. Article IX: Division and Use of Land, Chapter 1, Section 9103.13.070 - Light and Glare. ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO)PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 26 February 2020 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. spaces (DOC 2018). The Agricultural Land Mitigation Program, California Farmland Conservancy Program, Williamson Act Contracts, and Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program are all farmland conservations programs currently in effect and administered by the DLRP (DOC DLRP 2018). The City of Arcadia does not contain any Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. As such, there are no designated farmlands in or near the Project site (DOC DLRP 2016). Also, there are no existing or ongoing agricultural activities on or near the Project site. The City is fully developed with urban land uses and there are no existing forestlands, or timberland production zones within the City (City of Arcadia 2010a). As such, the Project would not result in the conversion of any farmland to non-agricultural use. b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The Project site is located in an urban area on a site that is fully developed with buildings and asphalt paving. The Project site is designated Commercial (C) and zoned General Commercial (C-G) with a Downtown Overlay. The C-G Zone is intended to provide areas for the development of retail and service uses, offices, restaurants, public uses, and similar and compatible uses (City of Arcadia 2016a). There are no agricultural land use zones or lands under Williamson Act contracts on or near the Project site under existing conditions (DOC DLRP 2017). Given this, the proposed Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or with a Williamson Act contract. c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? No Impact. As discussed in Section 3.2(b) above, the C-G Zone applicable to the Project site provides for the development of retail and service uses, offices, restaurants, public uses, and similar and compatible uses (City of Arcadia 2016a). The Project site is located approximately 2.6 miles south of the Angeles National Forest and, as such, would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 27 February 2020 d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. As stated above in Section 3.2(b), the Project site is an urban developed land and there is no forest land in the immediate vicinity of the Project site. The Project site is located approximately 2.6 miles south of the Angeles National Forest and, as such, would not result in the loss of forest land or the conversion of forest land to non-forest use. e) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. As stated above in Section 3.2(c) and (d), the Project site is located in an urban area, and is surrounded by developed land uses and there is no farmland or forest land on or near the Project site. The proposed Project would include the conversion of an existing building into a hotel and the construction of a hotel annex building, neither of which entail land uses that 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. 3.3 Air Quality Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project site is located in the City of Arcadia within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which includes the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties, and all of Orange County, and is within the jurisdictional boundaries of the South Management Plan (AQMP), which is a comprehensive document outlining an air pollution control program for attaining the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) and National Ambient Air Quality ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 28 February 2020 Standards (NAAQS). The most recently adopted AQMP for the SCAB is the 2016 AQMP (SCAQMD 2017). The 2016 AQMP focuses on available, proven, and cost-effective alternatives to traditional air quality strategies while seeking to achieve multiple goals in partnership with other entities seeking to promote reductions in greenhouse gases (GHGs) and toxic risk, as well as efficiencies in energy use, transportation, and goods movement (SCAQMD 2017). The purpose of a consistency finding with regard to the AQMP is to determine if a project is consistent with ability to comply with federal and state air quality standards. The SCAQMD has established criteria for determining consistency with the currently applicable AQMP in Chapter 12, Sections 12.2 and 12.3 of the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook. These criteria are as follows (SCAQMD 1993): Consistency Criterion No. 1: Whether the project would result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of the ambient air quality standards or interim emission reductions in the AQMP. Consistency Criterion No. 2: Whether the project would exceed the assumptions in the AQMP or increments based on the year of project buildout and phase. To address the first criterion, Project-generated criteria air pollutant emissions have been estimated and analyzed for significance and are addressed under Section 3.3(b) below. Detailed results of this analysis are included in Appendix A, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Calculations, of this IS/MND. As presented in Section 3.3(b), construction and operation of the proposed Project would not generate criteria air pollutant the Project would therefore be consistent with Criterion No. 1. The second criterion regarding the potential of the proposed Project to exceed the assumptions in the AQMP or increments based on the year of Project buildout and phase is primarily assessed by determining e population growth. In general, projects are considered consistent with, and not in conflict with or obstructing implementation of, the AQMP if the growth they produce in socioeconomic factors is consistent with the underlying regional plans used to develop the AQMP (SCAQMD 1993). The SCAQMD primarily uses demographic growth forecasts for various socioeconomic categories (e.g., population, housing, and employment by industry) developed by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) for its 2016 2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) (SCAG 2016). SCAQMD uses this document, which is based in large part on general plans for cities and counties in the SCAB, to develop the AQMP emissions inventory (SCAQMD 2017).3 The SCAG RTP/SCS, and associated Regional Growth Forecast, are generally consistent with the local plans; therefore, the 2016 AQMP is generally consistent with the Arcadia General Plan. 3 Information necessary to produce the emissions inventory for the SCAB is obtained from the SCAQMD and other governmental agencies, including the California Air Resources Board, Caltrans, and SCAG. Each of these agencies is responsible for collecting data (e.g., industry growth factors, socioeconomic projections, travel activity levels, emission factors, emission speciation profile, and emissions) and developing methodologies (e.g., model and demographic forecast improvements) required to generate a comprehensive emissions inventory. SCAG incorporates these data into its Travel Demand Model for estimating/projecting vehicle activities projections in their 2016 2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy are integrated in the 2016 AQMP (SCAQMD 2017). ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 29 February 2020 As discussed in Section 2.2, Existing Conditions and Setting, of this IS/MND, the proposed Project site is Commercial (C-G) with a Downtown Overlay. The proposed Project would be compatible with the C-G Zone and Downtown to the City prior to Project approval. Additionally, Project approval would be subject to a CUP, which is required in order to develop hotel land uses in the C-G Zone, and Site Plan and Design Review. The proposed uses for the Project site are consistent with the existing land use designation for the Project site, and no amendments to the General Plan would be required. The Project site is well-located to encourage the use of public transit and active transportation modes, as it is located within 0.5-which provides light rail service into Downtown Los Angeles and throughout Los Angeles County. The site is in close proximity to restaurants, recreational centers, public/civic, and other businesses along Huntington Drive, which facilitates pedestrian and bicycle trips along these corridors. Local public transit is provided along Huntington Drive. Additionally, the Foothill Transit bus line No. 187 is directly in front of the Project site, and the Metro bus lines Nos. 78/79/378 are located at the intersection of Huntington Drive and Santa Anita Avenue approximately 0.25-mile east of the Project site. Therefore, the proposed P imity to the Gold Line Station could result in a reduction of miles traveled and associated air emissions from the visitor trips to local and regional destinations. Accordingly, the proposed Project is consistent with the SCAG RTP/SCS forecasts used in the SCAQMD AQMP development. In summary, based on the considerations presented for the two criteria, impacts relating to the proposed less than significant. No mitigation is required. b) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Less Than Significant Impact. Air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. The nonattainment status of regional pollutants is a result of past and present development, and the SCAQMD develops and implements plans for future attainment of ambient air quality standards. Based on these considerations, project-level emissions would exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds, it would be considered to have a cumulatively considerable contribution. Conversely, projects that do not exceed the project-specific thresholds are generally not considered to be cumulatively significant (SCAQMD 2003). A quantitative analysis was conducted to determine whether proposed construction activities would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in emissions of criteria air pollutants for which the SCAB is designated as nonattainment under the NAAQS or CAAQS. Criteria air pollutants include ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 microns (PM10), particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 2.5 microns (PM2.5), and lead. Pollutants that are evaluated herein include volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx), which are important because they are precursors to O 3, as well as CO, sulfur oxides (SOx), PM10, and PM2.5. ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 30 February 2020 Regarding NAAQS and CAAQS attainment status,4 the SCAB is designated as a nonattainment area for national and California O3 and PM2.5 standards (CARB 2018; EPA 2018). The SCAB is designated as a nonattainment area for California PM10 standards; however, it is designated as an attainment area for national PM10 standards. The SCAB nonattainment status of O3, PM10, and PM2.5 standards is the result of cumulative emissions from various sources of air pollutants and their precursors within the SCAB, including motor vehicles, off-road equipment, and commercial and industrial facilities. The SCAB is designated as an attainment area for national and California NO 2, CO, and SO2 standards. Although the SCAB has been designated as partial nonattainment (Los Angeles County) for the federal rolling 3-month average lead standard, it is designated attainment for the state lead standard.5 The proposed Project would result in emissions of criteria air pollutants for which the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have adopted ambient air quality standards (i.e., the NAAQS and CAAQS). Projects that emit these pollutants have the potential to cause, or contribute to, violations of these standards. The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Significance Thresholds, as revised in March 2015, set forth quantitative emission significance thresholds for criteria air pollutants, which, if exceeded, would indicate the potential for a project to contribute to violations of the NAAQS or CAAQS. Table 4 lists the SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds (SCAQMD 2015). Table 4. SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds Criteria Pollutants Mass Daily Thresholds Pollutant Construction (Pounds per Day) Operations (Pounds per Day) VOC 75 55 NOx 100 55 CO 550 550 SOx 150 150 PM10 150 150 PM2.5 55 55 Leada 3 3 Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) and Odor Thresholds TACsb (including carcinogens and noncarcinogens) Maximum incremental cancer risk 10 in 1 million Cancer Burden > 0.5 excess cancer cases (in areas > 1 in 1 million) Chronic and Acute Hazard index 1.0 (project increment) Odor Project creates an odor nuisance pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 402 Source: SCAQMD 2015. Notes: SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District; VOC = volatile organic compound; NO x = oxides of nitrogen; CO = carbon monoxide; SOx = sulfur oxides; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter; TAC = toxic air contaminant; NO2 = nitrogen dioxide; ppm = parts per million; g/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter a The phase-out of leaded gasoline started in 1976. Since gasoline no longer contains lead, the proposed Project is not anticipated to result in impacts related to lead; therefore, it is not discussed in this analysis. b TACs include carcinogens and non-carcinogens. 4 An area is designated as in attainment when it is in compliance with the NAAQS and/or the CAAQS. The NAAQS and CAAQS are set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and California Air Resources Board (CARB), respectively, for the maximum level of a given air pollutant that can exist in the outdoor air without unacceptable effects on human health or the public welfare. Attainment = meets the standards; attainment/maintenance = achieve the standards after a nonattainment designation; nonattainment = does not meet the standards. 5 Re-designation of the lead NAAQS designation to attainment for the Los Angeles County portion of the SCAB is expected based on current monitoring data. The phase out of leaded gasoline started in 1976. Since gasoline no longer contains lead, the project is not anticipated to result in impacts related to lead; therefore, it is not discussed in this analysis. ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO)PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 31 February 2020 A project would result in a substantial contribution to an existing air quality violation of the NAAQS or CAAQS for O3, which is a nonattainment exceed the SCAQMD VOC or NOx thresholds shown in Table 4. These emission-based thresholds for O3 i.e., the potential for adverse O3 impacts to occur) because O3 itself is not emitted directly, and the effects of an individual 3 precursors (VOCs and NO x) on O3 levels in ambient air cannot be determined through air quality models or other quantitative methods. The following discussion quantitatively evaluates project-generated emissions and impacts that would result from implementation of the proposed Project. Construction Emissions. Construction of the proposed Project would result in the temporary addition of pollutants to the local airshed caused by on-site sources (e.g., off-road construction equipment, soil disturbance, VOC off-gassing from architectural coatings and asphalt pavement application) and off-site sources (e.g., vendor trucks, haul trucks, and worker vehicle trips). Specifically, entrained dust results from the exposure of earth surfaces to wind from the direct disturbance and movement of soil, resulting in PM 10 and PM2.5 emissions. Internal combustion engines used by construction equipment, haul trucks, vendor trucks (i.e., delivery trucks), and worker vehicles would result in emissions of VOC, NO x, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. Construction emissions can vary substantially from day to day depending on the level of activity; the specific type of operation; and, for dust, the prevailing weather conditions. Application of architectural coatings, such as exterior paint and other finishes, and application of asphalt pavement would also produce VOC emissions. VOC off-gassing emissions result from evaporation of solvents contained in surface coatings such as in paints and primers used during construction of the facility. CalEEMod calculates the VOC evaporative emissions from application of surface coatings based on the VOC emissions factor, the building square footage, and the assumed fraction of surface area. The proposed Project would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 (SCAQMD 2015) to control dust emissions generated during any dust-generating activities. Standard construction practices that would be employed to reduce fugitive dust emissions include watering of the active dust areas up to two times per day, depending on weather conditions. Emissions from the construction phase of the proposed Project were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2016.3.2. For a conservative emission estimation, construction is assumed to begin in May 1, 2020 and conclude in October of 2021. In the event actual construction proceeds longer into year 2021, this analysis provides a conservative approach resulting in slightly higher daily emissions and annual emissions. A detailed depiction of expected construction schedules including information regarding phasing, equipment used during each phase, trucks, and worker vehicles is provided in Appendix A of this IS/MND. General construction equipment modeling assumptions are provided in Table 5, Construction Assumptions for Air Quality Modeling. Default values for equipment mix, horsepower, and load factor provided in CalEEMod were used for all construction equipment. It is anticipated that approximately 1,360 cubic yards of fill material would be imported and no soils would be exported during construction. For the analysis, it was generally assumed that heavy-duty construction equipment would be operating at the site 6 days per week, including Saturday. ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 32 February 2020 Table 5. Construction Assumptions for Air Quality Modeling Construction Phase One-Way Vehicle Trips Equipment Schedule Average Daily Trips Total Haul Truck Trips Types Quantity Usage Hours Start Date Finish Date Workers Vendor Trucks Demolition 14 0 185 Concrete/Industrial Saw 1 8 5/1/2020 6/1/2020 Rubber-Tired Dozers 1 8 Tractors/Loaders/ Backhoes 3 8 Site Prep 8 0 0 Graders 1 8 6/2/2020 6/12/2020 Rubber-Tired Dozers 1 7 Tractors/Loaders/ Backhoes 1 8 Grading 8 0 170 Graders 1 6 6/13/2020 6/25/2020 Rubber-Tired Dozers 1 6 Tractors/Loaders/ Backhoes 1 7 Building Construction 78 30 0 Cranes 1 6 6/26/2020 8/16/2021 Forklifts 1 6 Generator Sets 1 8 Tractors/Loaders/ Backhoes 1 6 Welders 3 8 Paving 8 0 0 Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 6 8/17/2021 9/8/2021 Tractors/Loaders/ Backhoes 1 8 Pavers 1 6 Paving Equipment 1 8 Rollers 1 7 Architectural Coating 16 0 0 Air Compressors 1 6 9/9/2021 10/1/2021 Source: Appendix A Table 6, Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Unmitigated, shows the estimated maximum daily construction emissions associated with the construction phase of the proposed Project. As shown in Table 6, daily construction emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds for VOC, NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, or PM2.5 during Project construction. Therefore, construction impacts of the proposed Project would be less than significant, and no mitigation measure is required. ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 33 February 2020 Table 6. Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions - Unmitigated Year VOC NOx CO SOx PM10a PM2.5a (pounds per day) 2020 2.54 22.99 17.44 0.04 3.52 2.11 2021 70.42 16.80 16.80 0.04 1.76 0.96 Maximum Daily Emissions 70.42 22.99 17.44 0.04 3.52 2.11 SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Threshold exceeded? No No No No No No Source: Appendix A; SCAQMD 2015. Notes: VOC = volatile organic compound; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; CO = carbon monoxide; SOx = sulfur oxides; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter; SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District. a These estimates reflect control of fugitive dust required by SCAQMD Rule 403, specifically, watering of active site areas two times per day (SCAQMD 2005). Operational Emissions. As described in Section 2.2, under the proposed Project, the existing 60,811 sf, three-story office building (former Worley Parsons Building, referred to as Building C) would continue to remain on the Project site, but would be redeveloped from the existing office use into a hotel. The previously approved new Building 4, which proposed to be constructed as a general office building, has been redesigned and is proposed for development as a hotel annex (Building D). To develop a net change in air operation emissions, Building C has been modeled as an existing condition in CalEEMod and the resulting emissions are subtracted from the emissions estimated for the proposed Project, which includes remodeled Building C and new Building D and associated features. Operation of the proposed Project would produce VOC, NO x, CO, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions associated with vehicular traffic, area sources (consumer products, architectural coatings, landscaping equipment), energy sources (natural gas, appliances, and space and water heating), and stationary sources (emergency generator). CalEEMod was used to estimate daily emissions from these operational sources including modelling the emissions of an estimated 250 kilowatt (kW) (374 horsepower (hp)) natural gas-fired emergency generator based on 1 hour per day and 50 hours per year of operation per SCAQMD Rule 1470, which limits emergency generators to 50 hours of use per year for maintenance and testing. CalEEMod default emission factors were used for the proposed generator, corresponding with the install dates. On-road vehicular emissions associated with the proposed Project operation and existing Building C were modeled using trip generation rates for the existing office and proposed hotel, coffee shop, spa, restaurant, and bar estimated by Linscott, Law, & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG), included as Appendix F, Traffic Study, of this IS/MND. Emissions from energy sources include natural gas combustion for appliances and space and water heating. CalEEMod defaults were also used for area sources (landscape maintenance equipment, consumer products, and architectural coatings for maintenance of buildings). Table 7, Estimated Maximum Daily Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Unmitigated, summarizes the maximum daily area, energy, mobile, and stationary (emergency generator) emissions of criteria pollutants that would be generated by the proposed Project and how the net change in emissions (proposed Project minus existing emissions) compare to the SCAQMD thresholds of significance. As shown, the net increase in all criteria pollutants are below SCAQMD thresholds. The values shown are the maximum summer or winter daily emissions (i.e., foreseeable worst case) results from CalEEMod. Details of the emission calculations are provided in Appendix A of this IS/MND. As shown in Table 7, the increase in emissions associated with the operation of the proposed Project would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 34 February 2020 for VOC, NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, or PM2.5. Even without consideration of the existing conditions related to operations in Building C, operational impacts from the proposed Project would still be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Table 7. Estimated Maximum Daily Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Unmitigated Emission Source VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 (pounds per day) Proposed Project Area 3.41 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 Energy 0.15 1.33 1.12 0.01 0.10 0.10 Mobile 5.50 24.51 56.43 0.19 14.98 4.12 Stationary 3.29 0.32 8.57 0.001 0.02 0.02 Total 12.35 26.15 66.15 0.20 15.10 4.23 Existing Operation (Building C) Area 1.36 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 Energy 0.02 0.17 0.14 0.00 0.01 0.01 Mobile 1.24 5.69 15.69 0.05 3.54 0.98 Total 2.62 5.86 15.84 0.05 3.55 0.99 Net Change in Emissions (Project Existing) Area 2.06 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 Energy 0.13 1.16 0.97 0.01 0.09 0.09 Mobile 4.26 18.82 40.75 0.14 11.44 3.13 Stationary 3.29 0.32 8.57 0.00 0.02 0.02 Total Net Change (Project Existing) 9.73 20.30 50.31 0.15 11.55 3.24 SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No Source: SCAQMD 2015. Notes: VOC = volatile organic compound; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; CO = carbon monoxide; SOx = sulfur oxides; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter. Area sources = consumer product use, architectural coatings, and landscape maintenance equipment. Energy sources = natural gas. Mobile sources = motor vehicles. Stationary sources = emergency generator. The values shown are the maximum summer or winter daily emissions results from CalEEMod. Mobile source modeling for the proposed Project and existing operation includes proximity to nearby Gold Line station, and pedestrian access encouragement features and traffic calming features. As previously discussed, the SCAB has been designated as a federal nonattainment area for O 3 and PM2.5, and a state nonattainment area for O 3, PM10, and PM2.5. Construction and operational activities of the proposed Project would generate VOC and NOx emissions (precursors to O 3) and emissions of PM10 and PM2.5. However, as indicated in Tables 6 and 7, Project-generated emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD emission-based significance thresholds for VOCs, NO x, PM10, or PM2.5, and therefore the proposed Project would not cause a cumulatively significant impact. ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 35 February 2020 Cumulative localized impacts could potentially occur if a project were to occur concurrently with another off-site project. With the exception of the projects that were approved under Seabiscuit Pacifica Specific Plan (i.e., Le Méridien Hotel and a Mixed Use project) at 130 Huntington Drive, schedules for potential future projects near the Project area are unknown; therefore, potential impacts associated with other simultaneous projects would be considered speculative.6 At the time of the preparation of this IS/MND, the Seabiscuit Pacifica Specific Plan and Le Méridien Hotel project sites have been graded and construction is underway. It is expected that construction will occur on these sites for approximately 18 months. Therefore, there is a potential for some construction activities to overlap with the construction of the proposed Project. However, all projects that are not exempt from CEQA would be required to conduct an air quality analysis and, where necessary, implement mitigation measures to reduce impacts. Criteria air pollutant emissions associated with construction activity of future projects would also be reduced through implementation of control measures required by the SCAQMD. Cumulative PM10 and PM2.5 emissions would be reduced because all future projects would be subject to SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust), which sets forth general and specific requirements for all sites in the SCAQMD. In addition, cumulative VOC emissions would be subject to SCAQMD Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings). Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions of nonattainment pollutants, and impacts would be less than significant during construction and operation. No mitigation is required. c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact. Localized project impacts associated with construction criteria air pollutants emissions are assessed below and were determined to be less than significant. Sensitive Receptors. Sensitive receptors are those individuals more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than the population at large. People most likely to be affected by air pollution include children, the elderly, and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. According to the SCAQMD, sensitive receptors include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, long-term healthcare facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes (SCAQMD 1993). Sensitive receptors near the proposed Project site include single-family residential adjacent and to the north of the proposed Project site. At its nearest, Project construction would take place within approximately 80 feet of the adjacent single family residential dwellings north of the proposed Project site. Localized Significance Thresholds. A localized significance threshold (LST) analysis was performed to evaluate localized air quality impacts to sensitive receptors in the immediate vicinity of the proposed Project site as a result of proposed Project activities. The impacts were analyzed using methods consistent with is located within Source-Receptor Area 9 (East San Gabriel Valley). The greatest on-site daily emissions of NO x, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 generated during construction occurred during the demolition period of the proposed Project construction, it was assumed that one rubber-tired dozer and three crawler tractors (CalEEMod category: tractor/loader/backhoes) would be used based on CalEEMod defaults. CalEEMod default values assume that during an 8-hour day, rubber-tired dozers and 6 The CEQA Guidelines state that if a particular impact is too speculative for evaluation, the agency should note its conclusion and terminate discussion of the impact (14 CCR 15145). ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 36 February 2020 crawler tractors can each disturb a maximum of 0.5 acres. This results in two acres disturbed per day from one rubber-tired dozer and three crawler tractors. The SCAQMD LST values for two acres within Source Receptor Area 9 with a receptor distance of 25 meters (82 feet), which are representative of the closest sensitive receptor, were compared to emissions from the proposed Project. Project construction activities would result in temporary sources of on-site criteria air pollutant emissions associated with construction equipment exhaust and dust-generating activities. According to the Final Localized Significance Thresho -site mobile emissions from the project should not be with the proposed Project are not expected to cause substantial air quality impacts to sensitive receptors along off-site roadways since emissions would be relatively brief in nature and would cease once the vehicles pass through the main streets. Therefore, off-site emissions from trucks and worker vehicle trips are not included in the LST analysis. The maximum daily on-site construction emissions generated during construction of the proposed Project is presented in Table 8, Construction Localized Significance Threshold Analysis, and compared to the SCAQMD localized significance criteria for Source Receptor Area 9 to determine whether Project-generated on-site construction emissions would result in potential LST impacts. As shown in Table 8, proposed construction activities would not generate emissions in excess of site-specific LSTs; therefore, localized project construction impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. Table 8. Construction Localized Significance Threshold Analysis Year NO2 CO PM10 PM2.5 pounds per day (On-site Emissions) 2020 20.95 14.66 6.62 3.71 2021 13.64 12.90 0.68 0.66 Maximum Daily On-site Emissions 20.95 14.66 6.62 3.71 SCAQMD LST Criteria 128 953 7 5 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No Source: SCAQMD 2009. Notes: NO2 = nitrogen dioxide; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = particulate matter; PM 2.5 = fine particulate matter; SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District; LST = localized significance threshold. Localized significance thresholds are shown for a 2-acre site and a distance of 25 meters (82 feet) to the nearest sensitive receptor. CO Hotspots. Traffic-congested roadways and intersections have the potential to generate localized high levels of CO. Localized areas where ambient concentrations exceed federal and/or state standards for CO source. Under certain extreme meteorological conditions, however, CO concentrations near a congested roadway or intersection may reach unhealthy levels, affecting sensitive receptors. Typically, high CO concentrations are associated with severely congested intersections operating at an unacceptable level of service (LOS) (LOS E or worse is unacceptable). Projects contributing to adverse traffic impacts may result in the formation of a CO hotspot. Additional analysis of CO hotspot impacts would be conducted if a project would result in a significant impact or contribute to an adverse traffic impact at a signalized intersection that would potentially subject sensitive receptors to CO hotspots. ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 37 February 2020 The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Procedures for Determining Localized CO, PM10, and PM2.5 Concentrations (hot-10, and PM2.5 hot-spot analyses are not required to consider construction-related activities, which cause temporary increases in emissions. Each site which is affected by construction-ods. Temporary increases are defined as those which occur only during the construction phase and last five years or -road vehicle trips from trucks and workers during construction, construction activities are considered temporary. As a result, the proposed construction activities would not require a Project-level construction hotspot analysis. Projects contributing to adverse traffic impacts may result in the formation of CO hotspots. To verify that the proposed Project would not cause or contribute to a violation of the CO standard, a screening evaluation of the potential for CO hotspots was conducted. The Traffic Study for the proposed Project, which is included in this IS/MND as Appendix F, evaluated whether there would be a decrease in the level of service (LOS) (i.e., increased congestion) at the intersections affected by the proposed Project. The potential for CO hotspots was evaluated based on the results of the traffic impact study. The California Department of Transportation Institute of Transportation Studies Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol (CO Protocol; Caltrans 2010) was followed for this analysis. CO hotspots are typically evaluated when (1) the LOS of an intersection decreases to LOS E or worse; (2) signalization and/or channelization is added to an intersection; and (3) sensitive receptors such as residences, schools, and hospitals are located in the vicinity of the affected intersection or roadway segment. As determined by the traffic impact study, LOS at these roadway segments would not decrease to LOS E or worse as a result of the Project; therefore, further analysis is not required. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not generate traffic that would contribute to potential adverse traffic impacts that may result in the formation of CO hotspots. In addition, due to continued improvement in vehicular emissions at a rate faster than the rate of vehicle growth and/or congestion, the potential for CO hotspots in the SCAB is steadily decreasing. Based on these considerations, the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact to air quality with regard to potential CO hotspots. No mitigation is required. Toxic Air Contaminants. Toxic air contaminants (TACs) are defined as substances that may cause or contribute to an increase in deaths or in serious illness, or that may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. As discussed under the LST analysis, the nearest sensitive receptors are single family residential dwellings north of the proposed Project site. Health effects from carcinogenic air toxics are usually described in terms of cancer risk. The SCAQMD increased likelihood that a person continuously exposed to concentrations of TACs resulting from a project over a 9-, 30-, and 70-year exposure period will contract cancer based on the use of standard Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment risk-assessment methodology (OEHHA 2015). In addition, some TACs have non- carcinogenic effects. The SCAQMD recommends a Hazard Index of 1 or more for acute (short-term) and chronic (long-term) non-carcinogenic effects.7 TACs that would potentially be emitted during construction activities associated with development of the proposed Project would be diesel particulate matter. 7 Non-cancer adverse health risks are measured against a hazard index, which is defined as the ratio of the predicted incremental exposure concentrations of the various non-carcinogens from the project to published reference exposure levels that can cause adverse health effects. ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 38 February 2020 Diesel particulate matter emissions would be emitted from heavy equipment operations and heavy-duty trucks. Heavy-duty construction equipment is subject to a CARB Airborne Toxics Control Measure for in-use diesel construction equipment to reduce diesel particulate emissions. As described for the LST analysis, PM10 (representative of diesel particulate matter) exposure would be minimal. According to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, health risk assessments (which determine the exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic emissions) should be based on a 30-year exposure period for the maximally exposed individual resident. However, such assessments should also be limited to the period/duration of activities associated with the project. The duration of the proposed construction activities would constitute a small percentage of the total 30-year exposure period. The construction period for the proposed Project would be approximately 20 months, after which construction-related TAC emissions would cease. Due to this relatively short period of exposure and minimal particulate emissions on site, TACs generated during construction would not be expected to result in concentrations causing significant health risks. Following completion of on-site construction activities, the proposed Project would not involve routine operational activities that would generate TAC emissions other than intermittent maintenance and testing of the natural gas-fired emergency generator, which would be limited to 50 hours per year. (SCAQMD Rule 1470 limits operation of emergency generators to 50 hours per year for maintenance and testing). Due to this relatively short period of exposure, small engine size of the emergency generator (250 kW), and minimal on-site particulate emissions from other sources, TACs generated during operation would not result in concentrations causing significant health risks as demonstrated through SCAQMD for Rule 1401 and 212, (Version 8.1). The Risk Assessment Tool, a spreadsheet program, was used to perform a screening level evaluation of the cancer and non-cancer health effects of the emergency generator emissions pursuant to Rule 1401, see Appendix A for program results. As shown in Appendix A, the emergency generator passes both the Tier I Cancer/Chronic Application Screening Index (ASI) and Acute ASI and Tier II Maximum Individual Cancer Risk (MICR). For the reasons described above, the Project would not result in substantial TAC exposure to sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the Project site, and impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. Health Effects of Criteria Air Pollutants. Construction of the proposed Project would generate criteria air pollutant emissions; however, the project would not exceed the SCAQMD mass-emission thresholds. Health effects associated with O3 include respiratory symptoms, worsening of lung disease leading to premature death, and damage to lung tissue (CARB 2019). VOCs and NO x are precursors to O3, for which the SCAB is designated as nonattainment with respect to the NAAQS and CAAQS. Thus, existing O3 levels in the SCAB are at unhealthy levels during certain periods. Because the proposed Project would not involve construction or operational activities that would result in O3 precursor emissions (VOC or NOx) in excess of the SCAQMD thresholds, the project is not anticipated to substantially contribute to regional O 3 concentrations and the associated health impacts. Exposure to NO2 and NOx can irritate the lungs, cause bronchitis and pneumonia, lower resistance to respiratory infections, and enhance allergic responses (CARB 2019). Project construction and operation would not exceed the SCAQMD NOx threshold, and existing ambient NO2 concentrations are below the NAAQS and CAAQS. Thus, implementation of the proposed Project is not expected to exceed the NO2 standards or contribute to associated health effects. ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO)PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 39 February 2020 Health effects associated with CO include chest pain in patients with heart disease, headache, light- headedness, and reduced mental alertness (CARB 2019). CO tends to be a localized impact associated with congested intersections. CO hotspots were discussed previously as a less than significant impact. Thus, the proposed Project Particulate matter exposure has been linked to a variety of problems, including premature death in people with heart or lung disease, nonfatal heart attacks, irregular heartbeat, aggravated asthma, decreased lung function, and increased respiratory symptoms such as irritation of the airways, coughing, or difficulty breathing (EPA 2016). The SCAB is designated as nonattainment for PM10 under the CAAQS and nonattainment for PM2.5 under the NAAQS and CAAQS. Implementation of the proposed Project would not generate emissions of PM10 or PM2.5 10 and PM2.5 emissions are not expected to cause any increase in related regional health effects for these pollutants. Impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. In summary, the proposed Project would not result in a potentially significant contribution to regional concentrations of non-attainment pollutants and would not result in a significant contribution to the adverse health effects associated with those pollutants. Impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. d) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Less Than Significant Impact. The occurrence and severity of potential odor impacts depend on numerous factors. The nature, frequency, and intensity of the source; wind speed and direction; and the sensitivity of receiving location each contribute to the intensity of the impact. Although offensive odors seldom cause physical harm, they can be annoying, cause distress among the public, and generate citizen complaints. During Project construction, exhaust from equipment may produce discernible odors typical of most construction sites. Potential odors produced during construction would be attributable to concentrations of unburned hydrocarbons from tailpipes of construction equipment. However, such odors would disperse rapidly from the Project site and generally occur at magnitudes that would not affect substantial numbers of people. Accordingly, impacts associated with odors during construction would be less than significant. SCAQMD provides a list of land uses associated with odor concerns, which include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food-processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding (SCAQMD 1993). The proposed Project includes operation of hotel facilities, and restaurant spaces, which are not anticipated to generate odors and does not result in operation of the criteria. For the reasons described above, Project operation would result in an odor impact that would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 40 February 2020 3.4 Biological Resources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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 Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? a) Would the project 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 Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. The Project site is located approximately 2.6 miles south of the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains and the Angeles National Forest. As shown on Figure 3, the Project site is almost entirely paved and the surrounding urban uses include recreational/park and commercial to the south, surface parking, horse racing track, and commercial to the west, single-family residential to the north, and commercial to the east. Vegetation on the Project site includes 38 trees; four of which are within the public right-of-way in the sidewalk between the Project site and San Raphael Road and would be protected in place (see Figure 6). The remaining 34 trees and several landscaped planter beds are dispersed throughout the existing on- ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO)PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 41 February 2020 site surface parking lots and would be removed under the proposed Project. The Project site does not support any naturally vegetated areas or connectivity to any habitats for candidate, sensitive, or special status species under existing conditions. The nearest protected open space is the Santa Anita Habitat Mitigation Project site, which lies approximately 1.23 miles northeast of the Project site (LADPW 2018a). For these reasons, no special-status species are expected to occur in the Project area, and development of the proposed Project would not either directly or through habitat modifications, result in a substantial adverse effect 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 Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and no mitigation is required. b) Would the project 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 Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant Impact. There are no riparian habitat communities or other sensitive natural communities located on the Project site, which is fully developed with urban uses and ornamental landscaping. According to the U.S. ational Wetlands Inventory, the Arcadia Wash runs in a north-south running subterranean channel approximately 100 feet west of the Project site (USFWS and NWI 2019). The Arcadia Wash is not classified as a riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community; however, it is considered an intermittent Riverine System, which only contains flowing water for a part of the year. According to the National Wetlands Inventory, surface water is present for brief periods (a few days to a few weeks) of the year, but the water table usually lies well below ground surface level for the rest of the year (USFWS and NWI 2019). Demolition and construction activities at the Project site have the potential to release small amounts of construction debris or sediment into the storm drain system. However, given that the Arcadia Wash is subterranean for 0.8-mile where it traverses near the Project site, any fugitive sediments would not flow into the Arcadia Wash with implementation of the construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) described in Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality. Given this, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact 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 Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and no mitigation is required. c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. The State Water Resources Control Board and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Water Boards) define an area as a wetland if it has the following characteristics: (1) the area has continuous or recurrent saturation of the upper substrate caused by groundwater, or shallow surface water, or both; (2) the duration of such saturation is sufficient to cause anaerobic conditions in the upper substrate; and (3) no wetlands on the Project site, which is fully developed. Given this, the proposed Project would have a no impact on state and federally protected wetlands. No mitigation is required. ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO)PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 42 February 2020 d) Would the project 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? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As stated in Section 3.4(a), the Project site is located in a fully developed, urban area surrounded by urban land uses. The existing ornamental landscaping on the Project site does not provide substantial habitat for wildlife, nor could it serve as a native wildlife nursery site. As stated in the General Plan EIR, wildlife movement is already greatly restricted within the City due to existing urban development and is confined to the undeveloped areas of the San Gabriel Mountains and to the Santa Anita Wash (City of Arcadia 2010a). The Project site lies approximately 2.6 miles south of the San Gabriel Mountain foothills and approximately 0.8-mile east of the Santa Anita Wash. The Project site is separated from both of these undeveloped areas by dense urban development, the presence of which precludes native wildlife movement in the direction of the Project site. As such, the proposed Project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. However, the existing ornamental trees on the Project site could be utilized by migratory bird species for nesting during the breeding season. Migratory birds are protected under the MBTA (USFWS 2017). Construction-related activities could disturb nesting birds protected under the MBTA. This would be considered a potentially significant impact. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measure (MM) BIO- 1, potential impacts to nesting birds would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. MM BIO-1: Commencement of construction activities shall avoid the February 1 through August 31 bird nesting season to the greatest extent feasible. If construction activities begin within this nesting season, a survey for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within 7 days of the commencement of construction activities, but not prior to this 7-day window. The area surveyed shall include all clearing/construction areas, as well as areas within 100 feet of the boundaries of these areas, or as otherwise determined by the biologist. If no active bird nests are identified on, or within 100 feet of the limits of the proposed disturbance area, no further action is necessary and construction activities could commence. For any off-site areas that are inaccessible, the qualified biologists may survey the off-site area with binoculars to capture the full 100-foot survey area. If active nests are found during pre-construction surveys or at any time throughout the course of construction activities during the nesting bird season, all clearing/construction activities within a minimum of 100 feet of the nest shall be postponed until a wildlife biologist has identified the nesting species. If the bird species is not protected under the MBTA and/or the California Fish and Game Code, no further action is required and construction activities may proceed. If the avian species is protected under the MBTA and/or the California Fish and Game Code, a minimum buffer zone shall be established by the qualified biologist based on the type of bird/raptor species identified and the construction buffer shall be established on site through the erection of cones/flagging/fencing to clearly delineate the protection zone. All construction activities shall avoid this protection zone until a qualified biologist has confirmed that the nest(s) is no longer active and the nest is vacated, and there is no evidence of second nesting attempts. Upon completion of any site survey for nesting birds conducted by a qualified biologist, documentation of the survey activity, findings, and any resulting actions taken shall be prepared and submitted to the City. ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 43 February 2020 With implementation of MM BIO-1, the proposed Project would have less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated on the movement of native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species and established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, and would not impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Less Than Significant Impact. Vegetation on the Project site includes 38 trees; four of which are within the public sidewalk between the Project site and San Rafael Road and which would be protected in place during Project construction, per Comprehensive Tree Management Program. The proposed Project would not impact any trees in the adjacent public ROW and would therefore not impact any trees subject to this chapter of the Municipal Code. On-site trees along the property line with the adjacent single-family homes would not be removed or otherwise impacted by proposed Project activities. The 34 on-site trees are dispersed throughout the existing surface parking lot would be removed under the proposed Project. The Project would be subject to the Article IX, Chapter 7, Section 9701, Tree Preservation, which recognizes oaks, sycamores, and certain mature trees as significant aesthetic and ecological resources. Per the Tree Survey Report prepared for the Project, and included as Appendix B, the four public City trees would be protected in place under the proposed Project, per Section 9701, Tree Preservation As such, Municipal Code, Section 9701, Tree Preservation, the Project would have a less than significant impact to local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, including mitigation is required. f)Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. According to the General Plan EIR, there are no adopted, approved, or proposed Habitat Conservation Plans, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans that cover habitats located within the City (City of Arcadia 2010a). Given this, the proposed Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 44 February 2020 3.5 Cultural Resources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5? No Impact. On May 7, 2019, Dudek completed a search of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), located on the campus of California State University, Fullerton of the proposed Project site and a 1.0-mile records search buffer. This search included previously documented prehistoric and historic archaeological resources and historic built- environment resources; Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) site records; technical reports; archival resources; and ethnographic references. Additional consulted sources included historical maps of the proposed Project site, the NRHP, the CRHR, the California Historic Property Data File, the lists of California State Historical Landmarks, California Points of Historical Interest, and the Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility. The SCCIC records indicate that 25 previous cultural resources technical investigations have been conducted within 1.0-mile of proposed Project site between 1984 and 2015. Of these, two studies overlap a portion of the proposed Project site. Plan Environmental Impact Report analysis (i.e., Report No. 6859 [LA-06859] in 1996 and Report No. 12497 [LA-1244797] in 2010). LA-06859. which was originally adopted in 1972. The General Plan included historical research and a records search. The records search identified seven historical sites and one archaeological site within the City of Arcadia. The General Plan also defined a significant cultural value in the City of Arcadia. No resources were identified to be intersecting or overlapping the current proposed Project site. LA-1244797. Draft Program Environmental Impact Report, City of Arcadia, 2010 General Plan Update Project (BonTerra Psomas 2010) reports the results of a records search for the City of Arcadia and a 1.0- mile buffer, Native American consultation, and background research. The records search found 70 ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 45 February 2020 including one historic refuse deposit and four built-environment resources. No resources from the 2010 study were identified within the current proposed Project site. The General Plan update proposed two goals. The first, Goal PR-8, is d the second, Goal PR-9, is the resources were proposed. In addition, five Implementation Actions were proposed to reduce impacts on cultural resources including: Implementation Action 6-11: Cultural Resource Protection Implementation Action 6-12: Discovery of Archaeological Resources or Human Remains Implementation Action 7-12: Sponsorship and Support of Cultural Events Implementation Action 7-13: Provision of Places for Cultural Events Implementation Action 7-14: Inventory of Local Historic Resources Implementation Action 7-15: Support Private Efforts to Promote Additionally, this General Plan update included three mitigation measures that should be implemented in order to avoid impacts to cultural resources. The three measures are as follows: 1.) requires architectural historians to assess any structure that is over 50 years old that may be demolished, 2.) undertaking a Phase I archaeological study for projects that are located on or near cultural resources, and 3.) conducting a paleontological study for any project that would include excavation in to Older Quaternary Alluvium. The CHRIS records search did not identify any previously recorded historical resources within the proposed Project site. The record search identified 167 cultural resources that have been recorded within 1.0-mile of the proposed Project site; none of these resources intersect or are adjacent to the proposed Project site. The resources include 166 historic buildings and one historic refuse scatter. According to the County within the Project site was originally built between 1978 and 1979; as such, the existing structure would not qualify as a historical resource. Due to the fact that no historical resources are present within the proposed Project site, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on historical resources and no resource specific mitigation is proposed. b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The CHRIS records search did not identify any previously recorded archaeological resources within the proposed Project site. The record search identified one resource (a historic refuse scatter) within the 1.0-mile buffer, or study area, of the proposed Project site. Historic aerials indicate that the proposed Project site was first developed in the 1950s and then was redeveloped with the existing structure between 1978 and 1979. Site development activities, including trenching for utilities and excavations for footings and basements, could have significantly impacted surficial deposits within the proposed Project site, and in some areas, subsurface deposits may have also been adversely affected. For example, beneath Building C, which contains a small basement, buried cultural deposits may have been more severely impacted. However, there still may be intact deposits that ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO)PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 46 February 2020 Sacred Lands File Search As part of the records review process, Dudek also requested that the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) conduct a search of its Sacred Lands File (SLF) to determine if cultural resources important to Native Americans have been recorded in the project area. In addition, Dudek requested a list of Native American individuals and/or tribal organizations who may have knowledge of cultural resources in or near the proposed Project site. The NAHC emailed a response to this letter on April 5, 2019, stating that the result of the SLF search was positive. Because the SLF search does not include an exhaustive list of Native American cultural resources, the NAHC recommended contacting six (6) tribal representatives who may have direct knowledge of cultural resources in or near the proposed Project. These included the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians Kizh Nation, the Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians, the Gabrieleno/Tongva Nation, the Gabrieleno Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council, the Gabrieleno- Tongva Tribe, and the San Fernando Band of Mission Indians. No additional tribal outreach was conducted by Dudek; however, in compliance with Assembly Bill (AB) 52, the City has contacted all NAHC-listed traditionally geographically affiliated tribal representatives that have requested Project notification, which is addressed in Section 3.18, Tribal Cultural Resources. No newly or previously recorded archaeological resources were identified within the proposed Project site as a result of the cultural resources study. Although no archaeological resources were identified within the proposed Project site, there is the potential to encounter unanticipated cultural resources during the course of construction. Within areas of the Project site proposed for new development, specifically the construction of Building D and associated swimming pool, the chance of discovering archaeological deposits is greater than in areas with no soil disturbance (Building C) or superficial redesign of the surface parking lot. As such, MM CUL-1 is required to ensure that potential impacts would be reduced if archaeological resources were discovered on site. Implementation of MM CUL-1 would ensure that potential impacts to archaeological resources due to Project implementation would be less than significant. MM-CUL-1. In the event that archaeological resources are unearthed during ground-disturbing activities, the construction contractor shall immediately cease all earth-disturbing activities within 100 feet of the discovery and shall retain a qualified archaeologist that meets the continue in other areas outside of the designated protection zone, which shall be delineated with cones, flagging, or fencing. The archaeologist shall evaluate the he California Public CEQA Guidelines. If an unanticipated archaeological discovery is determined to be a resource, the archaeologist shall formulate a Mitigation Plan in consultation with the City of Arcadia that satisfies the requirements of the above-listed Code Sections. Upon approval of the Mitigation Plan by the City, the Project shall be implemented in compliance with the Plan. If the Archaeologist determines that the resource is not significant, s/he shall record the evaluation and submit the recordation form to the CHRIS at the SCCIC. The archaeologist shall prepare a report of the results of any study prepared as part of a testing or Mitigation Plan, following accepted professional practice. Copies of the report shall be submitted to the City and to the CHRIS at the SCCIC. ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 47 February 2020 c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Less Than Significant Impact. There is no indication that human remains are present within the proposed Project site. However, in the unlikely event that excavation activities inadvertently discover buried human remains, recovery activities must be conducted in accordance with Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code regarding the potential discovery of human remains. In accordance with Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, if human remains are found, the Los Angeles County Coroner must be notified within 24 hours of the discovery. No further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains may occur until the County Coroner has determined, within two working days of notification of the discovery, the appropriate treatment and disposition of the human remains. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are, or are believed to be, Native American, s/he must notify the NAHC in Sacramento within 48 hours. In accordance with California Public Resources Code, Section 5097.98, the NAHC must immediately notify those persons it believes to be the Most Likely Descendant of the deceased Native American. The Most Likely Descendant must complete their inspection within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. The designated Native American representative would then determine, in consultation with the property owner, the proper treatment of the human remains. Therefore, compliance with state law (California Public Resources Code and Health and Safety Code) would ensure that potential impacts related to the disturbance of any human remains would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. 3.6 Energy Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? a) Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Less Than Significant Impact. The short-term construction and long-term operation of the proposed Project would require the consumption of energy resources in several forms. Construction energy consumption includes: (1) temporary direct electrical service provided by Southern California Edison (SCE), which includes construction site lighting; computer equipment; and temporary construction trailer operation; and (2) fossil fuels (diesel and gasoline), which includes off-road construction equipment, diesel-fired electric generators, and worker vehicles, vender trucks, and haul trucks. Operational Energy Consumption includes: (1) direct electrical service provided by SCE, which includes, Building heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC), lighting: interior and exterior facilities, computer, audio and video equipment; and, appliances; (2) indirect ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 48 February 2020 energy consumption, which includes supply, distribution, and treatment of water, wastewater; and solid waste; and (3) fossil fuels (diesel and gasoline) transportation, which includes hotel guests and visitors; employees, delivery, and customers; and restaurant employees, delivery, and customers. Construction Energy Use Electricity. Temporary electric power for as-necessary lighting and electronic equipment (such as computers inside temporary construction trailers) would be provided by SCE. The electricity used for such activities would be temporary and would be substantially less than that required for Project operation and would Natural Gas. Natural gas is not anticipated to be required during construction of the proposed Project. Fuels used for construction would primarily consist of diesel and gasoline, which are discussed below under the Project construction would be substantially less than that required for operation and would have a negligible Petroleum. Heavy-duty construction equipment associated with demolition and construction activities would rely on diesel fuel, as would vendor trucks involved in delivery of materials to the proposed Project site. Construction workers would travel to and from the Project site throughout the duration of construction. It is assumed in this analysis that construction workers would travel in gasoline-powered light-duty vehicles. Heavy-duty construction equipment of various types would be used during each phase of Project construction. Appendix A lists the assumed equipment usage for each phase of construction. The proposed equipment is estimated to operate a total combined 13,809 hours. Fuel consumption from construction equipment was estimated by converting the total carbon dioxide (CO 2) emissions from each construction phase to gallons using the conversion factors for CO 2 to gallons of gasoline or diesel. Construction is estimated to occur in 2020 through 2021 based on the construction phasing schedule. The analysis assumes a construction start date of May 2020, which represents the earliest date construction would initiate. In the event construction is started later than May 2020, the analysis performed represents the worst-case scenario for energy consumption, because equipment and vehicle efficiencies for later years would be slightly greater due to more stringent standards for in-use off- road equipment and heavy-duty trucks, as well as fleet turnover replacing older equipment and vehicles in later years. The conversion factor for gasoline is 8.78 kilograms per metric ton CO 2 per gallon, and the conversion factor for diesel is 10.21 kilograms per metric ton CO 2 per gallon (The Climate Registry 2018). The estimated diesel fuel usage from construction equipment is shown in Table 9, Construction Equipment Diesel Demand for Off-Road Equipment. Table 9. Construction Equipment Diesel Demand for Off-Road Equipment Phase Pieces of Equipment Equipment CO2 (MT) kg/CO2/Gallon Gallons Demolition 5 28.62 10.21 2,803.54 Site Prep 3 7.62 10.21 746.76 Grading 3 6.87 10.21 672.81 ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 49 February 2020 Table 9. Construction Equipment Diesel Demand for Off-Road Equipment Phase Pieces of Equipment Equipment CO2 (MT) kg/CO2/Gallon Gallons Building Construction 7 325.53 10.21 31,883.51 Paving 3 11.86 10.21 1,161.43 Architectural Coating 1 2.56 10.21 250.50 Total 37,518.54 Sources: Pieces of equipment and equipment CO2 (Appendix A); kg/CO2/Gallon (The Climate Registry 2018). Notes: CO2 = carbon dioxide; MT = metric ton; kg = kilogram. Fuel consumption from worker, vendor, and haul truck trips are estimated by converting the total CO 2 emissions from each construction phase to gallons using the conversion factors for CO 2 to gallons of gasoline or diesel. Worker vehicles are assumed to be gasoline and vendor/hauling vehicles are assumed to be diesel. Calculations for total worker, vendor, and haul truck fuel consumption are provided in Tables 10, 11, and 12. Table 10. Construction Worker Gasoline Demand Phase Trips Vehicle MT CO2 kg/CO2/Gallon Gallons Demolition 378 1.93 8.78 220.03 Site Prep 80 0.41 8.78 46.57 Grading 88 0.45 8.78 51.23 Building Construction 27,846 139.84 8.78 15,927.37 Paving 280 1.39 8.78 157.80 Architectural Coating 320 1.58 8.78 180.34 Total 16,583.35 Sources: Trips and vehicle CO2 (Appendix A); kg/CO2/Gallon (The Climate Registry 2018). Notes: MT = metric ton; CO2 = carbon dioxide; kg = kilogram. Table 11. Construction Vendor Diesel Demand Phase Trips Vehicle MT CO2 kg/CO2/Gallon Gallons Demolition 0 0 10.21 0 Site Prep and Grading 0 0 10.21 0 Trenching 0 0 10.21 0 Building Construction 10,71 0 132.67 10.21 12,994.54 Paving 0 0 10.21 0 Architectural Coating 0 0 10.21 0 Total 12,994.54 Sources: Trips and vehicle CO2 (Appendix A); kg/CO2/Gallon (The Climate Registry 2018). Notes: MT = metric ton; CO2 = carbon dioxide; kg = kilogram. ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 50 February 2020 Table 12. Construction Haul Truck Diesel Demand Phase Trips Vehicle MT CO2 kg/CO2/Gallon Gallons Demolition 185 7.14 10.21 699.5 Site Prep and Grading 0 0 10.21 0 Trenching 170 6.56 10.21 642.8 Building Construction 0 0 10.21 0 Paving 0 0 10.21 0 Architectural Coating 0 0 10.21 0 Total 1,342.34 Sources: Trips and vehicle CO2 (Appendix A); kg/CO2/Gallon (The Climate Registry 2018). Notes: MT = metric ton; CO2 = carbon dioxide; kg = kilogram. In summary, construction of the proposed Project is conservatively anticipated to consume 16,583 gallons of gasoline and 51,855 consumption of petroleum is approximately 74.8 million gallons per day. (EIA 2017). Building C would be renovated in accordance with current building code requirements, which are more stringent and energy efficient than those that were in effect in 1978-79 when the building was constructed. All construction activities must be conducted in accordance with applicable regulations related to the recycling of construction and demolition debris. Therefore, -term construction activities would not result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during Project construction, and no mitigation is required. Operation Energy Use Electricity. Operation of the proposed Project upon buildout would require electricity for multiple purposes, including cooling, lighting, appliances, and various equipment. Additionally, the supply, conveyance, treatment, and distribution of water and wastewater would indirectly result in electricity usage. Electricity consumption associated with proposed Project operation is based on CalEEMod outputs presented in Appendix A of this IS/MND. CalEEMod default values for energy consumption for each land use were applied for the Project analysis. The energy use from non-residential land uses is calculated in CalEEMod based on the California Commercial End-Use Survey database. For parking lots, CalEEMod includes calculation of energy use from lighting, ventilation and elevators in parking lots and structures and is based on the type of parking lot selected by the user. Energy use in buildings (both natural gas and electricity) is divided by the program into end use categories subject to California Building Standards Code (Title 24) requirements (end uses associated with the building envelope, such as the HVAC system, water heating system, and integrated lighting) and those not subject to California Building Standards Code requirements (such as appliances, - Title 24 of the standards. The most recent amendments to Title 24, Part 6, referred to as the 2016 standards, became effective on January 1, 2017. Although not accounted for in the modeling, energy consumption of the proposed Project would also be reduced through installation of high-efficiency lighting, per Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations. According to these estimations, the proposed Project would consume ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 51 February 2020 approximately 1,369,238 kilowatt-hours per year during operation. For comparison, in 2017 the total residential and non-residential electricity demand in Los Angeles County was 67,569,242,472 kilowatt- hours (CEC 2018). For these reasons, the electricity consumption of the propose Project would not be considered inefficient or wasteful, and impacts would be less than significant. Natural Gas. Project operation would require natural gas for various purposes, including water heating and natural gas appliances. Natural gas consumption associated with operation is based on the CalEEMod outputs. According to these estimations, the proposed Project would consume approximately 5,104,001 kilo-British Thermal Units per year. For comparison, in 2017 the non-residential natural gas use within Los Angeles County was 295,601,223,219 kilo-British Thermal Units (CEC 2018). Since the proposed Project would comply with applicable Title 24 requirements the proposed Project would not be considered inefficient or wasteful, and impacts would be less than significant. Petroleum. During operations, the majority of fuel consumption resulting from the proposed Project would involve the use of motor vehicles traveling to and from the Project site including hotel guests, retail and restaurant customers, deliveries, and employees. Petroleum fuel consumption associated with motor vehicles traveling to and from the Project site is a function of the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as a result of proposed Project operation. The annual VMT attributable to the proposed Project is expected to be 6,047,824 VMT. Similar to the construction worker and vendor trips, fuel consumption from operational trips are estimated by converting the total CO2 emissions from operation of the proposed Project to gallons using the conversion factors for CO2 to gallons of gasoline or diesel. Based on the annual fleet mix provided in CalEEMod, 92.2% of the fleet range from light-duty to medium-duty vehicles and motorcycles are assumed to run on gasoline. The remaining 7.8% of vehicles represent medium-heavy duty to heavy-duty vehicles and buses and are assumed to run on diesel. Calculations for annual mobile fuel consumption are provided in Table 13. Table 13. Annual Mobile Source Demand (Gasoline and Diesel) Vehicle MT CO2 kg/CO2/Gallon Gallons Gasoline: Operations 2,480.21 8.78 282,484.28 Diesel: Operations 210.25 10.21 20,593.03 Sources: Trips and vehicle CO2 (Appendix A; kg/CO2/Gallon (The Climate Registry 2018). Notes: MT = metric ton; CO2 = carbon dioxide; kg = kilogram Over the lifetime of the proposed Project, the fuel efficiency of on-road vehicles of hotel guests, retail and restaurant customers, deliveries, and employees, commuting to the site is expected to increase. As such, the amount of petroleum consumed as a result of vehicular trips to and from the Project site during operation would decrease over time. There are numerous regulations in place that require and encourage increased fuel efficiency. For example, the CARB has adopted an approach to passenger vehicles by combining the control of smog-causing pollutants and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions into a single, coordinated package of standards. The approach also includes efforts to support and accelerate the number of plug-in hybrids and zero-emissions vehicles in California (CARB 2013). Additionally, in response to Senate Bill 375, CARB adopted the goal of reducing per-capita GHG emissions from 2005 levels by 8% by 2020, and 18% by 2035 for light-duty passenger vehicles in the planning area for the SCAG. As such, operation of the proposed Project is expected to use decreasing amounts of petroleum over time due to advances in fuel economy. ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO)PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 52 February 2020 In summary, although the proposed Project would increase petroleum use during operation as a result of hotel guests, retail and restaurant customers, deliveries, and employees commuting to the site, the use would be a fraction of the state- and County-wide use and, due to efficiency increases, would diminish over time. Given these considerations, petroleum consumption associated with the proposed Project would not be considered inefficient or wasteful and would result in a less-than-significant impact. No mitigation is required. b) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Less Than Significant Impact. Part 6 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations was established in andards. Part 6 establishes energy efficiency standards for residential and non-residential buildings constructed in California to reduce energy demand and consumption. Part 6 is updated periodically (every 3 years) to incorporate and consider new energy efficiency technologies and methodologies. Title 24 also includes Part 11, the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen). CALGreen institutes mandatory minimum environmental performance standards for all ground-up, new construction of commercial, low-rise residential, and state- owned buildings, as well as schools and hospitals. The 2016 CALGreen standards became effective on January 1, 2017. The proposed Project would meet Title 24 and CALGreen standards to reduce energy demand and increase energy efficiency. In 2012, 27 of the 31 San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments member agencies, including the City of Arcadia, participated in the Energy Action Plan project, which is funded by California utility ratepayers and administered by SCE. The funding was awarded to the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments to implement activities to achieve statewide energy efficiency goals. The City of Arcadia developed resource protection and sustainability goals and policies within the Natural Resource and Sustainability Element of the -5. Relevant RS-5 policy are summarized as follows: 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-5.8: Promote innovative building, site design, and orientation techniques which minimize energy use. Policy RS-5.17: Investigate providing incentives for LEED certifiable or equivalent for new The proposed Project would follow applicable energy standards and regulations during construction. In addition, the proposed Project would be built and operated in accordance with all existing, applicable regulations at the time of construction. As such, the proposed Project would not conflict with existing energy standards and regulations; therefore, impacts during construction and operation of the proposed Project would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 53 February 2020 3.7 Geology and Soils Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1- B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? a) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Arcadia is located at the base of the east-west trending San Gabriel Mountains, which are part of the Transverse Ranges. The Project site is located in the northwest portion of the San Gabriel Valley, which is bound on the north by the San Gabriel Mountains, on the west by the Repetto and Merced Hills, on the south by the Puente Hills, and on ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO)PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 54 February 2020 the east by the San Jose Hills (City of Arcadia 2010a). The Project site is located on a gentle, southern sloping gradient and is underlain by Quaternary gravel and sand deposited from major stream channels and alluvium. Like all of Southern California, the Project site is subject to potential moderate to strong seismic ground shaking as a result of movement along major regional faults. The closest fault to the Project site is the Raymond Fault, located approximately 2,000 feet to the northwest (CGS 2010). The Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone associated with this fault is located approximately 1,200 feet from the Project site, at the closest point (CGS 2017). The Project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and there are no known faults beneath the site. Therefore, the risk of fault rupture in the immediate vicinity of the Project site is low. The proposed Project would not directly or indirectly cause or exacerbate existing fault rupture risks that could directly or indirectly cause loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake as a result of construction of the new buildings on the site. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Arcadia is located in a seismically active area. Movement along major faults in proximity to the City, as well as along buried blind thrust faults, can occur across the greater Los Angeles Area. These faults, as well as numerous other regional faults, are capable of producing moderate to large earthquakes that could affect the City. However, the proposed Project would be constructed in accordance with state and City building standards. As with all development within the City, the proposed Project is required to comply with the California Building Code. Proper engineering and compliance with Title 24 of the California Building Code would ensure the maximum feasible protection of the buildings and occupants. The Building Code includes requirements to ensure that new development does not cause or exacerbate geological and soil hazards, including seismic ground shaking. In addition, measures to minimize the risk of loss, injury, and death from the construction of new buildings are included in the Arcadia General Plan, Safety Element, with specific provisions for seismic design. The proposed Project would not directly or indirectly cause or exacerbate adverse effects involving seismic ground shaking. As a result, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact. Included within A City of Arcadia 2010b) is a map of liquefaction zones and regional groundwater levels for the City. Based on historical highest groundwater levels, the City is generally underlain by groundwater levels approximately 100 feet below ground surface (City of Arcadia 2010c). These underlying soils would not be prone to liquefaction and associated lateral spreading during the ground motion expected during a major seismic event. As a result, both the California Geological Survey and the City of Arcadia has determined that the Project site is not located in a zone of liquefaction (CGS 2017). Furthermore, as with all development within the City, the proposed Project is required to comply with the California Building Code. The California Building Code includes requirements to ensure that new development does not cause or exacerbate geological and soil hazards, including seismic ground shaking and seismically related ground failure. Measures to minimize the risk of loss, injury, and death from the construction of new buildings are included in the California Building Code, with specific provisions for seismic design. The proposed Project would not directly or ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO)PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 55 February 2020 indirectly cause or exacerbate adverse effects involving seismic-related ground failure, such as liquefaction. As a result, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. iv) Landslides? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project is located on a gently sloping, relatively flat region in central Arcadia. Both the California Geological Survey (CGS General Safety Element (City of Arcadia 2010b) have determined that the P region susceptible to landslides. The closest earthquake-induced landslide zone is located approximately 1.5 miles to the northeast of the Project site (CGS 2017). As such, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact. The Project site is not located in a hillside development area or agricultural zone that could be susceptible to eroding soils or the loss of topsoil due to site development. The Project site is fully developed and paved, with negligible amounts of soil exposed in areas of ornamental landscaping. Development of the Project site would not require the export of soils. During construction, erosion-control measures would be implemented as part of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the Project. Prior to the start of construction activities, the Contractor is required to file a Permit Registration Document with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) in order to obtain coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with the Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order No 2009-009-DWQ as amended by 2010-0014-DWQ and 2012-0006-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002) or the latest approved general permit. This permit is required for earthwork that result in the disturbance of one acre or more of total land area. The required SWPPP will mandate the implementation of BMPs to reduce or eliminate construction-related pollutants in the runoff, including sediment. Implementation of the erosion control BMPs in the SWPPP would reduce construction- related soil erosion and there would be no loss of topsoil associated with Project implementation. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Less Than Significant Impact. According to the State of California Seismic Hazard Zones map for the Mount Wilson Quadrangle (CGS 2017) City of Arcadia 2010b), the site is not located in an area potentially susceptible to earthquake induced landslides, lateral spreading, or liquefaction. Based on the relatively flat topography, Project construction would not initiate a landslide or increase the potential for landslides to occur. Additionally, liquefaction is unlikely due to historic groundwater depths at the Project site exceeding 100 feet. The San Gabriel Valley is not an area of historic or recent groundwater subsidence due to groundwater withdrawal (Luhdorff & Scalmanini 2014). Therefore, potential impacts associated with landslides, lateral spreading, liquefaction, collapse and subsidence would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 56 February 2020 d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Less Than Significant Impact. Expansive soils are clay-rich soils that shrink when dry and swell when wet. This change in volume can exert substantial pressure on foundations, resulting in structural distress and/or DA 2019). These soils typically contain very little clay material and are usually not subject to expansion. Project construction would not increase or exacerbate the potential for expansive soils to create substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property. Additionally, the proposed Project would be constructed according to the mandatory seismic and structural design guidelines established in the California Building Code, Chapter 16, Section 1601 et seq.8 As such, impacts would be less than significant. e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No Impact. The proposed Project is currently served by sewer infrastructure. No septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal is proposed; therefore, the proposed Project would have no impacts related to soils supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. f)Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The Project area is located in the City of Arcadia, within the San Gabriel Valley of Los Angeles County, southwest of the San Bernardino Mountains (Dibblee and Ehrenspeck 1998). The Project area is underlain by Quaternary gravel and sand (map unit Qg; <11,700 years old), derived as alluvial fans and major stream channels (Dibblee and Ehrenspeck 1998). Quaternary older alluvial fan deposits (map unit Qof; ~2.58 million to 11,700 years old) are mapped nearby, and are comprised of sand and gravel (Dibblee and Ehrenspeck 1998). The alluvial fan deposits in this area are may be encountered at an unknown depth beneath surficial Holocene age deposits (Dibblee and Ehrenspeck 1998). Although no fossils are recorded from within the Project area itself, they are documented nearby from similar sedimentary deposits as those underlying the Project area. According to the records search results received from the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (LACM), a fossil specimen of mastodon (Mammut) was recovered approximately 4.7 miles northwest of the Project site, south of the intersection between Washington Boulevard and Allen Avenue in Pasadena, near the western end of Brigden Road from an unknown depth below the ground surface (McLeod 2019). Another fossil locality, located southeast of the Project area, south of Arrow Highway and east of Irwindale Boulevard, and north of Dalton Wash, included a fossil specimen of mastodon (Mammut americanum) recovered from a gravel pit between 115 and 120 feet below the original ground surface at LACM 1807 (McLeod 2019). In Eagle Rock, east of I-110 (Pasadena Freeway) and Eagle Rock Boulevard, south of York Boulevard, locality LACM (CIT) 342 yielded fossil specimens of turkey (Parapavo californicus) and mammoth (Mammuthus) at a depth of 14 feet below the ground surface (McLeod 2019). Both specimens were documented in scientific publications (Miller 1942; Roth 1984). The LACM recommended paleontological monitoring of substantial excavations into 8 California Building Code, Chapter 16, Section 1601 et seq. Structural Design. ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 57 February 2020 Quaternary older alluvial fan deposits at depth within the Project area and sediment sample collection to determine the presence of microvertebrate specimens. No paleontological resources were identified within the Project area as a result of the institutional records search or desktop geological review. As such, the Project site is not anticipated to be underlain by unique geologic features. If intact paleontological resources are located on site, ground-disturbing activities associated with construction of the Project, such as grading during site preparation and excavations for the swimming pool, have the potential to destroy a unique paleontological resource or site. As such, the Project area is considered to be potentially sensitive for paleontological resources. Given the proximity of past fossil discoveries in the surrounding area and potential for underlying, Pleistocene-age older alluvial fan deposits, the sedimentary deposits within the Project area are considered to be highly sensitive for supporting paleontological resources. Younger, Holocene age alluvial fan deposits within the Project area have low potential to yield paleontological resources, and thus, requires no mitigation during excavation. Implementation of MM-GEO-1 would ensure that potential impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. MM-GEO-1 Prior to commencement of any grading activity on-site, the Applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist per the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) (2010) guidelines. The paleontologist shall prepare a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) for the project. The PRIMP shall be consistent with the SVP (2010) guidelines and should outline requirements for preconstruction meeting attendance and worker environmental awareness training, where monitoring is required within the project area based on construction plans and/or geotechnical reports, procedures for adequate paleontological monitoring and discoveries treatment, and paleontological methods (including sediment sampling for microvertebrate fossils), reporting, and collections management. The qualified paleontologist shall attend the preconstruction meeting and a paleontological monitor shall be on-site during all rough grading and other significant ground-disturbing activities in previously undisturbed, fine-grained older Quaternary alluvial fan deposits. These deposits may be encountered at depths as shallow as 5-10 feet below ground surface. In the event that paleontological resources (e.g., fossils) are unearthed during grading, the paleontological monitor will temporarily halt and/or divert grading activity to allow recovery of paleontological resources. The area of discovery will be roped off with a 50-foot radius buffer. Once documentation and collection of the find is completed, the monitor will remove the rope and allow grading to recommence in the area of the find. 3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO)PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 58 February 2020 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Less Than Significant Impact. Climate change refers to any significant change in measures of climate, such as temperature, precipitation, or wind patterns, lasting for an extended period of time (decades or longer). and many factors (natural and human) can cause change is the trapping and build- creates a livable environment on Earth. Human activities that emit additional GHGs to the atmosphere increase the amount of infrared radiation that gets absorbed before escaping into space, thus enhancing the ce temperature to rise. Global climate change is a cumulative impact; a project contributes to this impact through its incremental contribution combined with the cumulative increase of all other sources of GHGs. Thus, GHG impacts are recognized exclusively as cumulative impacts (CAPCOA 2008). A GHG is any gas that absorbs infrared radiation in the atmosphere; in other words, GHGs trap heat in the atmosphere. As defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 38505(g) for purposes of administering many 2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, and nitrogen trifluoride (see also CEQA Guidelines Section 15364.5). The three GHGs evaluated herein are CO2, CH4, and N2O because these are the only GHG gases would be emitted during project construction and/or operations. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change developed the global warming potential (GWP) concept to compare the ability of each GHG to trap heat in the atmosphere relative to another gas. The reference gas used is CO2; therefore, GWP-weighted emissions are measured in metric tons (MT) of CO 2 equivalent (CO2e). Consistent with CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2, this GHG emissions analysis assumed the GWP for CH 4 is 25 (i.e., emissions of 1 MT of CH4 are equivalent to emissions of 25 MT of CO 2), and the GWP for N2O is 298, based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Assessment Report (IPCC 2007). As discussed in Section 3.3, Air Quality, of this IS/MND, the proposed Project is located within the jurisdictional boundaries of the SCAQMD. In October 2008, the SCAQMD proposed recommended numeric CEQA significance thresholds for GHG emissions for lead agencies to use in assessing GHG impacts of residential and commercial development projects as presented in its Draft Guidance Document Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold (SCAQMD 2008). This document, which builds on the previous guidance prepared by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, explored various approaches for establishing a significance threshold for GHG emissions. The draft interim CEQA thresholds guidance ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO)PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 59 February 2020 document was not adopted or approved by the Governing Board. However, in December 2008, the SCAQMD adopted an interim 10,000 MT CO2e per-year screening level threshold for stationary source/industrial projects for which the SCAQMD is the lead agency (see SCAQMD Resolution No. 08-35, December 5, 2008). The 10,000 MT CO2e per-year threshold, which was derived from GHG reduction targets established in Executive Order (EO) S-3-05, was based on the conclusion that the threshold was consistent with achieving an emissions capture rate of 90% of all new or modified stationary source projects. The SCAQMD formed a GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group to work with SCAQMD staff on developing GHG CEQA significance thresholds until statewide significance thresholds or guidelines are established. From December 2008 to September 2010, the SCAQMD hosted working group meetings and revised the draft threshold proposal several times, although it did not officially provide these proposals in a subsequent document. The SCAQMD has continued to consider adoption of significance thresholds for residential and general land use development projects. The most recent proposal issued by SCAQMD, issued in September 2010, uses the following tiered approach to evaluate potential GHG impacts from various uses (SCAQMD 2010): Tier 1. Determine if CEQA categorical exemptions are applicable. If not, move to Tier 2. Tier 2. Consider whether or not the proposed project is consistent with a locally adopted GHG reduction plan that has gone through public hearing and CEQA review, that has an approved inventory, includes monitoring, etc. If not, move to Tier 3. Tier 3. Consider whether the project generates GHG emissions in excess of screening thresholds for individual land uses. The 10,000 MT CO2e per-year threshold for industrial uses would be recommended for use by all lead agencies. Under option 1, separate screening thresholds are proposed for residential projects (3,500 MT CO2e per year), commercial projects (1,400 MT CO2e per year), and mixed-use projects (3,000 MT CO2e per year). Under option 2, a single numerical screening threshold of 3,000 MT CO 2e per year would be used for all non-industrial projects. If the project generates emissions in excess of the applicable screening threshold, move to Tier 4. Tier 4. Consider whether the project generates GHG emissions in excess of applicable performance standards for the project service population (population plus employment). The efficiency targets were established based on the goal of Assembly Bill (AB) 32 to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The 2020 efficiency targets are 4.8 MT CO 2e per-service population for project-level analyses and 6.6 MT CO2e per-service population for plan-level analyses. If the project generates emissions in excess of the applicable efficiency targets, move to Tier 5. Tier 5. Consider the implementation of CEQA mitigation (including the purchase of GHG offsets) to reduce the project efficiency target to Tier 4 levels. ificant -use land use type quantitative threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e per year. Per the SCAQMD guidance, construction emissions should be amortized over the operational life of the proposed Project, which is assumed to be 30 years (SCAQMD 2008). Thus, this impact analysis compares estimated operational emissions plus amortized construction emissions to the proposed SCAQMD threshold of 3,000 MT CO 2e per year. Construction Emissions. Construction of the proposed Project would result in GHG emissions primarily associated with the use of off-road construction equipment, on-road trucks, and worker vehicles. A ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 60 February 2020 depiction of expected construction schedules (including information regarding phasing, equipment used during each phase, truck trips, and worker vehicle trips) assumed for the purposes of emissions estimation is provided in Appendix A of this IS/MND. On-site sources of GHG emissions include off-road equipment; off-site sources include trucks and worker vehicles. Table 14 presents construction GHG emissions for the proposed Project from on-site and off-site emissions sources. Table 14. Estimated Annual Construction GHG Emissions Year CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Metric Tons per Year 2020 331.23 0.05 0 332.39 2021 341.60 0.04 0 342.66 Total 675.05 Amortized Over 30 Years 22.50 Source: See Appendix A for complete results. Notes: GHG = greenhouse gas; CO2 = carbon dioxide; CH4 = methane; N2O = nitrous oxide; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent. As shown in Table 14, the estimated total GHG emissions in 2020 through 2021 would be approximately 675 MT CO2e. Amortized over 30 years, construction GHG emissions would be approximately 23 MT CO 2e per year. In addition, as with Project-generated construction criteria air pollutant emissions, GHG emissions generated during proposed construction activities would be short-term, lasting only for the duration of the construction period, and would not represent a long-term source of GHG emissions. Because there is no separate GHG threshold for construction, the evaluation of significance is discussed in the operational emissions analysis in the following text. Operational Emissions. Operation of the proposed Project would generate GHG emissions through motor vehicle trips to and from the project site; landscape maintenance equipment operation; energy use (natural gas and generation of electricity consumed by the project); solid waste disposal; and generation of electricity associated with water supply, treatment, and distribution; wastewater treatment; and natural gas consumed by the emergency generator. GHG emissions would also be generated through intermittent maintenance and testing of the diesel emergency generator, limited to 50 hours per year. CalEEMod was used to calculate the annual GHG emissions. GHG emission estimates were based on the mobile source, area source, and energy (natural gas) operational assumptions described in Section 3.3(b), within the air quality analysis. CalEEMod default values were used to estimate GHG emissions associated with energy (electricity) consumption, solid waste, and water and wastewater. The estimated operational (2022) Project-generated GHG emissions from area sources, energy usage, motor vehicles, solid waste generation, water usage and wastewater generation, and stationary sources are shown in Table 15, Estimated Annual Operational GHG Emissions. As discussed in Section 3.3, an emission netting analysis has been performed to account for existing emissions associated with the existing operation of Building C. ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 61 February 2020 Table 15. Estimated Annual Operational GHG Emissions Emission Source CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Metric Tons Per Year Proposed Project Area 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 Energy 659.62 0.02 0.01 662.75 Mobile 2,686.73 0.15 0.00 2,690.47 Stationary 4.77 0.01 0.00 5.02 Solid waste 22.04 1.32 0.00 55.14 Water supply and wastewater 22.96 0.01 0.00 26.34 Total 3,396.11 1.51 0.01 3,439.73 Existing Operation (Building C) Area 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Energy 262.01 0.01 0.00 263.11 Mobile 575.64 0.03 0.00 575.51 Solid waste 5.74 0.34 0.00 14.22 Water supply and wastewater 65.75 0.02 0.01 68.80 Total 909.14 0.40 0.01 922.64 Net Change in Emissions Area 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 Energy 397.61 0.01 0.01 399.64 Mobile 2,111.08 0.012 0.00 2,113.96 Stationary 4.77 0.01 0.00 5.02 Solid waste 16.30 0.98 0.00 40.92 Water supply and wastewater (42.79) (0.01) 0.00 (42.46) Total 2,486.98 1.11 0.01 2,517.09 Amortized Construction Emissions 22.50 Operation + Amortized Construction Total 2,539.59 Notes: CO2 = carbon dioxide; CH4 = methane; N2O = nitrous oxide; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent See Appendix A for detailed results. These emissions reflect operational year 2022. As shown in Table 15, estimated annual net Project -generated GHG emissions would be approximately 2,517 MT CO2e per year as a result of proposed Project operations only. Estimated annual Project - generated operational emissions in 2022 (2,517 MT CO2e per year) plus amortized Project construction emissions (23 MT CO2e per year) would be approximately 2,540 MT CO2e per year, which would not exceed the recommended SCAQMD threshold of 3,000 MT CO 2e per year. Therefore, in relation to the generation significant. No mitigation is required. b) Would the project generate conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Less Than Significant Impact. The City addresses GHG-reducing goals in the General Plan. The City has not adopted a comprehensive climate action plan, and there is currently no local guidance that would be ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO)PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 62 February 2020 applicable to the proposed Project other than the General Plan. At this time, no mandatory GHG plans, policies, regulations, or finalized agency guidelines would apply to the proposed Project. Nonetheless, goals for 2030 or 2050 identified in EO S-3-05 and Senate Bill (SB) 32, is discussed below. City of Arcadia General Plan Policies -reducing goals and policies as follows: Goal RS-2: 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. Policy RS-2.3: Participate in regional strategies and plan to implement SB 375, and in particular, use the legislatively authorized incentives, such as grants and transportation funding and waivers to environmental assessments, to encourage infill and transit-oriented development. Policy RS-2.4: Pursue the strategies in the Land Use and Community Design Element to encourage transit-oriented development in established focused areas. Policy RS-2.5: Pursue the enhancement of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure set forth in the Circulation and Infrastructure Element to help decrease vehicle miles traveled and vehicle trips. Policy RS-2.6: Coordinate land use, circulation, and infrastructure improvement efforts with the West San Gabriel Valley Planning Council, regional planning agencies, and surrounding municipalities. Goal RS-3: carbon footprint Policy RS-3.1: Develop a City fleet that to the extent feasible uses clean, alternative fuel and consists of energy-efficient vehicles. Policy RS-3.2: Incorporate energy- Policy RS-3.3: Educate residents on methods of sustainable driving techniques such as: reducing excessive speeding, preventing car idling, regular car maintenance for maximizing fuel efficiency, and carpooling. ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 63 February 2020 Policy RS-3.4: effect on air pollution and help create voluntary programs that reduce traffic throughout the City. -2 and RS-3. The proposed 3,000 MT CO2e per year. In addition, the proposed Project does not prevent the City from promoting and utilizing clean forms of transportation to reduce the -mile from the Gold Line Station would facilitate the use of public transportation given its close proximity and pedestrian connectivity. Southern California Association of Governments 2016 RTP/SCS The SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS is a regional growth-management strategy that targets per capita GHG reduction from passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks in the Southern California region pursuant to Senate Bill 375. to attain and exceed the GHG emission-reduction targets set forth by CARB, the 2016 RTP/SCS outlines a series of actions and strategies for integrating the transportation network with an overall land use pattern that responds to projected growth, housing needs, changing demographics, and transportation demands. Thus, successful implementation of the 2016 RTP/SCS would result in more complete communities with a variety of transportation and housing choices, while reducing automobile use. With regard to individual developments, such as the proposed Project, the strategies and policies set forth in the 2016 RTP/SCS can be grouped into the following three categories: (1) reduction of vehicle trips and VMT; (2) increased use of alternative fuel vehicles; and (3) improved energy efficiency. The P Consistency with VMT Reduction Strategies and Policies. aspect of the 2016 RTP/SCS is demonstrated via the P with the regional growth forecast assumed in the 2016 RTP/SCS for the City. As discussed in Section 2.2 zoning for the Project site is General Commercial (C-G) with a Downtown Overlay. The proposed Project would be compatible with the C- result of the proposed Project are concluded to have been anticipated in the SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS growth Increased Use of Alternative Fueled Vehicles Policy Initiative. This 2016 RTP/SCS policy initiative focuses on accelerating fleet conversion to electric or other near zero-emission technologies. The proposed Project would comply with the applicable 2016 CALGreen standards and would provide 37 preferred parking spaces for fuel-efficient vehicles and 15 parking spaces for electric vehicle parking. Energy Efficiency Strategies and Policies. The 2016 RTP/SCS goal is to actively encourage and create incentives for energy efficiency, where possible. The proposed Project would comply with the applicable 2016 CALGreen standards. Based on the analysis above, the proposed Project would be consistent with the SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS. ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 64 February 2020 California Air Resources Board Scoping Plan and Reduction Goals The Climate Change Scoping Plan, approved by CARB in 2008 and updated in 2014 and 2017, provides a adopt regulations and other initiatives to reduce GHGs. The Scoping Plan is not directly applicable to specific projects, and it is not intended to be used for project-level evaluations.9 Under the Scoping Plan, however, there are several state regulatory measures aimed at identifying and reducing GHG emissions. CARB and other state agencies have adopted many of the measures identified in the Scoping Plan. Most of these measures focus on area source emissions (e.g., energy usage, and high-GWP GHGs in consumer products) and changes to the vehicle fleet (e.g., hybrid, electric, and more fuel-efficient vehicles) and associated fuels, among others. Regarding consistency with Senate Bill 32 (goal of reducing GHG emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030) and Executive Order S-3-05 (goal of reducing GHG emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050), there are no established protocols or thresholds of significance for that future-year analysis. However, CARB has expressed optimism with regard to both the 2030 and 2050 goals. It states in the First Update to the ia is on track to meet the near-term 2020 GHG emissions limit and is well positioned to maintain and continue reductions beyond 2020 as 1990 levels, CARB (2014) states the following: This level of reduction is achievable in California. In fact, if California realizes the expected benefits of existing policy goals (such as 12,000 megawatts of renewable distributed generation by 2020, net zero energy homes after 2020, existing building retrofits under Assembly Bill 758, and others) it could reduce emissions by 2030 to levels squarely in line with those needed in the developed world and to stay on track to reduce emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. In other words, CARB believes that the state is on a trajectory to meet the 2030 and 2050 GHG reduction targets set forth in AB 32, Senate Bill 32, and Executive Order S-3-05. This is confirmed in the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update, which states (CARB 2017): The Proposed Plan builds upon the successful framework established by the Initial Scoping Plan and First Update, while also identifying new, technologically feasibility and cost-effective strategies to ensure that California meets its GHG reduction targets in a way that promotes and rewards innovation, continues to foster economic growth, and delivers improvements to the environment and public health, including in disadvantaged communities. The Proposed Plan is developed to be consistent with requirements set forth in AB 32, SB 32, and AB 197. The proposed Project would not interfere with implementation of GHG reduction goals for 2030 or 2050 2e per year. In additio toward future GHG reductions. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs; therefore, impact would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. 9 The Final Statement of Reasons for the amendments to the CEQA Guidelines reiterates the statement in the Initial Statement of use in determining the significance of individual projects because it is conceptual at this stage and relies on the future development of regulations to implement the strategies identified in the ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 65 February 2020 3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less Than Significant Impact. Construction would include removal and grading of existing paved surfaces, remodeling of the existing three-story Building C, construction of a new five-story Building D, repaving parking areas and driveways, and installation of new landscaped areas and concrete sidewalks. Construction would require the use of heavy machinery and equipment. Potentially hazardous materials used during construction may include gasoline, diesel fuel, lubricating oil, grease, adhesive materials, solvents, paints, architectural coatings, and other materials that potentially contain hazardous substances. The materials used would not be in such quantities or stored in such a manner as to pose a significant safety or environmental hazard. Proper use, handling, and storage of materials must be conducted in Activities at the Project site, including those conducted ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 66 February 2020 by a contractor, must comply with existing federal, state, and local regulations regarding hazardous material use, storage, disposal, and transport to prevent Project-related risks to public health and safety. All on-site generated waste that meets hazardous criteria shall be stored, manifested, transported, and disposed of in accordance with federal and state requirements, inc Rule 1403, and the California Code of Regulations, Title 22.10 Based on the age of the structures, there is a potential for hazardous building materials (i.e., asbestos- containing materials (ACM), lead-based paint and universal wastes) to be present. Renovation of the Building C, as well as transportation and disposal of the building materials, could cause a release of such materials to the environment if they are present in the existing building. However, all projects that involve commercial building renovations are required to comply with applicable federal, state, and local requirements, as summarized below. 1. For asbestos: California Code of Regulations, Article 4, Section 1529, pertaining to Asbestos Construction Safety Orders; SCAQMD Rule 1403; Cal/OSHA Asbestos and Carcinogen Unit; California Department of Public Health; California Department of Resources, Recycling, and Recovery (CalRecycle); and EPA National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). 2. For lead: California Labor Code Sections 6716 to 6717; CCR, Title 8, Section 1532.1 et seq.; CCR, Title 17, Section 35001 et seq.; Los Angeles County Environmental Health Lead Program; California Department of Public Health; and EPA Lead Renovation, Repair, and Painting Rule. 3. For universal wastes: Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) universal waste rules; CalRecycle; and EPA Solid Waste Rules (40 CFR Part 273) Operation of the proposed Project would include use of minor quantities of commercially available hazardous materials, such as paints, lubricants, pool cleaners/chlorine, and cleaning materials. These materials are not considered acutely hazardous and are used routinely throughout urban environments for operation of commercial businesses. Handling, storage, and disposal of these hazardous materials would comply with all federal, state, and local requirements, including training of operational staff on proper handling. The proposed Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, and no mitigation is required. b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less Than Significant Impact. Building C on the Project site would be renovated to convert from office uses to hotel uses. Based on information obtained from Los Angeles County Office of the Assessor (LA County 2019), Building C was constructed in 1978-1979. Based on a review of historic aerials and topographic maps (NETR 2019a, 2019b, 2019c), Colorado Place is part of the historic Route 66, which was constructed adjacent to the Project site in 1941. The Project site appears to have been developed as early as 1941, with various commercial structures. Two small structures were previously located on the eastern portion of the Project site beginning in the 1940s; these were removed in the 1970s to accommodate construction of the current Building C. The western portion of the Project site was developed with a commercial structure beginning in the 1950s, which was removed in 2009, with subsequent construction of the existing medical office buildings and parking structure in 2015. 10 California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5 Environmental Health Standards for the Management of Hazardous Waste. ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO)PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 67 February 2020 California Government Code Section 65962.5 requires that information regarding environmental impacts of hazardous substances and wastes be maintained and provided at least annually to the Secretary for Environmental Protection. Commonly referred to as the Cortese List, this information must include the following: sites impacted by hazardous wastes, public drinking water wells that contain detectable levels of contamination, underground storage tanks with unauthorized releases, solid waste disposal facilities from which there is migration of hazardous wastes, and all cease and desist and cleanup and abatement orders. While the Cortese List is no longer maintained as a single list, the following databases provide information that meet the Cortese List requirements: List of Hazardous Waste and Substances sites from DTSC Envirostor database (Health and Safety Codes 25220, 25242, 25356, and 116395); List of Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Sites by County and Fiscal Year from the State Water Resources Control Board (Water Board) GeoTracker database (Health and Safety Code 25295); List of solid waste disposal sites identified by the Water Board with waste constituents above hazardous waste levels outside the waste management unit (Water Code Section 13273 subdivision (e) and California Code of Regulations Title 14 Section 18051)); (Water Code Sections 13301 and 13304); and List of hazardous waste facilities subject to corrective action pursuant to Section 25187.5 of the Health and Safety Code, identified by DTSC. Dudek conducted a search of the online databases that provide information on Cortese List sites. The Project site was not identified in any of the Cortese List databases. Nearby properties were identified on the DTSC and Water Board databases, and are discussed in the subsections below. No nearby properties were identified on the active Cease and Desist Orders/Cleanup and Abatement Orders list, nor on the corrective action list created by DTSC, and no solid waste disposal sites were identified on GeoTracker within one half mile of the Project site. DTSC EnviroStor Database. Dudek identified one site located within 0.5-mile of the Project site. The former Santa Anita Ordnance Training Center, a Former Used Defense Site, which was formerly located near the Project site to the west, in the location of the existing horse race track, Westfield Santa Anita mall, and residential properties. An assessment completed in 1995 determined that no action was required to evaluate the potential for threat of former ordnances, based on the fact that the site has been fully redeveloped and is extensively used by the public (DERP 1995). Based on this information, it is unlikely that this site has impacted the environmental conditions of the Project site. Water Board GeoTracker Database. Five LUST sites were identified within 0.5- mile of the Project site. Four of the sites have been closed and received a No Further Action (NFA) designation from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The remaining open case file is for the Santa Anita Park, 285 West Huntington Drive. While the site address (i.e., site entrance) is located 0.3-mile southeast of the Project site, the actual former LUST is located 0.65-mile west of the Project site. The site has been fully investigated, remediated, and site closure was requested in November 2018 (GSI 2018). Based on the information provided, it is unlikely that the environmental condition of the Project site has been impacted by these nearby sites. In addition to the Cortese List databases, Dudek consulted available online databases that provide environmental information on facilities and sites in the State of California. These databases include the ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO)PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 68 February 2020 CalEPA Regulated Site Portal; National Pipeline Mapping System; and California Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOC DOGGR) online well finder. Five sites were identified on the CalEPA Site Portal within 0.5- mile of the Project site. Of these sites, one was identified as a LUST, which was also identified on the Water Board GeoTracker database as discussed above. The remaining listings appeared to be for administrative and permitting purposes, and do not necessarily indicate a release of hazardous materials to the environment. No findings were identified on the National Pipeline Mapping System database within one mile of the Project site. One idle oil and gas well was identified on DOC DOGGR within one mile of the Project site, approximately 0.85-mile to the southeast (DOC DOGGR 2019). Reportedly, the well was abandoned in 1926. Based on the information provided, it is unlikely that the environmental condition of the Project site has been impacted by these nearby sites. As discussed under Section 3.9(a), construction would involve relatively small amounts of commonly used hazardous substances such as gasoline, diesel fuel, lubricating oil, grease, adhesive materials, solvents, and architectural coatings. These materials are not considered acutely hazardous and are used routinely throughout urban environments for both construction projects and building renovation projects. Further, these materials would be transported, stored, and handled in accordance with all federal, state, and local laws regulating the management and use of hazardous materials. In addition, construction staff would be trained in spill and release response, as applicable. For these reasons, construction of the proposed Project is not anticipated to release hazardous materials into the environment that would pose a threat to human health or the environment. Operation of the proposed Project would include use of minor quantities of commercially available hazardous materials, such as paints, lubricants, and cleaning materials. These materials are not considered acutely hazardous and are used routinely throughout urban environments for operation of commercial businesses. Handling, storage, and disposal of these hazardous materials would comply with all federal, state, and local requirements, including training of operational staff on use, handling, and spill response. The proposed Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment, and no mitigation is required. c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less Than Significant Impact. There are three schools within the general vicinity of the Project site: Barnhart School, located approximately 0.15-mile north of the Project site; Excelsior School, located approximately 0.16-mile east of the Project site; and First Avenue Middle School, located approximately 0.37-mile southeast of the Project site. None of these schools are located adjacent to the Project site. As discussed in Section 3.9(a), Project construction would involve relatively small amounts of commonly used hazardous substances such as gasoline, diesel fuel, lubricating oil, grease, adhesive materials, solvents, paints and architectural coatings. In the event of an accidental release of fuels, oils, lubricants, or other hazardous materials associated with construction, hazardous emissions could occur within a quarter mile of a school. All spills would be quickly contained and cleaned up. Potential effects would be temporary and localized. Hazardous substances would be transported and handled in accordance with all federal, state, and local laws regulating the management and use of hazardous materials. Use of these materials for their intended purpose and in accordance with applicable safety laws would not pose a significant risk to nearby schools. ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO)PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 69 February 2020 As discussed in previous sections, operation of the proposed Project would include use of minor quantities of commercially available hazardous materials, which are not considered acutely hazardous and are used routinely throughout urban environments for operation of commercial businesses. Handling, storage, and disposal of these hazardous materials would comply with all federal, state, and local requirements. Operational staff would be trained in handling, storage, and spill response techniques to avoid a release that would impact surrounding properties, including nearby schools. Therefore, Project operations would not pose a hazard to schools involving hazardous emissions or the handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. d) Would the project be located on a site that 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? No Impact. As explained in Section 3.9(b) above, the Project site is not located on or adjacent to a hazardous material site as described in Government Code Section 65962.5. Therefore, no hazardous materials are expected to be present, and no impact would occur. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The Project site is not located within two miles of a public or public use airport, nor is it located within an airport land use plan. Therefore, no safety hazard or excessive noise risk would be present, and no impact would occur. f)Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. The City of Arcadia General Plan includes a Safety Element Chapter, which addresses community safety for environmental hazards, human caused hazards, threats to national security, emergency services, and emergency preparedness (City of Arcadia 2010b). In addition, Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LADPW) has designated disaster evacuation routes for the City of Arcadia. Colorado Place and Huntington Drive, both located adjacent to the Project site, are designated disaster routes. Construction of the proposed Project would not require road closures in public right-of-ways of Colorado Place or Huntington Drive. Therefore, emergency service response times and disaster evacuation routes would not be affected. Prior to operation, the proposed Project would receive all required permits and certificates for occupancy and operation, including those issued by the City of Arcadia Fire Department, which is the agency in charge of emergency response at the Project site. Therefore, no interference or impairment of the emergency response or emergency evacuation plans would occur, and no impact would occur. g) Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires? No Impact. The Project site is not located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). The nearest VHFHSZ is located approximately one mile north of the Project site. Additionally, the Project site is located in an urbanized environment with little potential for wildland fires. Therefore, no exposure to wildland fires would be present, and no impact would occur. ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 70 February 2020 3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site; ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site; iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or iv) impede or redirect flood flows? d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact would occur if the proposed Project would discharge water that did not meet the water quality standards established by the SWRCB NPDES and waste discharge requirement permit programs, and the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control LARWQCB) Los Angeles Region Basin Plan for the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties (Basin Plan; LARWQCB 2019). The proposed Project is not anticipated to violate any water quality standard or waste discharge requirement during construction and operation, for the reasons described below. ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 71 February 2020 Construction Construction General Permit. Renovation and remodeling of the three-story structure (Building C) and the construction of a new five-story structure (Building D) would disturb a large portion of the Project site. Grading and excavation activities would result in soil disturbance, which could potentially increase sediment loads in stormwater runoff by eroding soils newly loosened by construction activities. Additionally, the proposed Project could adversely affect water quality through the accidental spills and leaks of construction-related pollutants such as petroleum products from construction vehicles. However, the proposed Project would comply with the provisions of the Construction General Permit (CGP), which is NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Associated with Construction Activities (Order No 2009- 009-DWQ as amended by 2010-0014-DWQ and 2012-0006-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002). Because the proposed Project is greater than 1 acre in size, the Applicant would be required to submit a Notice of Intent to the LARWQCB in order to obtain approval to complete construction activities under the CGP. This permit would include a number of design, management, and monitoring requirements for the protection of water quality and the reduction of construction phase impacts related to stormwater (and some non-stormwater) discharges. Permit requirements would include the preparation of a SWPPP, implementation and monitoring of BMPs, implementation of best available technology for toxic and non-conventional pollutants, implementation of best conventional technology for conventional pollutants, and periodic submittal of performance summaries and reports to the LARWQCB. The SWPPP would apply to the Project as a whole and would include reference to the major construction areas, materials staging areas, and haul roads. Typical BMPs that could be incorporated into the SWPPP include the following: Diverting off-site runoff away from the construction site Vegetating landscaped/vegetated swale areas as soon as feasible following grading activities Placing perimeter straw wattles to prevent off-site transport of sediment Using drop inlet protection (filters and sand bags or straw wattles), with sandbag check dams within paved areas Regular watering of exposed soils to control dust during demolition and construction Implementing specifications for demolition/construction waste handling and disposal Using contained equipment wash-out and vehicle maintenance areas Maintaining erosion and sedimentation control measures throughout the construction period Stabilizing construction entrances to avoid trucks from imprinting soil and debris onto City roadways Training, including for subcontractors, on general site housekeeping ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 72 February 2020 A Municipal Code, Chapter 8, Part 2, Section 7827 and 7828, which requires that each operator of any construction activity submit evidence to the City that all applicable permits have been obtained, including but not limited to the State Water Board's CGP and a Low Impact Development (LID) plan.11 Given the above, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on water quality standards and waste discharge requirements and would not otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality during construction. As a result, no mitigation is required. Operations Stormwater Management and Discharge Control. The purpose of th Section 7800 of the Municipal Code, is to ensure the future health, safety, and general welfare of citizens by: (a) eliminating non-stormwater discharges to the municipal separate storm drain; (b) controlling the discharge from spills, dumping or disposal of materials other than stormwater to municipal separate storm drains; and (c) reducing pollutants in stormwater discharges to the maximum extent practicable. Section 7820 of the Municipal Code prohibits the discharge of non- The proposed Project would a anticipated to violate any water quality standard or waste discharge requirement during operation. Low Impact Development Features. In the City of Arcadia, all development and redevelopment projects must comply with the latest County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works LID Standards Manual (County of Los Angeles 2004). The LID Standards Manual complies with the requirements of the NPDES Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit for stormwater and non-stormwater discharges from the MS4, within the coastal watersheds of Los Angeles County (CAS004001, Order No. R4-2012-0175), referred to as the 2012 MS4 Permit. The LID Standards Manual provides guidance for the implementation of stormwater quality control measures in new development and redevelopment projects with the intention of improving water quality and mitigating potential water quality impacts from stormwater and non- stormwater discharges (County of Los Angeles 2014). A preliminary LID Plan, included as Appendix D, was prepared for the Project in July 2019 by Lin Consulting. According to the LID Plan (Appendix D), the Project site is comprised of roughly 5% pervious and 95% impervious area under existing conditions. Upon operation of the proposed Project, the site would be approximately 15% pervious and 85% impervious, which would result in increased stormwater infiltration and groundwater percolation and less surface runoff. Therefore, this Project falls into redevelopment of a previously developed site in an urbanized area that does not increase the effective impervious area or decrease the infiltration capacity of pervious areas compared to the pre-project conditions. Project design, construction, and operation would be completed in accordance with the LID Standards Manual and with the Project-specific LID Plan, with the goal of reducing the amount of pollutants in stormwater and urban runoff. The LID Plan includes permanent control measures to reduce the long-term impacts of the Project on water quality and the tributary waterways. The LID Plan would use site design and storm -development -development hydrology by 11 City of Arcadia Municipal Code, Chapter 8, Part 2, Section 7800 Stormwater Management and Discharge Control City of Arcadia Municipal Code, Chapter 8, Part 2, Section 7827 Control of Runoff Required Construction Activity. City of Arcadia Municipal Code, Chapter 8, Part 2, Section 7828 Low Impact Development Control of Runoff Required for Planning Priority Projects. ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO)PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 73 February 2020 using design techniques that filter, store, evaporate, and detain runoff close to the source of rainfall. Some examples of these LID measures that would be incorporated into the Project include: Utilizing the existing 35- and 44-unit stormwater filtration chambers so as to retain and treat stormwater resulting from the design storm (i.e., 85th percentile, 24-hour rain event), until it is infiltrated into the ground. Providing new biofiltration areas for existing and proposed site drainages so as to capture and treat surface runoff. Utilizing permeable pavement so as to increase the volume of rainwater percolation (thereby reducing surface runoff), prior to discharge into the existing stormwater filtration chambers. Per the LID Manual, the Project must retain the stormwater quality design volume (on site through infiltration, evapotranspiration, stormwater runoff harvest and reuse, or a combination thereof, unless it is demonstrated that it is technically infeasible to do so. The stormwater quality design volume is defined as the greater of the 0.75-inch, 24-hour rain event, or the 85th percentile, 24-hour rain event, as determined from the Los Angeles County 85th percentile precipitation isohyetal map. Compliance with the SWPPP and the Project-specific recommended LID features (Appendix D) would ensure that the Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. As such, Project impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. b) Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan and does not require a General Plan Amendment; anticipated in local and regional planning documents, including the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). As stated in the UWMP (City of Arcadia 2016b), the projected populations used in the UWMP demographic trends, existing land use, general plan land use policies, and input and projections from the Department of Finance and the U.S. Census Bureau. As stated in the UWMP, the Main Basin and Raymond Basin have been well managed for the full period of their respective adjudications, resulting in a stable and reliable water supply for the City during average, single-dry, and multiple-dry water years (City of Arcadia 2016b). Additionally, imported water from Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) can be utilized as a supplemental source of supplies. City water conservation efforts will continue into the future to reduce water demands within the City due to the recently implemented tiered water rate and Water Smart program, which are intended to encourage conservation, thereby making local supplies more reliable. According to the UWMP, the City can sustainably pump 19,500 gallons per minute (gpm) from available groundwater supplies (15,200 gpm from the Main Basin and 4,300 gpm from the Raymond Basin). If the City pumps more water than the allotted amount, replacement water must be purchased from the MWD for spreading and recharging the Main San Gabriel Groundwater Basin; however, the City has not had to rely on any imported water supplies since the 2009-2010 fiscal year (City of Arcadia 2016b). In addition to groundwater and imported water supplies, the City may pre-purchase water for cyclic storage for later use. ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO)PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 74 February 2020 Furthermore, according to the UWMP, the Main Basin has the capacity to store approximately 8.7 million acre- feet of water, while historic basin operations have only ever reached a maximum of one million acre-feet (UWMP 2016a). Per the UWMP, the City does not experience water supply constraints or deficiencies and projects having adequate supply through the planning year 2040. The proposed Project would not include any through 2040. As such, the proposed Project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. Because the Project site is currently fully developed with impervious paving, with only negligible areas of pervious surfaces for ornamental landscaping, the addition of the new development would have a nominal impact on groundwater recharge; if anything, the proposed Project would result in a slight increase in groundwater recharge due to the anticipated 10% increase in pervious area anticipated under the proposed Project. Therefore, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact to groundwater supplies, would not interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, and no mitigation is required. c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site; Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project is currently fully (95%) developed with impervious paving, with only negligible areas (5%) of pervious surfaces for ornamental landscaping. The addition of the new development would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area and would increase the amount of pervious surfaces by 10%, thus resulting in decreased runoff. The Project site currently includes minor parking lot drainage swales, with no creeks or major drainages traversing the site. As previously discussed, during construction, erosion- control measures would be implemented as part of the SWPPP for the Project, consistent with the requirements of the CGP (Order No 2009-009-DWQ as amended by 2010-0014-DWQ and 2012- 0006-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002) or the latest approved general permit. As stated above, for the long- Municipal Code Sections 7800 et seq., which would address stormwater runoff and water quality. Stormwater flows from the Project site would continue to flow into the existing storm drain infrastructure adjacent to the Project site. As stated in Section 3.10(a) above, Project design, construction, and operation would be completed in accordance with the LID Standards Manual and with the Project LID Plan (Appendix D), with the goal of reducing the amount of pollutants in stormwater and urban runoff. The LID Plan includes permanent control measures to reduce the long-term impacts of the Project on water quality and the tributary waterways. The LID Plan would use site design and stormwater management in order -development runoff rates and volumes. The goal of the LID Plan would -development hydrology by using design techniques that filter, store, evaporate, and detain runoff close to the source of rainfall. With adherence to the SWPPP and the Project LID Plan, on- and off-site erosion and siltation would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. No mitigation is required. ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO)PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 75 February 2020 ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site; Less Than Significant Impact. The new Building D would implement the BMPs outlined in the LID Plan, which are intended -development hydrology by using design techniques that filter, store, evaporate, and detain runoff close to the source of rainfall. The recommended LID features would, as much as feasibly possible, minimize impervious surfaces, use landscape a drainage feature, and improve drainage facilities to decrease the potential of flooding on and off site. With these features implemented, the development of Building D is not anticipated to result in an increase of surface runoff and associated likelihood of flooding. In regards to the renovation and remodeling of Building C, the development would minimally alter the drainage patterns of the site and thus would not increase the rate or amount of surface runoff or flooding on or off site. Rather, the proposed Project would result in an overall 10% increase in pervious area on site, and, as such, would increase the volume of stormwater infiltration and percolation, as well as decrease the rate and volume of surface runoff on the Project site, thereby reducing the likelihood for flooding on or off site when compared to existing conditions. As such, the Projects impacts related to runoff that could result in flooding on site or off site would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or Less Than Significant Impact. As previously discussed, during construction, erosion-control measures would be implemented as part of the SWPPP for the Project, consistent with the requirements of the CGP (Order No 2009-009-DWQ as amended by 2010-0014-DWQ and 2012-0006-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002) or the latest approved general permit. The site-specific SWPPP would ensure that runoff during construction would not exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater infrastructure. In addition, implementation of the Project LID Plan (Appendix D) would mitigate and minimize post- -development hydrology by filtering, storing, evaporating, and detaining water. With these features, the proposed Project would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Project impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. iv) impede or redirect flood flows? No impact. There are no drainages, creeks, or streams on the Project site and no flows would be diverted, impeded, or redirected due to the proposed Project. d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? Less Than Significant Impact. No areas within the City of Arcadia are designated 100-year flood zones (City of Arcadia 2010a). According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Project is located within Zone X, which is an area of Minimal Flood Hazard (FEMA 2008). Therefore, the Project site is not located within an area that would be subject to flooding. ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO)PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 76 February 2020 The Project is, however, located in the Santa Anita Dam flood inundation zone. Approximately half of the City of Arcadia is located within the dam inundation zone. Failure of the Santa Anita Dam would lead to inundation of a large eastern section of the City. At capacity, floodwaters from the dam would travel down Santa Anita Canyon to about Orange Grove Avenue and then spread across the eastern half of the city from Arcadia Wash. To comply with state dam safety regulations, the water level behind the dam is restricted to be no higher than an elevation of 1,230 feet above mean sea level, to meet the California Division of Safety of Dams seismic safety requirements and to reduce the potential magnitude of downstream flooding (City of Arcadia 2010a). Seismic retrofit of the Santa Anita Dam, which was built in 1927, was scheduled to begin in 2019 to improve public safety and prevent flood damage to downstream communities (LADPW 2018b). Dam failure potential is low and the extent of inundation would depend on the amount of water stored at the time of failure. Seismic upgrades will reduce the potential for flooding at the Project site. The Project site is not located near a body of water or close to the ocean and as a result, is not susceptible to tsunamis or seiches. In the unlikely event that the site were to be flooded as a result of dam failure, the risk of release of pollutants due to inundation is low, as the proposed site uses (i.e., hotel) would not include storage of hazardous materials or hazardous waste. Therefore, Projects impacts would be less than significant. e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Less Than Significant Impact. The Basin Plan for the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties is the Water Quality Control Plan (WQMP) for the Los Angeles Region, which includes the City of Arcadia. The Basin Plan: (i) identifies beneficial uses for surface waters and groundwaters, (ii) includes the narrative and numerical water quality objectives that must be attained or maintained to protect the designated beneficial uses and conform to the state's anti-degradation policy, and (iii) describes implementation programs and other actions that are necessary to achieve the water quality objectives established in the Basin Plan (LARWQCB 2019). The existing, potential or intermittent beneficial uses for the Arcadia Wash, the Santa Anita Wash, and the Rio Hondo Channel, where stormwaters from the City are discharged and for the underlying groundwater basins in the City (Raymond and San Gabriel Valley groundwater basins) include: domestic water supply (MUN); industrial activities (IND); industrial process dependent upon water quality (PROC); agricultural supply (AGR); groundwater recharge (GWR); Water Recreation (REC-1, REC-2); warm water ecosystems (WARM); cold water ecosystems (COLD); terrestrial ecosystems (WILD); rare, threatened or endangered species (RARE); and wetland ecosystems (WET) (LARWQCB 2019). With compliance with applicable regulations, the proposed Project does not include any facilities or land uses that could generate pollutants that could result in substantial water quality impacts. As discussed in Threshold 3.10(a), compliance with t the water quality of watercourses in a manner pursuant to and consistent with the Federal Clean Water Act, and pursuant to the NPDES CGP No. 2009-0009-DWQ. Restrictions in this Ordinance are applicable to both construction activities and operations. Additionally, compliance with CGP issued by the SWRCB would require implementation of BMPs during construction to address the potential for pollutants from entering violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface water or groundwater quality would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 77 February 2020 groundwater basin prioritization in accordance with the requirements of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act and related laws. The act requires that groundwater resources be managed sustainably for long-term reliability and multiple benefits for current and future beneficial uses. The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act applies to all California groundwater basins and requires that high- and medium-priority groundwater basins form Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (DWR 2019). DWR is required to pri very low. The San Gabriel Basin Valley, which underlies the City of Arcadia, was determined by DWR to be rements to form a Groundwater Sustainability Agency and to develop a Groundwater Sustainability Plan. As previously discussed, the SWPPP and LID features would reduce in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local requirements. Additionally, the Project would be consistent with the assumptions set forth in UWMP, as discussed in section (a). As a result, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or and no mitigation is required. 3.11 Land Use and Planning Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? a) Would the project physically divide an established community? No Impact. The proposed Project would include the conversion of an existing building to a 76,754 square- foot hotel and the construction of one new 61,538-square-foot hotel annex building. The Project site is surrounded by low density residential to the north; commercial land uses to the east, recreational, hotel, and commercial land uses to the south, and horse racing land uses to the south and west. The proposed Project would not include the construction of any buildings, roads, or other infrastructure that would physically divide an established community, nor would it impede access between existing neighborhoods and other areas of the City by creating physical barriers. Rather, the proposed Project would redevelop a portion of an existing commercial site and would provide hospitality amenities to the surrounding community and to the City at large. As such, the proposed Project would not divide an established community and no impact would occur. No mitigation is required. ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 78 February 2020 b) Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less than Significant Impact. Land use plans and policies applicable to the proposed Project are set forth through which development in the City is organized and carried out. The Project site is zoned General Commercial (G-C) with a Downtown Overlay. Permitted uses under the Commercial land use designation consist of an array of commercial enterprises, including restaurants, durable goods sales, food stores, lodging and professional offices (City of Arcadia 2010b). The C-G Zone is intended to provide areas for the development of retail and service uses, offices, restaurants, public uses, and similar and compatible uses (City of Arcadia 2016a). The maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) permitted under the C-G Zone and under the Downtown Overlay Zone is 1.0 for new development and the maximum height permitted for new buildings is 48 feet. The proposed Project would have a FAR of 0.85 and thus would be compatible with the C- However, the proposed Project would include a five-story, building (Building D), which would be in height above average grade. Given the 48-foot height restriction, the Project would be subject to a height variance, to be reviewed concurrently with Project approvals. Additionally, Project approval would be subject to a CUP, which is required in order to develop hotel land uses in the C-G Zone. land use and zoning designations and would have a less than significant impact on any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. No mitigation is required. 3.12 Mineral Resources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? a) Would the project 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? No Impact. Historically, the City has mined aggregate mineral resources, namely sand, gravel and crushed - Consumption region, where more than 10 million tons of aggregate resources were produced in 2005 (City ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO)PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 79 February 2020 of Arcadia 2010a is on the continued reclamation of prior quarries and the protection of properties in Arcadia from mining operations in adjacent communities (City of Arcadia 2010a). Per the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975, which mandated the classification of mineral lands by the State Geologist, the Project site is classified as a Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ-) 4. MRZ-4 zones are classified as areas where there is insufficient data to assign another designation. Additionally, only one idle oil and gas well, approximately 0.85-mile to the southeast of the Project site was identified on DOC the well was abandoned in 1926 (DOC DOGGR 2019). The Project site is fully developed and paved under existing conditions, and, as such, does not support any mineral or oil and natural gas the proposed Project site is within an MRZ-4 Zone, which is defined as an area where there is not enough information to assign another designation. Additionally, Element maintains that no properties in Arcadia will be subject to mining activities in the future and, as rties in Arcadia from mining operations in adjacent communities (City of Arcadia 2010b). Given that: the proposed Project site and surrounding land uses are fully developed; the City does not anticipate future mining activities in the City; and, given the absence of known, significant mineral resources as mapped by the state, project implementation would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. The Project would not 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 and no mitigation is required. b) Would the project 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? No Impact. -4 zone, which is defined as an area where there is not enough information to assign another designation. The Project site is zoned C-G, which d Sustainability Element maintains that no properties in Arcadia will be subject to mining activities in the ed reclamation of prior quarries and the protection of properties in Arcadia from mining operations in adjacent communities (City of Arcadia 2010b). Given the above, the proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan. The Project would not 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 and no mitigation is required. ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 80 February 2020 3.13 Noise Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project result in: a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or 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? a) Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less Than Significant Impact. n, the established maximum exterior noise standard for residential land use areas is 65 dBA CNEL [decibel (dB) level as measured with a sound-level meter using the A weighting network]. No exterior noise standard is set for hotels; however, the interior noise standard is 45 dBA CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level). The Arcadia Municipal Code addresses noise in several sections. In Article IV, Part 1, General Provisions, from stationary noise sources within residential land uses from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., the noise limit is 50 dBA Municipal Code stipulates that nighttime construction between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. of any weekday, 5:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. on Saturday, and anytime on Sunday and holidays is prohibited. Existing Noise Conditions Noise measurements were conducted on and near the Project site in June 2019 to characterize the existing noise levels. Noise measurements were conducted at four locations on the Project site and at nearby noise- sensitive land uses to determine the approximate ambient daytime noise levels. One additional noise measurement was conducted to approximate the ambient daytime and nighttime noise levels for the Project location. The locations of the short-term monitoring on 24-hour monitoring locations are shown in Figure 7, Noise Measurement Locations. ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 81 February 2020 The short-term noise measurements were conducted on June 11, 2019 between 10:46 a.m. and 12:10 p.m. and are included in Appendix E of this IS/MND. These four daytime, short-term (1 hour or less) attended sound level measurements were taken with a Piccolo SoftdB sound-level meter. This sound-level meter meets the current American National Standards Institute standard for a Type 2 (general-purpose) sound-level meter. The sound-level meter was positioned at a height of approximately 5 feet above the ground. The measured daytime average sound levels ranged from 54 to 69 dBA, as depicted in Table 16, Ambient Measured Noise Levels. The measurement results are in terms of the time-averaged equivalent noise level (Leq). Table 16. Ambient Measured Noise Levels Site Location Sound Level (dBA Leq) Noise Sources Daytime Short-Term Noise Measurements ST1 On-Site: Existing parking lot on east side of proposed Project site (near proposed pool area and Building D). 61.9 Traffic noise, birds ST2 Single-family residential north of Project site; 101 Santa Cruz Road 58.9 Traffic noise, distant traffic, birds ST3 Single-family residential north- northwest of Project site; 117 Santa Cruz Road 54.4 Traffic noise, distant traffic, distant landscaping activities, birds ST4 Northwest corner of Arcadia Park, near intersection of West Huntington Drive and Santa Clara Street 66.2 Traffic noise, birds Daytime and Nighttime 24-Hour Noise Measurements LT1 Project site; near façade of proposed Building C Daytime Noise Measurementsa Range: 59.8 65.2 Average: 62.8 Attendant was not present; however, based on daytime observations noise could be attributed primarily to traffic Attendant was not present; however, based on daytime observations noise could be attributed primarily to traffic Nighttime Noise Measurementsb Range: 45.3 62.3 Average: 55.5 Overall Weighted-Average Noise Level; 64.6 dBA CNEL Source: See Appendix E for complete results. Notes: dBA = A-weighted decibels; Leq = time-averaged equivalent noise level. a Nighttime noise measurements were taken from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. b Daytime noise measurements were taken from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The 24-hour noise measurement was conducted from June 11 to June 12, 2019. The non-attended sound level measurements were taken with a SoftdB Piccolo sound-level meter. The sound-level meter meets the current American National Standards Institute standard for a Type 2 (general purpose) sound-level meter. The sound-level meter was placed on a tree located on site at a height of approximately 5 feet above the ground. The measured daytime average sound levels (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) ranged from approximately 60 to 65 dBA Leq, with an overall average of approximately 63 dBA L eq, as depicted in Table 16. The measured nighttime average sound levels (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) ranged from approximately 45 to 62 dBA Leq, with an overall average of 58 dBA Leq, as depicted in Table 16. The 24-hour weighted average ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 82 February 2020 noise level at Site LT4 was approximately 65 dBA CNEL. The measurement results are in terms of the time- averaged sound level. Anticipated on-site noise-generating activities associated with the proposed Project would include short- term construction and long-term operational noise of the proposed Project, as follows: Construction (Short-Term Impacts) Construction noise and vibration are temporary phenomena. Construction noise and vibration levels vary from hour to hour and day to day, depending on the equipment in use, the operations being performed, and the distance between the source and receptor. Construction of the overall proposed Project is anticipated to take approximately 20 months, beginning in May 2020. Construction of the proposed Project would include demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and application of architectural coatings. Equipment that would be in operation during construction would include graders, backhoes, bulldozers, loaders, forklifts, compressors, welders, and paving equipment. The typical maximum noise levels for various pieces of construction equipment at a distance of 50 feet are presented in Table 17 below. Table 17. Construction Equipment Maximum Noise Levels Equipment Type dBA at 50 feet dBA at 50 feet Air compressor 81 71 Backhoe 85 80 Concrete pump 82 80 Concrete vibrator 76 70 Crane 83 75 Truck 88 80 Dozer 87 83 Generator 78 71 Loader 84 80 Paver 88 80 Pneumatic tools 85 75 Water pump 76 71 Power hand saw 78 70 Shovel 82 80 Trucks 88 83 Source: U.S. DOT 2018. * Estimated levels obtainable by selecting quieter procedures or machines and implementing noise-control features requiring no major redesign or extreme cost. Note that the equipment noise levels presented in Table 17 are maximum noise levels. Typically, construction equipment operates in alternating cycles of full power and low power, producing average noise levels less than the maximum noise level. The average sound level of construction activity also depends on the amount of time that the equipment operates and the intensity of construction activities during that time. ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 83 February 2020 The maximum noise levels at 50 feet for typical construction equipment would be 88 dB for the equipment typically used for this type of development project, although the hourly noise levels would vary. Construction noise in a well-defined area typically attenuates at approximately 6 dB per doubling of distance. Project construction would take place both near and far from adjacent, existing noise-sensitive uses. For example, demolition of existing pavement and re-paving activities would take place as near as approximately 25 feet from existing residential property line (building construction would take place approximately 70 feet away), but during construction of other components, construction would be several hundred feet away from noise sensitive receptors and potentially shielded from direct view. Most construction activities associated with the proposed Project would occur at distances of approximately 130 feet or more from existing noise- sensitive uses. was used to estimate construction noise levels at the nearest occupied noise-sensitive land use (although the model was funded and promulgated by the FHWA, the RCNM is often used for non-roadway projects, because the same types of construction equipment used for roadway projects are often used for other types of construction). Input variables for the RCNM consist of the receiver/land use types, the equipment type and number of each (e.g., two graders, a loader, a tractor), the duty cycle for each piece of equipment (e.g., percentage of hours the equipment typically works per day), and the distance from the noise-sensitive receiver. A conservative amount of noise reduction (5 decibels) provided by the intervening solid masonry boundary wall (between the Project site and the residences to the north) was assumed for the construction noise analysis. The RCNM has default duty-cycle values for the various pieces of equipment, which were derived from an extensive study of typical construction activity patterns. Those default duty-cycle values were used for this noise analysis. r of construction equipment by phase), the estimated noise levels from construction were calculated for a representative range of distances, as presented in Table 18, Construction Noise Model Results Summary, below. The RCNM inputs and outputs are provided in Appendix E. Table 18. Construction Noise Model Results Summary Construction Phase Construction Noise at Representative Receiver Distances (dBA Leq) Nearest Residence - Construction Demolition and Paving, 70' Away for other phases) Typical Residence - Construction Distance (Approximately 130' Away) Demolition 86 73 Site Preparation 76 72 Grading 75 73 Building Construction 75 71 Paving 80 69 Architectural Coating 66 60 Source: Appendix E Notes: Leq = equivalent continuous sound level As presented in Table 18, the highest noise levels are predicted to occur during demolition activities when noise levels from construction activities would be as high as 86 dBA Leq at the nearest existing residences, ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 84 February 2020 approximately 25 feet away. At more typical distances of approximately 130 feet, construction noise would range from approximately 60 to 73 dBA Leq. 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Monday Friday, 5:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. on Saturday, and anytime on Sunday and holidays. Although nearby off-site residences would be exposed to elevated construction noise levels, the noise levels would not be high enough to pose a hazard to human health12; furthermore, the exposure would be short- term and would cease upon completion of construction. construction activities associated with the proposed Project would take place between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. and would not take place on Sundays or public holidays. Therefore, the proposed Project construction would be in compliance with applicable noise regulations, and therefore construction noise would be less than significant. However, construction noise levels would be higher than existing ambient daytime noise levels, which could cause temporary annoyance at nearby residential land uses. The implementation of the best practices listed in MM-NOI-1 are provided, given the proximity to residences. The best practices included in MM-NOI- 1 would reduce the potential for annoyance from the temporary construction activities. Effectiveness of these measures would vary from several decibels (which in general is a relatively small change) to ten or more decibels (which subjectively would be perceived as a substantial change), depending upon the specific equipment and the original condition of that equipment, the specific locations of the noise sources and the receivers, etc. For example, installation of construction equipment silencers could range from several decibels to well over 10 decibels. Reduction of idling equipment could reduce overall noise levels from barely any reduction to several decibels. Cumulatively, the implementation of several different best practices for noise reduction, as set forth in a site-specific Construction Noise Control Plan (CNCP) would result in substantial decreases in the noise from construction. MM-NOI-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project Applicant shall provide a Construction Noise Control Plan (CNCP) to the City for review and approval. The CNCP shall include best management practices to reduce short-term construction noise. Enforcement of the CNCP shall be accomplished by field inspections during construction activities and/or documentation of compliance, to the satisfaction of the City Development Services Department. Recommended best management practices may include, but not be limited to, the following: All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers . Construction noise reduction methods such as shutting off idling equipment, maximizing the distance between construction equipment staging areas and adjacent residences, and use of electric air compressors and similar power tools, rather than diesel equipment, should be used where feasible. 12 The most highly studied type of human exposure is occupational noise. Within the State of California, the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH), better known as Cal/OSHA, protects and improves the health and safety of working men and women in n -hour day, which when reached or exceeded requires the implementation of actions to reduce the risk of noise- -hour day, 40-hour week at which nearly all employees may be exposed without adverse health effects. Note however that these levels assume a career-long exposure; in the case of nearby residents, the noise exposure during construction activities would be quite brief. ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO)PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 85 February 2020 Stationary equipment should be placed as far away from the adjacent residential property boundary as feasible and positioned such that emitted noise is directed away from or shielded from sensitive receptors. Acoustically attenuating shields, shrouds, or enclosures may be placed over stationary equipment. 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. Construction hours, allowable workdays, and the phone number of the job superintendent should be clearly posted at all construction entrances to allow surrounding property owners to contact the job superintendent, if necessary. In the event the City receives a complaint, appropriate corrective actions should be implemented and a report of the action provided to the reporting party City Development Services Department. Operational Noise (Long-Term Impacts) Long-term operational noise associated with the proposed Project includes noise from the proposed hotel uses. Long-term operational noise also includes Project-generated traffic and overall traffic noise at the Project site. Each of these is addressed below. On-Site Stationary Noise. The proposed Project would redevelop the eastern portion of the site with the Building D, as well as surface parking and sidewalk/pedestrian improvements. These uses would be in keeping with the commercial and residential character of the neighboring land uses, and no external noise sources are planned or proposed, save for HVAC equipment, suitably sized for the Project, an emergency generator, and a pool area. The pool area, balcony and patio areas would be surrounded on the north, east and west sides by the 3- to 5-story hotel structures; therefore, nearby residences would not be exposed to poolside, patio or balcony noise or mechanical equipment noise from the pool area. The parking lot area would be utilized in effectively the same fashion as it is currently and thus, there would be no change in regard to parking lot noise. HVAC equipment would be located on the rooftops of the proposed buildings and would be screened from direct view by nearby residences by parapet walls and/or mechanical equipment screen walls. The specific details (location, size, manufacturer, and model) of the equipment have not yet been determined. However, ications for representative models (details of which are provided in Appendix E), the dimensionless sound power levels were found to range from approximately 68 dBA to 92 dBA. mechanical equipment would be located within approximately 150 feet of the residences. Assuming a sound power level of 92 dBA, the noise level at a distance of 150 feet from one HVAC unit would be approximately 51 dBA at the nearest existing residential property. If additional units were operating simultaneously, the resultant noise level at the nearest existing residences would be greater. Therefore, the HVAC equipment would have the potential to generate noise levels which could exceed City of Arcadia municipal noise standards (55 dBA Leq daytime, 50 dBA Leq nighttime). Similarly, the details (i.e., location, equipment specifications) of the proposed emergency backup generator have not yet been developed; however, assuming a 250 kW natural gas-powered generator, and utilizing sound level outputs provided by the manufacturer for various configurations, the distances within which ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO)PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 86 February 2020 the generator would exceed City of Arcadia daytime noise standards were calculated. The daytime noise standard was used based upon the assumption that the generator would be tested during daytime hours. noise standard would range from approximately 820 feet (if no enclosure was used) to approximately 130 feet (with a Level 3 acoustic enclosure). Thus, the noise from the generator also would have the potential As described above, operation of the proposed Project standards. However, implementation of mitigation measure MM-NOI-2 would reduce noise impacts from HVAC equipment and the emergency generator to a less than significant level. For these reasons, noise impacts from on-site stationary noise sources during operation are considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated. No further mitigation is required. MM-NOI-2 The Project Applicant shall retain an acoustical specialist to review construction level plans to ensure that the equipment specifications and plans for HVAC and emergency backup generator incorporate features to ensure that operational noise will not exceed relevant noise standards at nearby noise-sensitive land uses (e.g., residential). Such features could include, but not be limited to, the specification of quieter equipment, relocation of facilities to be of further distance from residential homes, and/or the provision of acoustical enclosures. The acoustical specialist shall certify in writing to the City that the equipment specifications and plans will achieve the relevant noise limits. Off-Site Traffic Noise The proposed Project would generate traffic along adjacent arterial roadways (primarily West Huntington Drive and Colorado Place). The City does not have a specific criterion for evaluating the significance of Project-related increases in off-site traffic noise levels at residences or noise-sensitive areas. For the purposes of this analysis, traffic noise level increases are considered significant if they exceed ambient traffic noise levels by 5 dB or more, or cause noise levels to exceed a 65 dBA CNEL noise threshold. An increase or decrease in noise level of 5 dBA is the minimum before any noticeable change in community response would be expected (Caltrans 2013). Therefore, a clearly perceptible increase (+5 dB) in noise exposure of sensitive receptors or a Project-related exceedance of the 65 dBA Ldn noise threshold could be considered significant. The noise levels associated with roadway traffic were determined based on the Project Study (Appendix F) and using the FHWA TNM 2.5 Traffic Noise Model version 2.5 (FHWA 2004). The results of the traffic modeling at the nearby off-site noise-sensitive receivers (represented by modeled receivers ST2, ST3 and ST4) for the existing and existing plus project scenarios during both weekday and weekend conditions are summarized in Table 19; the traffic noise model data files are attached to this document in Appendix E. As shown, the Project-related traffic would result in a noise level increase of zero (0) dB CNEL (when rounded to whole numbers) along the studied roadways in the vicinity of the Project site. Noise levels at receiver ST3 are projected to decrease by approximately 3 dB as a result of the proposed Project; this is because of the acoustical shielding that would be provided by the proposed Building D. The proposed Project and Project-related traffic would not substantially increase the existing noise levels in the Project vicinity. Therefore, operational traffic-related noise impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 87 February 2020 Table 19. Off-Site Traffic Noise (Existing and Existing-with-Project) Modeled Off-Site Receiver Weekdays Saturdays Existing Noise (dBA CNEL) Existing plus Project Noise (dBA CNEL) Noise Increase (dB) Existing Noise (dBA CNEL) Existing plus Project Noise (dBA CNEL) Noise Increase (dB) ST2 Residential north of Project site 55 55 0 54 54 0 ST3 Residential north northwest of Project site 51 48 -3 50 47 -3 ST4 Arcadia Park, northwest corner 68 68 0 67 67 0 The noise level increases associated with additional traffic volumes under future (Year 2021) with Project traffic conditions and future without Project traffic conditions are summarized in Table 20. The noise level increases associated with the Project under future traffic conditions would be zero (0) dB CNEL (when rounded to whole numbers) along the studied roadways in the vicinity of the Project site. Noise levels at receiver ST2 (during typical Saturday traffic conditions) and ST3 are projected to decrease as a result of the proposed Project; this is because of the acoustical shielding that would be provided by the proposed Building D. Increases would be below the significance threshold of 5 dB. Additionally, the proposed Project the proposed Project would not substantially increase the existing noise levels in the Project vicinity, and operational traffic-related noise impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. Table 20. Off-Site Traffic Noise (Future and Future-with-Project) Modeled Off-Site Receiver Weekdays Saturdays Future Noise (dBA CNEL) Future plus Project Noise (dBA CNEL) Noise Increase (dB) Future Noise (dBA CNEL) Future plus Project Noise (dBA CNEL) Noise Increase (dB) ST2 Residential north of Project site 55 55 0 55 54 -1 ST3 Residential north northwest of Project site 51 48 -3 50 47 -3 ST4 Arcadia Park, northwest corner 68 68 0 67 67 0 b) Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Construction activities that might expose persons to excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise could cause a potentially significant impact. Ground-borne vibration information related to construction activities has been collected by the California ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO)PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 88 February 2020 Department of Transportation (Caltrans 2004). Information from Caltrans indicates that continuous vibrations with a peak particle velocity of approximately 0.1 inch/second begin to annoy people. The heavier pieces of construction equipment, such as bulldozers, would have peak particle velocities of approximately 0.089 inch/second or less at a distance of 25 feet (U.S. DOT 2018). At the distance from the nearest residence to the nearest construction activity (approximately 25 feet, during demolition of existing pavement and subsequent re-paving) and with the anticipated construction equipment, the peak particle velocity would be approximately 0.089 inch/second. Ground-borne vibration is typically attenuated over short distances; thus, at the distance from the nearest residence to other construction phases (approximately 70 feet), the peak particle velocity would be approximately 0.019 inch/second or less. Vibration is very subjective, and some people may be annoyed at continuous vibration levels near the level of perception (or approximately a peak particle velocity of 0.01 inch/second). Although construction activities would not use construction equipment that would result in continuous vibration levels that typically annoy people, since some residences are as near as 25 feet from the construction area, residents could be temporarily annoyed with the use of some construction equipment. Implementation of MM-NOI-1 would ensure residents are notified of construction activities and provided contact information in the event they wish to report a noise- or vibration-related complaint. Building damage can also result from construction vibration. However, construction vibration from the proposed Project would not result in structural building damage, which typically occurs at vibration levels of 0.5 inch/second or greater for buildings of reinforced-concrete, steel, or timber construction. As stated above, the peak particle velocity anticipated during proposed Project construction would be approximately 0.019 inch/second. The heavier pieces of construction equipment used for the Project would include excavators, graders, dump trucks, and vendor trucks. Pile driving, blasting, or other special construction techniques would not be used for construction of the proposed Project; therefore, excessive ground-borne vibration and ground-borne noise would not be generated. Ground-borne vibration would not be associated with the proposed Project during operation. Impacts related to ground-borne vibration are therefore considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated. No further mitigation is required. c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or 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? No Impact. The Project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, and the nearest airport (El Monte Airport) is located approximately 3.7 miles south of the Project site. The Project is not located within the planning area for this airport, nor is it located within two miles of this airport or any other airport (Airnav.com 2019; County of Los Angeles 2004). Therefore, the Project would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise related to public airports. No impact would occur. ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 89 February 2020 3.14 Population and Housing Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Induce substantial unplanned 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)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? a) Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of ro ads or other infrastructure)? Less Than Significant Impact. population in 2018 was 58,610 people, with an average of 2.97 people per household (U.S. Census Bureau 2018). According to the C estimates that the City can expect a population of 65,704 people by 2035, as well as, 23,045 households and 30,356 employment opportunities by 2035 (City of Arcadia 2010a). The proposed Project includes the conversion of an existing building (Building C) into a 76,754-sf hotel and the construction of a new 61,538-sf hotel annex building (Building D). Substantial population growth in any particular area is usually associated with a significant increase in available housing stock and/or employment opportunities. The proposed Project would not include a housing component, and, as such, would not result in any unplanned population growth through the provision of new homes. Furthermore, the proposed Project would not include the construction of any roads or other infrastructure, the implementation of which would result in substantial, indirect population growth. Using employment generation factors from the LEED Reference Guide for Green Building Design and Construction (LEED 2009), the proposed Hotel Indigo would reduce the overall number of employees at the Project site when compared to the potentially full occupancy of Building C (former Worley Parsons Office Building). It is estimated that the new hotel, including spa and restaurant land uses, would generate approximately 111 new employees13. At full occupancy, the existing Building C office is estimated to support up to 269 employees14. The reduced employment at the Project site is not expected to substantively alter 13 Building C + Building D: 124,079 sf of hotel at 1,500 square feet/employee (124,079/1,500 = 82.7 employees); 7,466 sf of Spa at 600 square feet/employee (7,466/600 = 12.4 employees); 6,747 sf of restaurant/café at 438 square feet/employee (6,747/435 = 15.4 employees) 14 Per Traffic Report in Appendix F, Building C = 67,213 sf of Office, at 1 employee per each 250 square feet (67,213/250 = 269 employees) ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 90 February 2020 the SCAG projected 2040 population growth estimates for the City. Population in the City is estimated to reach 65,900 people by 2040, an approximate increase of 7,209 people when compared to existing conditions (SCAG 2016).15 Although some new employees associated with the proposed Project could relocate from outside of the City, it is more likely that these new hotel employment opportunities would be filled by people already residing within the City of Arcadia and the surrounding Los Angeles Metropolitan area. The proposed Project would not result in any new residents or otherwise result in substantial, unplanned population growth. Given the above, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on population growth and no mitigation is required. b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. The proposed Project would include the conversion of an existing building (Building C) into a 76,754-sf hotel and the construction of a new 61,538-sf hotel annex building (Building D). The proposed Project would entail the redevelopment of an existing commercial property, and would not include the take or acquisition of any existing housing, the demolition of which would displace substantial numbers of people or housing and necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Instead, upon operation, the Hotel Indigo would provide hospitality amenities to the local and regional community. As such, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required. 3.15 Public Services Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? 15 Projected 65,900 people in 2040 estimated 58,610 people = 7,209 population growth. ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 91 February 2020 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: Fire protection? Less Than Significant Impact. The Arcadia Fire Department, is a full-service fire department that provides fire suppression, urban search and rescue, paramedic ambulance service, fire prevention inspections/permits, public fire education programs, emergency preparedness planning, fire cause and origin investigation, fire patrols, and other services based on community needs. The Fire Department consists of the Administration, Buildings and Grounds, Fire Prevention Bureau, Paramedics, Suppression, and Emergency Services Divisions (City of Arcadia 2010a). Fire Station 105 is the closest fire station to the Project site. Fire Station 105 is located 0.6-mile southeast of the Project site at 710 South Santa Anita Avenue. According to the General Plan EIR, Fire Station 105 is equipped, as follows (City of Arcadia 2010a): 16 firefighter personnel, including a Fire Chief, Deputy Fire Chief, Senior Management Analyst, Fire Administrative Specialist, Duty Battalion Chief, six firefighters and two firefighter paramedics, one Fire Marshal, one Administrative Assistant and one Fire Inspector. Fire truck 105 with a 100-foot ladder. Two fire engines, including Engine 105 (staffed with three firefighters) and a state fire engine. A rescue ambulance (staffed with two firefighter/paramedics). The need for new or altered fire station facilities is usually associated with substantial population growth, such that existing facilities cannot meet the increased demand for fire protection services. As stated in Section 3.14, Population and Housing, the proposed Project is a hotel development project, and would not include any permanent housing, the construction of which would result in significant population growth. Project implementation has the potential to add new residents to the local population through the provision of new employment opportunities at the hotel at buildout; however, any population growth related to the proposed Project would be minor (as described in Section 3.14). Additionally, the proposed Project would adhere to the California Fire Cod Fire Code (Municipal Code, Section 3122.7).16 As such, the proposed Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities, need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for fire protection services. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Police protection? Less Than Significant Impact. The Arcadia Police Department (APD) is located 0.3-mile south of the Project site at 250 West Huntington Drive. The APD is comprised of two divisions, namely the Operations Division and the Administration Division. The Operations Division, led by Captain Larry Goodman, responds to various calls for service received from the community, conducts preliminary investigations of criminal offenses, prepares police reports, provides high visibility patrol to reduce crime, participates in traffic education and enforcement programs, and coordinates parking enforcement. Patrol team officers also 16 California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 9 Fire Code. City of Arcadia Municipal Code, Section 3122.7 Fire Code. ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO)PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 92 February 2020 conduct special enforcement actions to combat violations such as alcohol sales to minors, street drug activities, and disorderly conduct (APD 2019). The need for new or altered police station facilities is usually associated with substantial population growth, such that existing facilities cannot meet the increased demand for police protection services. As stated in Section 3.14, the proposed Project is a hotel development project, and would not include any permanent housing, the construction of which would result in significant population growth. Project implementation has the potential to add new residents to the local population through the provision of new employment opportunities at the hotel at buildout; however, any population growth related to the proposed Project would be minor. As such, the proposed Project would not induce substantial population growth such that new or physically altered APD facilities would be needed. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Schools, Parks, Other Public Facilities? No Impact. The Arcadia Unified School District serves approximately 10,000 children in 11 schools throughout the City. There are three schools within the general vicinity of the Project site: Barnhart School, located approximately 0.15-mile north of the Project site; Excelsior School, located approximately 0.16-mile east of the Project site; and First Avenue Middle School, located approximately 0.37-mile southeast of the Project site. The City of Arcadia Recreation and Community Services Department manages the Cit recreational facilities and is also responsible for overseeing a broad spectrum of public recreational activities and programs. The City maintains 15 public parks, of which the Arcadia County Park is the closest to the Project site and is located immediately south across Huntington Drive. Amenities at Arcadia County Park include: 12 lighted tennis courts, an Olympic size swimming pool, three lighted ball diamonds, a play area, two large group picnic areas and barbeques (City of Arcadia 2019a). The need for new or altered school facilities is usually associated with substantial population growth, such that existing school facilities cannot meet the increased demand for educational services. As stated in Section 3.14, the proposed Project is a hotel development project, and would not include any permanent housing, the construction of which would result in significant population growth. Project implementation may generate several new students through the provision of new employment opportunities at the hotel at buildout; however, any population growth related to the proposed Project would be minor and would not significantly affect the demand for educational services. Furthermore, the Applicant would be required to pay a school mitigation fee, per SB 50, which would be deemed full and complete mitigation for any indirect impacts to schools that may occur as a result of Project implementation. As such, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required. The need for new or altered park facilities is usually associated with substantial population growth, such that existing park facilities cannot meet the increased demand for recreational services. As stated in Section 3.14, the proposed Project is a hotel development project, and would not include any permanent housing, the construction of which would result in significant population growth. Project implementation has the potential to add new residents to the local population through the provision of new employment opportunities at the hotel at buildout; however, any population growth related to the proposed Project would be minor. As such, the proposed Project would not induce substantial population growth such that new or physically altered parks would be needed. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 93 February 2020 The need for new or altered public facilities, including libraries, is usually associated with substantial population growth, such that existing facilities cannot meet the increased demand for public/government services. As stated in Section 3.14, the proposed Project is a hotel development project, and would not include any permanent housing, the construction of which would result in significant population growth. Project implementation has the potential to add new residents to the local population through the provision of new employment opportunities at the hotel at buildout; however, any population growth related to the proposed Project would be minor. As such, the proposed Project would not induce substantial population growth such that new or physically altered public/government facilities, including libraries, would be needed. No impacts would occur and no mitigation is required. 3.16 Recreation Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 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? No Impact. s and recreational facilities and is also responsible for overseeing a broad spectrum of public recreational activities and programs. The City maintains 15 public parks, of which the Arcadia County Park is the closest to the Project site and is located immediately south across Huntington Drive. The physical deterioration of neighborhood and regional parks occurs when the number of residents utilizing cannot keep up with the maintenance demands of over utilized park facilities. As stated in Section 3.14, the proposed Project would not induce significant population growth. Project implementation has the potential to add new residents to the local population through the provision of new employment opportunities at the hotel at buildout; however, any population growth related to the proposed Project would be minor. As such, the proposed Project would not induce substantial population growth such that physical deterioration of parks and recreational facilities would occur. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 94 February 2020 b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact. As stated above in 3.16(a), the proposed Project would include approximately 12,775 square feet of landscaping, which would include exterior planter beds, event turf/lawn, a swimming pool and ornamental trees and shrubs. This landscaping is included as part of the proposed Project and, therefore, has been analyzed for its potential environmental effects in this IS/MND. As substantiated throughout this document, no significant, adverse environmental effects would occur as a result of the proposed Project. As described above in Section 3.16(a), the proposed Project would not require construction or expansion of recreational facilities. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. 3.17 Transportation Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? d) Result in inadequate emergency access? a) Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? Less Than Significant Impact. The City does not have adopted street segment analysis threshold criteria; segments operating at Level of Service (LOS) D or better are considered to be at acceptable levels (City of Arcadia 2010b). LOS E is permitted on roadway segments adjacent to: 1) freeway ramps; 2) Santa Anita Park and all roadway links intended to carry seasonal race-related traffic; and, 3) the Downtown, Baldwin Avenue, and Live Oak Avenue commercial and mixed-use districts. The following analysis shows that the proposed Project would be consistent with the threshold criteria outlined by the City. Existing Conditions The proposed Project is generally bounded by Santa Cruz Road to the north, San Rafael Road to the east, San Juan Drive to the west, and West Huntington Drive and Colorado Place to the south. As shown in Figure 8, Vicinity Map, regional access to the Project site is provided via the I-210 Freeway, which is located ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO)PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 95 February 2020 approximately 0.5-mile north of the Project site, while immediate access is provided via San Rafael Road, San Juan Road, and Colorado Place under existing conditions. A review of the key roadways in the Project site vicinity and study area is summarized below: Huntington Drive is an east-west oriented roadway that borders a portion of the Project site to the south. In the Arcadia General Plan Circulation and Infrastructure Element, Huntington Drive is classified as a major arterial west of Santa Clara Street and as a primary arterial east of Santa Clara Street. Huntington Drive is also a designated truck route, as well as a principal travel corridor and a planned primary transit corridor within the City. The number of through travel lanes in each direction on Huntington Drive varies from 4 through lanes west of Holly Avenue, to 3 through lanes between Holly Avenue and Santa Clara Street, to 2 through lanes east of Santa Clara Street. Exclusive left-turn lanes are provided on Huntington Drive at major intersections. On-street parking is generally not provided along Huntington Drive in the immediate Project vicinity. Santa Clara Street is an east-west oriented roadway that is located east of the Project site. Santa Clara Street extends from the intersection of Huntington Drive and West Colorado Place to the city boundary at 5th Avenue where Santa Clara Street becomes Chestnut Avenue in the adjacent City of Monrovia. In the Arcadia General Plan Circulation and Infrastructure Element, Santa Clara Street is classified as a secondary arterial between Huntington Drive and Santa Anita Avenue and as an enhanced collector east of Santa Anita Avenue. Santa Clara Street is also designated as a secondary travel corridor between Huntington Drive and Santa Anita Avenue and a local travel corridor east of Santa Anita Avenue. Santa Clara Street is also planned to serve as a primary transit corridor. Two through travel lanes are provided in each direction on Santa Clara Street between Huntington Drive and Santa Anita Avenue while one through travel lane is provided in each direction on Santa Clara Street east of Santa Anita Avenue. Colorado Place is a north-south oriented roadway that borders the Project site to the west. In the Arcadia General Plan Circulation and Infrastructure Element, Colorado Place is classified as a primary arterial between Colorado Boulevard and Huntington Drive. Colorado Place is also a designated truck route, as well as a secondary travel corridor and a planned secondary transit corridor within the City. Two through travel lanes are provided in each direction on Colorado Place in the Project vicinity. On-street parking is generally not provided along Colorado Place in the immediate Project vicinity. Santa Anita Avenue is a north-south oriented roadway that is located east of the Project site. In the Arcadia General Plan Circulation and Infrastructure Element, Santa Anita Avenue is classified as a primary arterial from the southern city boundary to Foothill Boulevard and as an enhanced corridor north of Foothill Boulevard. South of Foothill Boulevard, Santa Anita Avenue is also a designated truck route and a principal travel corridor. North of Foothill Boulevard, Santa Anita Avenue is designated as a secondary travel corridor. Santa Anita Avenue is also planned to serve as a primary transit corridor south of the I-210 Freeway and a secondary transit corridor north of the I-210 Freeway. Two through travel lanes are provided in each direction on Santa Anita Avenue south of Foothill Boulevard while 1 through travel lane is provided in each direction on Santa Anita Avenue north of Foothill Boulevard. Exclusive left-turn lanes are provided on Santa Anita Avenue at major intersections. The speed limit on Santa Anita Avenue varies from 35 MPH north of Foothill Boulevard to 40 MPH south of Foothill Boulevard. Other roadways that provide regional access to the Project site include Hollenbeck Avenue, Barranca Avenue, Covina Boulevard, Cypress Street, Front Street, College Street, and Badillo Street. Roadways and lane configurations in the Project area are shown in Figure 9, Existing Lane Configurations. ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO)PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 96 February 2020 al (C-G) with a Downtown Overlay. As such, the proposed Project site is well-located to encourage the use of public transit and active transportation modes. Public Bus Transit Service Public bus transit service in the Project area is provided by Foothill Transit, Metro, and Arcadia Transit. Foothill Transit provides bus transit service along major roadways within the transportation analysis study area: Huntington Drive and Santa Anita Avenue. Foothill Transit currently operates one transit route (Route 187) in the vicinity of the Project site. This bus line provides headways of four buses during the weekday morning peak hour and four buses during the weekday afternoon peak hour. Metro provides bus transit service along major roadways within the transportation analysis study area: Huntington Drive and Santa Anita Avenue. Metro currently operates two local Metro bus transit routes (Routes 487/489) in the vicinity of the Project site. The Metro bus transit routes provide headways of two to three buses during the morning and afternoon peak hours. Arcadia Transit provides fixed-route general public transit service with three lines (i.e., Green, Blue and Red Lines). Two of the three lines operate in the vicinity of the project site. These lines provide headways of generally one to two buses during the weekday morning peak hour and two to three buses during the weekday afternoon peak hour. Arcadia Dial-A-Ride is a demand-response service providing curb-to-curb transportation to seniors and persons with disabilities to and from any destination within the Arcadia city boundaries, including all shopping areas, commercial centers, the Methodist Hospital, medical centers, the civic center, parks, the racetrack, libraries, etc. The service is provided based on space availability and is open Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. and Saturday/Sunday from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Trip requests can be made the same day or up to seven days in advance. Regional Rail Service The Metro Gold Line Arcadia Station is also located approximately 0.5-mile northeast of the Project site, at the northwest corner of First Avenue and Santa Clara Street. Arcadia Transit provides fixed-route general public transit service with three lines (i.e., Green, Blue and Red Lines). Two of the three lines operate in the vicinity of the Project site. These lines provide headways of generally one to two buses during the weekday morning peak hour and two to three buses during the weekday afternoon peak hour. Traffic Impact Study The traffic impact study for the proposed Project with the traffic impact assessment guidelines set forth in the Caltrans Highway Capacity Model (HCM). The traffic analysis evaluates potential Project-related impacts at eight study intersections and six street segments in the vicinity of the Project site. These study locations were considered as they have the greatest potential to experience traffic impacts as a result of the proposed Project. The intersections were evaluated during the weekday morning and afternoon peak hours. Figure 8 illustrates the Project site location and the location of the study area intersections. The eight intersections are as follows: 1. Gate 3-Holly Avenue/Huntington Drive-Campus Drive ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO)PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 97 February 2020 2. Colorado Place/San Juan Drive 3. Colorado Place/Huntington Drive 4. Santa Clara Street/Huntington Drive 5. Santa Anita Avenue/I-210 Freeway Westbound (WB) Ramps 6. Santa Anita Avenue/I-210 Freeway Eastbound (EB) Ramps 7. Santa Anita Avenue/Santa Clara Street 8. Santa Anita Avenue/Huntington Drive The six study street segments are as follows: 1. Colorado Place between San Juan Drive and Colorado Boulevard 2. Huntington Drive EB between Santa Clara Street and Centennial Way 3. Huntington Drive WB between Colorado Place and Centennial Way 4. Huntington Drive between Santa Clara Street and Santa Anita Avenue 5. Santa Anita Avenue between Santa Clara Street and Huntington Drive 6. Santa Anita Avenue south of Huntington Drive Traffic Impact Analysis Methodology In order to estimate the traffic impact characteristics of the proposed Project, a multistep process was utilized, as follows: 1. Forecasting trip generation, which estimates the total arriving and departing traffic volumes from the proposed Project on a peak hour and daily basis. The traffic generation potential is typically forecast by applying the appropriate vehicle trip generation equations or rates to the Project development tabulation. 2. Forecasting trip distribution, which identifies the origins and destinations of inbound and outbound Project traffic volumes. These origins and destinations are typically based on demographics and existing/anticipated travel patterns in the study area. 3. Forecasting traffic assignment, which involves the allocation of Project traffic to study area streets and intersections. Traffic assignment is typically based on minimization of travel time, which may or may not involve the shortest route, depending on prevailing operating conditions and travel speeds. Traffic distribution patterns are indicated by general percentage orientation, while traffic assignment allocates specific volume forecasts to individual roadway links and intersection turning movements throughout the study area. With the forecasting process complete and Project traffic assignments developed, the impact of the proposed Project is evaluated by comparing LOS conditions at the study area intersections using existing and expected future traffic volumes with and without anticipated Project traffic. Based on the outcome of determine their significance. ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO)PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 98 February 2020 Impact Criteria and Thresholds As the City of Arcadia does not have adopted street segment analysis threshold criteria, the analysis was conducted in order to compare the overall roadway LOS without and with the proposed Project. Roadway LOS is based on capacity per lane per day and is assigned LOS A through F similar to the intersection LOS based on a volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio. As indicated in the Circulation and Infrastructure Element of the City of Arcadia General Plan 2010, roadway segments operating at LOS D or better are considered to be at acceptable levels (City of Arcadia 2010b). Furthermore, LOS E is permitted on roadway segments adjacent to: 1) freeway ramps; 2) to Santa Anita Park and all roadway links intended to carry seasonal race-related traffic; and 3) the Downtown, Baldwin Avenue, and Live Oak Avenue commercial and mixed-use districts. The relative impact of the added Project traffic volumes generated by the proposed Project during the weekday AM and PM peak hours was evaluated based on analysis of existing and future operating conditions at the study intersections, without and with the proposed Project. The previously discussed capacity analysis procedures were utilized to evaluate the future v/c or delay relationships and LOS characteristics at each study intersection. The significance of the potential Project-generated traffic impacts was identified using the traffic impact significant transportation impact is determined based on LOS. LOS calculations were prepared for the study intersections under the following scenarios: a) Existing Conditions. a) Existing With Project Conditions. b) Future Pre-Project Conditions (existing plus ambient growth and related projects traffic). c) Future with Project Conditions. d) Future with Project and Mitigation Conditions, if necessary. The traffic volumes for each new condition were added to the volumes in the prior condition to determine the change in capacity utilization at the study intersections. Summaries of the v/c ratios, delays, and corresponding LOS values for the study intersections during the weekday AM, weekday PM, and Saturday PM peak hours are shown in Table 21 and data worksheets for the analyzed intersections are contained in Appendix F, Traffic Study, of this IS/MND ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 99 February 2020 Table 21. Summary of Volume to Capacity Ratios/Delays and Levels of Service Weekday AM, PM, and Saturday PM Peak Hours No. Intersection Peak Hour Existing Existing With Project Difference Future Without Project Future with Project Difference V/C or Delay LOS1 V/C or Delay LOS1 V/C or Delay Sig. Impact2 V/C or Delay LOS1 V/C or Delay LOS1 V/C or Delay Sig. Impact2 1 Gate 3-Holly Avenue/Huntington Drive-Campus Drive AM 0.588 A 0.589 A 0.001 No 0.608 B 0.609 B 0.001 No PM 0.582 A 0.582 A 0.000 No 0.598 A 0.598 A 0.000 No SAT 0.492 A 0.492 A 0.000 No 0.509 A 0.509 A 0.000 No 2 Colorado Place/San Juan Drive AM 20.8 C 20.8 C 0.045 No 15.6 C 20.1 C 0.045 No PM 10.3 B 10.6 B 0.019 No 16.2 C 16.6 C 0.008 No SAT 11.9 B 11.9 B 0.031 No 11.9 B 12.5 B 0.011 No AM 0.453 -- 0.498 -- -- -- 0.471 -- 0.516 -- -- -- PM 0.501 -- 0.520 -- -- -- 0.625 -- 0.633 -- -- -- SAT 0.293 -- 0.324 -- -- -- 0.376 -- 0.387 -- -- -- 3 Colorado Place/Huntington Drive (unsignalized Intersection) AM 0.501 A 0.508 A 0.007 No 0.536 A 0.544 A 0.008 No PM 0.788 C 0.796 C 0.008 No 0.873 D 0.881 D 0.008 No SAT 0.440 A 0.463 A 0.023 No 0.495 A 0.517 A 0.022 No 4 Santa Clara Street/Huntington Drive AM 0.692 B 0.712 C 0.020 No 0.765 C 0.785 C 0.020 No PM 0.582 A 0.586 A 0.004 No 0.633 B 0.648 B 0.015 No SAT 0.460 A 0.482 A 0.022 No 0.538 A 0.560 A 0.022 No 5 Santa Anita Avenue/I- 210 Freeway Westbound (WB) Ramps AM 0.949 E 0.949 E 0.000 No 0.971 E 0.971 E 0.000 No PM 0.808 D 0.808 D 0.000 No 0.828 D 0.828 D 0.000 No SAT 0.599 A 0.599 A 0.000 No 0.615 B 0.615 B 0.000 No 6 Santa Anita Avenue/I- 210 Freeway Eastbound (EB) Ramps AM 0.631 B 0.636 B 0.005 No 0.663 B 0.668 B 0.005 No PM 0.611 B 0.616 B 0.005 No 0.665 B 0.669 B 0.004 No SAT 0.547 A 0.551 A 0.004 No 0.583 A 0.590 A 0.007 No ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 100 February 2020 Table 21. Summary of Volume to Capacity Ratios/Delays and Levels of Service Weekday AM, PM, and Saturday PM Peak Hours No. Intersection Peak Hour Existing Existing With Project Difference Future Without Project Future with Project Difference V/C or Delay LOS1 V/C or Delay LOS1 V/C or Delay Sig. Impact2 V/C or Delay LOS1 V/C or Delay LOS1 V/C or Delay Sig. Impact2 7 Santa Anita Avenue/Santa Clara Street AM 0.637 B 0.651 B 0.014 No 0.678 B 0.691 B 0.013 No PM 0.682 B 0.688 B 0.006 No 0.788 C 0.794 C 0.006 No SAT 0.615 B 0.623 B 0.008 No 0.702 C 0.710 C 0.008 No 8 Santa Anita Avenue/Huntington Drive AM 0.921 E 0.938 E 0.017 No 0.993 E 1.010 F 0.017 No PM 0.861 D 0.864 D 0.003 No 0.915 E 0.918 E 0.003 No SAT 0.625 B 0.632 B 0.007 No 0.671 B 0.677 B 0.006 No Source: Appendix F. Notes: 1 Level of Service (LOS) is based on the reported ICU value for signalized intersections. 2 According to the City of Arcadia threshold of significance, a transportation impact at a signalized intersection shall be deemed significant in accordance with the following: Addition of project trips causes the peak hour level of service of the intersection to change from LOS D or better to LOS E or F. Addition of project trips causes an increase in the volume/capacity ratio of 0.02 or greater at LOS E or F. ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 101 February 2020 Existing Traffic Volumes As indicated in column [1] of Table 21, six of the eight study intersections are presently operating at LOS D or better during the weekday AM, weekday PM, and Saturday PM peak hours. The following study intersections are anticipated to operate at LOS E for the peak hour shown below: Int. No. 5: Santa Anita Ave./I-210 WB Ramps (AM Peak Hour: v/c=0.949, LOS E) Int. No. 8: Santa Anita Ave./Huntington Dr. (AM Peak Hour: v/c=0.921, LOS E) As previously mentioned, the existing traffic volumes at the study intersections during the weekday AM, weekday PM, and Saturday PM peak hours are displayed in Figures 10, 11, and 12, respectively. Cumulative Development Projects A forecast of on-street traffic conditions prior to occupancy of the proposed Project was prepared by incorporating the potential trips associated with other known development projects (related projects) in the area. With this information, the potential impact of the proposed Project can be evaluated within the context of the cumulative impact of all ongoing development. The related projects research was based on information on file at the City of Arcadia. It should be noted that the re-occupancy of the prior office building on the Project site has been accounted for. Additionally, subsequent to the completion of the Transportation Impact Analysis, the Santa Anita Park North Barn project was withdrawn based on City staff confirmation; however, the cumulative analysis considers the project as part of the transportation assumptions and thus, represents a conservative scenario. The related projects in the study area are presented in Figure 13 and in Table 22 below. Traffic volumes expected to be generated by the related projects were calculated using rates provided in the ITE Trip Generation Manual PM peak hours, as well as on a daily basis for a typical weekday, is summarized in Table 22. As shown in Table 22, the related projects are expected to generate a combined total of 1,485 daily peak hour trips during a typical weekday, 565 vehicle trips (316 inbound trips and 249 outbound trips) during the weekday AM peak hour, and 920 vehicle trips (397 inbound trips and 523 outbound trips) during the weekday PM peak hour. Refer to Appendix F for details. Additionally, the proposed Project would generate approximately 851 Saturday PM peak hour trips (443 inbound trips and 408 outbound trips). ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 102 February 2020 Table 22. Related Projects List and Trip Generation Map No. Project Status Project Address Proposed Land Use Daily Trips AM Peak Hour (Total) PM Peak Hour (Total) Saturday (PM Peak Hour Total) In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total City of Arcadia A1 Proposed 323 325 N. 1st Avenue Medical Office 196 10 3 13 5 14 19 11 9 20 Retail 77 1 1 2 3 4 7 5 4 9 A2 Pending 117-129 E. Huntington Drive Apartment 924 14 57 71 56 30 86 35 30 65 124, 126, and 134 E. Wheeler Avenue Retail 476 7 4 11 20 21 41 28 26 54 A3 Under Construction 56 E. Duarte Road Condominium 215 3 13 16 13 6 19 9 8 17 Retail 827 12 7 19 35 37 72 48 45 93 A4 Under Construction 57 Wheeler Avenue Apartment 252 4 15 19 16 8 24 10 10 20 Retail 308 4 3 7 13 14 27 18 16 34 Office 58 7 1 8 1 7 8 1 1 2 A5 Under Construction 501 N. Santa Anita Avenue Condominium 116 2 7 9 7 3 10 5 4 9 A6 Proposed 415 California Street Condominium 116 2 7 9 7 3 10 5 4 9 A7 Under Construction Santa Anita Inn Redevelopment Project Hotel 2,774 65 64 129 114 109 223 141 120 261 Condominium Retail A8 Under Construction 22-26 E. Colorado Boulevard Condominium 46 1 3 4 3 1 4 2 2 4 A9 Under Construction 288 N. Santa Anita Avenue Medical Office 842 44 12 56 23 60 83 48 37 85 Retail 301 4 3 7 12 14 26 18 16 34 A10 Proposed 141-145 Alice Street Condominium 46 1 3 4 3 1 4 2 2 4 A11 Pending 230 California Street Condominium 29 0 2 2 0 1 3 1 1 2 A12 Pending 414 Fairview Avenue Condominium 35 1 2 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 A13 Pending 405 S. 1st Avenue Condominium 23 0 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 3 Retail 25 1 0 1 1 1 2 2 1 3 ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 103 February 2020 Table 22. Related Projects List and Trip Generation Map No. Project Status Project Address Proposed Land Use Daily Trips AM Peak Hour (Total) PM Peak Hour (Total) Saturday (PM Peak Hour Total) In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total A14* Proposed 285 W. Huntington Drive Santa Anita Park North Barn Project Stables Expansion 1,469 62 20 82 18 96 114 43 39 82 Dormitories 210 0 0 0 21 21 42 0 21 21 Canteen 50 2 2 4 2 2 4 0 1 1 A15 Existing 125 W. Huntington Drive Office 655 67 11 78 12 65 77 19 17 36 City of Monrovia M1 Under Construction 530 Fano Street Condominium 70 1 4 5 4 2 6 3 3 6 M2 In Planning 717-721 W. Duarte Road Condominium 46 1 3 4 3 1 4 2 2 4 Total 10,186 316 249 565 397 523 920 459 421 880 Notes: * the transportation assumptions represents a conservative scenario. Source: Appendix F ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 104 February 2020 Project Trip Generation Traffic generation is expressed in vehicle trip ends, defined as one-way vehicular movements, either entering or exiting the generating land use. Trip generation rates provided in the ITE Trip Generation Manual publication were utilized to forecast Project-related trips. The ITE document contains trip rates for a variety of land uses which have been derived based on traffic counts conducted at existing sites throughout California and the United States. Trip generation forecasts for the proposed Project are as follows: Weekday Project Trip Generation Summary The proposed Project weekday trip generation rates and traffic volume forecasts are summarized in Table 23, Project Trip Generation, and illustrated in Figures 7-2 and 7-3 in Appendix F. As presented in Table 23, the proposed Project is expected to generate 178 net new vehicle trips (73 inbound trips and 105 outbound trips) during the weekday AM peak hour. During the weekday PM peak hour, the proposed Project is expected to generate 147 net new vehicle trips (104 inbound trips and 43 outbound trips). Over a 24-hour period, the proposed Project is forecast to generate approximately 2,442 daily trip ends during a typical weekday. Weekend Project Trip Generation Summary The Saturday trip generation forecast for the proposed Project is also summarized in Table 23. As summarized in Table 23 and illustrated in Figure 7-4 in Appendix F, the proposed Project is expected to generate a net increase of 245 vehicle trips (123 inbound trips and 122 outbound trips) during the Saturday PM peak hour. Over a 24-hour weekend period, the proposed Project is forecast to generate a net increase of 3,012 vehicle trips. Existing with Project Conditions Existing with Project LOS and traffic volumes are shown in Table 21, and illustrated in Figures 14, 15, and 16, respectively, for the weekday AM and PM peak hours and Saturday PM peak hour. Application of the significant impacts at any of the study intersections. Incremental, but not significant, impacts are noted at the study intersections. Because there are no significant impacts, no traffic mitigation measures are Future without Project Conditions The future year 2021 pre-Project conditions were forecast based on the addition of traffic expected to be generated by the related projects, as well as the growth in traffic due to the combined effects of continuing development, intensification of existing developments and other factors (i.e., ambient growth). The v/c ratios at the study intersections appropriately reflect the addition of traffic generated by the related projects listed in Table 22 and growth in ambient traffic. ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 105 February 2020 Table 23. Project Trip Generation Proposed Land Use Size Daily Trip Volumes AM Peak Hour Volumes PM Peak Hour Volumes Saturday Daily Trip Volumes Saturday Peak Hour Volumes In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total Hotel 165 keys 2,018 59 43 102 59 61 120 1,733 72 72 144 Coffee Shop without Drive- Through 1,568 sf 570 81 78 159 29 28 57 930 46 47 93 Less 25% Internal Capture/Pass-by (142) (20) (20) (40) (7) (7) (14) (232) (12) (12) (24) Spa 7,466 sf 282 4 3 7 13 15 28 344 18 16 34 Less 25 % Internal Capture/Pass-by (70) (1) (1) (2) (3) (4) (7) (86) (5) (4) (9) Restaurant 4,146 sf 465 23 18 41 25 16 41 507 23 23 46 Less 25 % Internal Capture/Pass-by (110) (5) (5) (10) (6) (4) (10) (126) (6) (5) (11) Bar 1,033 sf 120 Nom. Nom Nom. 8 4 12 120 8 4 12 Less 25 % Internal Capture/Pass-by (30) Nom. Nom Nom. (2) (1) (3) (30) (2) (1) (3) Subtotal Proposed Project 3,097 140 116 256 116 108 224 3,160 142 139 281 Less Prior Use (General Office) 67,213 sf (655) (67) (11) (78) (12) (65) (77) (148) (19) (17) (36) Net Increase 2,442 73 105 178 104 43 147 3,012 123 122 245 Source: Appendix F ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 106 February 2020 As presented in column [3] of Table 21, six of the eight study intersections are expected to continue to operate at LOS D or better during the weekday AM, weekday PM, and Saturday PM peak hours. The following study intersections are anticipated to operate at LOS E for the peak hour/s shown below with the addition of related projects traffic and ambient traffic: Int. No. 5: Santa Anita Ave./I-210 WB Ramps AM Peak Hour: v/c=0.971, LOS E Int. No. 8: Santa Anita Ave./Huntington Dr.AM Peak Hour: v/c=0.993, LOS E/PM Peak Hour: v/c=0.915, LOS E The future pre-Project (existing, ambient growth and related projects) traffic volumes at the study intersections during the weekday AM, weekday PM, and Saturday PM peak hours are presented in Figures 10-4, Figure 10-5, and Figure 10-6 in Appendix F, respectively. Future with Project Conditions Future with project traffic volumes for the weekday AM and PM peak hours, and the Saturday PM peak hour are shown in Table 21 and illustrated in Figures 10-7, 10-8, and 10-9 in Appendix F, respectively for the AM and PM peak hours, ap proposed Project is not expected to create significant impacts at any of the study intersections. Incremental, but not significant, impacts are noted at the study intersections. Because there are no significant impacts, Street Segment Transportation Impact Analysis The forecast traffic conditions at the analyzed street segments for existing, existing with Project, future year 2021 pre-Project (i.e., existing traffic volumes and ambient traffic growth) and future year 2021 with Project analysis scenarios are summarized in Table 24. The existing weekday and Saturday roadway segment traffic volumes and their corresponding LOS are summarized in column [1]. As presented in column [3], the proposed Project weekday and Saturday daily trips were added to the existing volumes. As shown in column [6] of Table 24, a 1% annual ambient growth rate through the year 2021 was applied to the existing weekday and Saturday daily volumes in order to estimate the future pre-Project traffic volumes. As presented in column [7] of Table 24, the proposed Project weekday trips are expected to incrementally increase future traffic volumes on the analyzed street segments. It is noted that the Project trips are based on the Project trip generation forecasts and the Project trip distribution patterns. As indicated in Table 24 below, all of the study street segments analyzed are anticipated to operate at LOS C or better with the addition of the proposed Project weekday and Saturday daily traffic. As noted previously in the Circulation and Infrastructure Element of the City of Arcadia General Plan 2010, roadway segments operating at LOS D or better are considered to be at acceptable levels. Thus, the Project is not anticipated to significantly impact the analyzed street segments under either the existing or future year 2021 conditions. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required or recommended. ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 107 February 2020 Table 24. Street Segment Analysis Summary Existing and Future Weekday and Weekend Conditions Street Segment Time CAP1 [1] 2019 Existing Conditions [2] Net Daily Project Build-Out Trip Ends [3] Existing with project [4] % ADT Increase with project [5] Existing with Project Segment Impact [6] Year 2021 Future Pre-Project [7] Year 2021 with Project [8] % ADT Increase with project [9] Future with Project Segment Impact VOL V/C LOS VOL V/C LOS VOL V/C LOS VOL V/C LOS Colorado Place between San Juan Drive and Colorado Boulevard Wk. 40,000 13,902 0.35 A 952 14,854 0.37 A 6.8% No 14,180 0.35 A 15,132 0.38 A 6.7% No Sat. 40,000 9,804 0.25 A 1076 10,880 0.27 A 11% No 10,000 0.25 A 11,076 0.28 A 10.8% No Huntington Drive (EB) between Santa Clara Street and Centennial Way Wk. 30,000 14,530 0.48 A 73 14,603 0.49 A 0.5% No 14,821 0.49 A 14,894 0.50 A 0.5% No Sat. 30,000 12,384 0.41 A 139 12,523 0.42 A 1.1% No 12,632 0.42 A 12,771 0.43 A 1.1% No Huntington Drive (WB) between Santa Clara Street and Centennial Way Wk. 30,000 16,732 0.56 A 73 16,796 0.56 A 0.4% No 17,057 0.57 A 17,130 0.57 A 0.4% No Sat. 30,000 14,597 0.49 A 139 14,736 0.49 A 1.0% No 14,889 0.50 A 15,028 0.50 A 0.9% No Huntington Drive between Santa Clara Street Santa Anita Avenue Wk. 40,000 28,251 0.71 C 976 29,227 0.73 C 3.5% No 28,816 0.72 C 29,792 0.74 C 3.4% No Sat. 40,000 24,090 0.60 A 1204 25,294 0.63 B 5.0% No 24,572 0.61 B 25,776 0.64 B 4.9% No Santa Anita Avenue between Santa Clara Street and Huntington Drive Wk. 40,000 29,514 0.74 C 588 30,102 0.75 C 2.0% No 30,104 0.75 C 30,692 0.77 C 2.0% No Sat. 40,000 26,293 0.66 B 624 26,917 0.67 B 2.4% No 26,819 0.67 B 27,443 0.69 B 2.3% No Santa Anita Avenue south of Huntington Drive Wk. 40,000 30,709 0.77 C 22 30,731 0.77 C 0.1% No 31,323 0.78 C 31,345 0.78 C 0.1% No Sat. 40,000 27,018 0.68 B 128 27,146 0.68 B 0.5% No 27,558 0.69 B 27,686 0.69 B 0.5% No Source: Appendix F Notes: 1 Daily capacity is based on 10,000 vehicles per day per lane. [1] The existing daily traffic volumes were determined based on counts conducted by City Traffic Counters in April 2019 (provided in Appendix A). [2] Net project build out daily trip ends include inbound and outbound trips based on the project trip generation forecasts in Table 21. [3] Total of columns [1] and [2]. [4] Percent project-related increase based on column [2] divided by column [1]. [5]/[9] According to the General Plan, Circulation and Infrastructure Element, roadway segments operating at LOS A through LOS D are considered acceptable levels and LOS E at roadways adjacent to 1) freeway ramps; 2) Santa Anita Park and linked roadways; and 3) the Downtown, Baldwin Avenue, and Live Oak Avenue commercial and mixed-use districts. [6] An ambient growth rate of 1% per year was assumed to derive the year 2021 future pre-project traffic volumes [7] Total of columns [2] and [6] [8] Percent project-related increase based on column [2] divided by column [6] ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 108 February 2020 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO)PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 109 February 2020 Freeways Each of the two Santa Anita Avenue off-ramp intersection approaches were reviewed in terms of expected maximum vehicle queues (i.e., 95th percentile queues) which represent the maximum back of vehicle queues with 95th percentile traffic volumes. The corresponding maximum vehicle queue lengths were then compared with the 85th percentile ramp storage lengths (i.e., 85% of the available storage length as measured from the applicable freeway/frontage road gore areas to the respective off-ramp lane merges/approach limit lines). Both the I-210 Freeway Westbound Off-Ramp at the Santa Anita Avenue intersection and the I-210 Freeway Eastbound Off-Ramp at the Santa Anita Avenue intersection are controlled by traffic signals. As shown in Table 11-2 of Appendix F, adequate 85th percentile storage lengths are provided to accommodate the forecast 95th percentile queues under the year 2021 with project build-out conditions. Therefore, based on a review of the queuing analyses and the storage lengths, vehicle queuing back onto the I-210 Freeway mainline travel lanes is not expected. The corresponding weekday AM, weekday PM, and Saturday PM peak hour HCM worksheets for purposes of determining the 95th percentile vehicle queues are contained in Appendix C. In addition, based on the HCM delay based methodology, both ramp intersections identified above are operating at acceptable Levels of Service (LOS). Caltrans Analysis a supplemental analysis was prepared based on the HCM (Transportation Research Board 2016) operational analysis of Traffic Impact Studies (Appendix F). Based on recent coordination with Caltrans, analyses of Caltrans facilities should be conducted when and if a proposed project is expected to add 50 or more peak hour trips in either direction on a freeway mainline segment (Appendix F). The proposed Project at build-out is not expected to generate 50 or more vehicle trips, during either the weekday AM or PM commute peak hours, at any freeway mainline location. Thus, any freeway mainline location would not exceed the threshold for preparation of a Caltrans freeway mainline analysis. However, the proposed Project is expected to contribute traffic generation at two ramp intersections and they have been analyzed based on Caltrans methodology during the weekday AM, weekday PM, and Saturday PM commute peak hours. The following Caltrans study intersections have been identified for analysis based on their proximity to the Project site: Intersection No. 5 Santa Anita Avenue/I-210 Freeway Westbound Ramps Intersection No. 6 Santa Anita Avenue/I-210 Freeway Eastbound Ramps According to the Caltrans document, the LOS for operating state highway facilities is based upon measures of effectiveness (MOEs). For state-controlled signalized study intersections, the MOE is determined based on control delay in seconds per vehicle transition between LOS C and LOS D on s maintained. However, Caltrans acknowledges that this may not always be feasible and recommends that the lead agency consult with Caltrans to determine the appropriate target LOS. If an existing state highway facility is operating at less than the appropriate target LOS, the existing MOE should be maintained. For this analysis, LOS D is the target level of service standard and will be utilized to assess the project impacts at the Caltrans study intersections. For signalized intersections, Caltrans considers a location to be impacted ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO)PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 110 February 2020 if the target MOE is not maintained and a corresponding change in control delay in seconds per vehicle (sec/veh) is 1.0 second or more. Based on the HCM operations method of analysis, level of service for signalized intersections is defined in terms of control delay, which is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, and lost travel time. The delay experienced by a motorist is made up of a number of factors that relate to control, geometries, traffic, and incidents. Total delay is the difference between the travel time actually experienced and the reference travel time that would result during ideal conditions: in the absence of traffic control, in the absence of geometric delay, in the absence of any incidents, and when there are no other vehicles on the road. The HCM signalized methodology calculates the control delay for each of the subject traffic movements and determines the level of service for each constrained movement. The control delay for any particular movement is a function of the capacity of the approach and the degree of saturation. The overall control delay is measured in seconds per vehicle and the level of service is then determined. The term Level of Service is used to describe intersection operations. Intersection LOS vary from LOS A (free flow) to LOS F (jammed condition). The six qualitative categories of Level of Service that have been defined along with the corresponding HCM control delay value range for signalized intersections are shown in Appendix F. Intersection and queuing analyses were prepared utilizing the Synchro 10 software package which implements the HCM operational methods. A Synchro network was created based on existing conditions field reviews at the above two (2) Caltrans study intersections. In addition, specifics such as lane configurations, storage lengths, crosswalk locations, posted speed limits, traffic signal phasing, and traffic volumes, were coded to complete the existing network. Table 11-1 in Appendix F summarizes the intersection analyses for the existing, existing with project, and future conditions both without and with the proposed project. As shown in Table 11-1 in Appendix F, application of the Caltrans LOS standards and guidelines to the existing with project and future with project conditions indicate that the proposed Project is not expected to adversely impact either of the Caltrans study intersections. The corresponding weekday AM, weekday PM, and Saturday PM peak hour HCM worksheets are contained in Appendix F. Public Transit As previously discussed, existing transit service is provided in the vicinity of the proposed Project. As shown in Table 23, during the weekday PM peak hour, the proposed Project is anticipated to generate demand for 7 net new transit trips. Over a 24-hour weekday period, the proposed Project is forecast to generate demand for 120 daily transit trips. During the Saturday PM peak hour, the proposed Project is anticipated to generate demand for 12 net new transit trips. Over a 24-hour Saturday period, the proposed Project is forecast to generate demand for 148 daily transit trips. The calculations are as follows: Weekday AM Peak Hour = 178 * 1.4 * 0.035 = 9 Transit Trips Weekday PM Peak Hour = 147 * 1.4 * 0.035 = 7 Transit Trips Weekday Daily Trips = 2,442 * 1.4 * 0.035 = 120 Transit Trips Saturday PM Peak Hour = 245 * 1.4 * 0.035 = 12 Transit Trips Saturday Daily Trips = 3,012 * 1.4 * 0.035 = 148 Transit Trips ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 111 February 2020 As explained in Section 3.17(a) and shown in Table 25, Existing Transit Routes, below, Metro, Foothill, and Arcadia Transit bus routes are provided adjacent to or in close proximity to the Project site. As outlined in Table 25 an average of the directional number of buses during the peak hours) of approximately 39 buses/trains serving the project area during the weekday AM peak hour, 43 buses/trains serving the project area during the weekday PM peak hour, and 27 buses/trains during the Saturday PM peak hour. Therefore, based on the above calculated weekday AM, weekday PM, and Saturday PM peak hour transit trips, this would correspond to an average of less than one new transit rider per bus due to the proposed project. It is anticipated that the existing transit service in the project area will adequately accommodate the project- generated transit trips. Thus, given the low number of generated transit trips per bus, no impacts on existing or future transit services in the project area are expected to occur as a result of the proposed project. Table 25. Existing Transit Routes Route Destinations Roadways Near Site Number of Buses/ Trains During peak hour DIR Weekday Saturday AM PM PM Arcadia Transit Blue Line City of Arcadia Santa Anita Avenue, Huntington Drive, Arcadia Gold Line Station EB 1 2 1 WB 1 2 1 Arcadia Transit Green Line City of Arcadia Holly Drive, Huntington Drive, Arcadia Gold Line Station Clockwise 2 3 3 C/Clockwise 2 3 3 Foothill Transit 187 Azusa to Pasadena via Duarte, Monrovia, Arcadia, and Sierra Madre Santa Anita Avenue, Santa Clara Street, Holly Avenue, and Huntington Drive EB 4 4 2 WB 4 4 2 Metro 79 Downtown Los Angeles to Arcadia via El Sereno, Alhambra, and South Arcadia Santa Anita Avenue, Santa Clara Street, Holly Avenue, and Huntington Drive EB 2 2 2 WB 3 2 1 Metro 487 El Monte to Los Angeles via Arcadia, Pasadena, San Marino, Temple City, San Gabriel, and Downtown Los Angeles Santa Anita Avenue, and Huntington Drive EB 2 3 1 WB 2 2 1 Metro Gold Line Azusa to East Los Angeles via Irwindale, Duarte, Monrovia, Arcadia, Sierra Madre, Pasadena, South Pasadena, Highland Park, Lincoln Heights, Chinatown, and Union Station Arcadia Gold Line Station NB 8 8 5 SB 8 8 5 Total 39 43 27 Source: Appendix F Conclusion As shown in Table 21, expected to create significant impacts at any of the study intersections under the Existing with Project or ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO)PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 112 February 2020 Future with Project scenarios. Incremental, but not significant, impacts are noted at the study intersections. All study intersections would remain at LOS D or better in both peak hours, and, as such, the proposed . As such, the proposed Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Less Than Significant Impact. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b), lists the criteria that must be used for applying VMT analysis to development Project and for determining the significance of transportation impacts under VMT criteria. Section 15064.3, subdivision (b) is further divided into four subdivisions: (1) land use projects, (2) transportation projects, (3) qualitative analysis, and (4) methodology. The proposed Project is hospitality project, which would include the conversion of an existing 76,754-sf building (Building C) into a hotel and the construction of a new 61,538-square-foot hotel annex building (Building D). The proposed Project would comprise: 165 hotel rooms, a 1,568 sf coffee shop, 7,466 sf spa, 4,146 sf restaurant, and 1,033 sf bar. The proposed Project would generate temporary construction-related traffic and would generate 2,442 daily trips ends during typical weekday operation (refer to Appendix F). As previously stated, the guidelines shall applied by all lead agencies, statewide, by July 1, 2020, and at this time, the City has not yet implemented VMT as a primary traffic evaluation methodology. As such, the current guidelines (based on LOS). Because the City has not adopted the use of VMT pursuant to SB 743, the proposed Project would be evaluated according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)(3), qualitative analysis. This guideline recognizes that lead agencies may not be able to quantitatively estimate VMT for every project type. In those circumstances, this subdivision encourages lead agencies to evaluate factors such as the availability of transit, proximity to other destinations, and other factors that may affect the amount of driving required by the Project. As stated above in Section 3.17(a), the proposed Project is located in close proximity to both public bus and rail service. Public bus transit service in the Project area is provided by Foothill Transit, Metro, and Arcadia Transit. Foothill Transit provides bus transit service along major roadways within the transportation analysis study area: Huntington Drive and Santa Anita Avenue. Foothill Transit currently operates one transit route in the vicinity of the Project site. This bus line provides headways of four buses during the weekday morning peak hour and four buses during the weekday afternoon peak hour. Metro provides bus transit service along major roadways within the transportation analysis study area: Huntington Drive and Santa Anita Avenue. Metro currently operates two local Metro bus transit routes in the vicinity of the Project site. The Metro bus transit routes provide headways of two to three buses during the morning and afternoon peak hours. Arcadia Dial-A-Ride is a demand-response service providing curb-to-curb transportation to seniors and persons with disabilities to and from any destination within the Arcadia city boundaries, including all shopping areas, commercial centers, the Methodist Hospital, medical centers, the civic center, parks, the racetrack, libraries, etc. The service is provided based on space availability and is open Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. and Saturday/Sunday from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Trip requests can be made the same day or up to seven days in advance. ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO)PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 113 February 2020 The Metro Gold Line Arcadia Station is also located approximately one-half mile northeast of the Project site, at the northwest corner of First Avenue and Santa Clara Street. Arcadia Transit provides fixed-route general public transit service with three lines (i.e., Green, Blue and Red Lines). Two of the three lines operate in the vicinity of the Project site. These lines provide headways of generally one to two buses during the weekday morning peak hour and two to three buses during the weekday afternoon peak hour. In addition to readily available public transit, the proposed Project would provide enhanced pedestrian and bicycle amenities. The proposed Project would provide a combination of landscape and hardscape improvements that would facilitate internal accessibility and encourage active transportation. The Project site is accessible from surrounding land uses and nearby public transportation as well as via public sidewalks on Colorado Place, W. Huntington Drive and San Rafael Road. The Project is well located to further facilitate and encourage bicycling as a mode of transportation as these facilities are built throughout the City. In summary, the proposed Project is conveniently located in close proximity to public transit and would provide opportunities for increased pedestrian and bicycle activity, all of which would contribute to reducing the the proposed Project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b). Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would not modify any other existing roadways leading to the site and would not involve construction of structures that would cause transportation hazards. All , Development Code, and Design Standards. Therefore, the proposed Project would not substantially increase roadway hazards due to design features. The proposed Project would involve construction of a hotel development in a commercial area that has been designated and planned for such uses. As such, development of the proposed Project would not introduce incompatible uses to the Project area having the potential to contribute to hazardous roadway conditions. Impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. The City of Arcadia General Plan includes a Safety Element Chapter, which addresses community safety for environmental hazards, human caused hazards, threats to national security, emergency services, and emergency preparedness (City of Arcadia 2010b). In addition, Los Angeles County Department of Public Works has designated disaster evacuation routes for the City of Arcadia. Colorado Place and Huntington Drive, both located adjacent to the Project site, are designated disaster routes. Construction of the proposed Project would not require road closures in public right-of-ways of Colorado Place or Huntington Drive. Therefore, emergency service response times and disaster evacuation routes would not be affected. Prior to operation, the proposed Project would receive all required permits and certificates for occupancy and operation, including those issued by the City of Arcadia Fire Department, which is the agency in charge of emergency response at the Project site. Therefore, no interference or impairment of the emergency response or emergency evacuation plans would occur, and no impact would occur. ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 114 February 2020 3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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), or 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 Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe? a) 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: i) 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)? Less Than significant Impact. As described under Section 3.5 , Cultural Resources, of this document, a CHRIS records search and SLF was conducted for the proposed Project site. No previously recorded tribal cultural resources (TCRs) listed in the CRHR or a local register were identified within the proposed Project site. Further, no TCRs have been identified by California Native American tribes as part of the Ci ssembly Bill (AB) 52 notification and consultation process (see Section 3.18(a)(ii) below for a description of this process). Therefore, the proposed Project would not adversely affect TCRs that are listed or eligible for listing in the state or local register Impacts are considered less than significant. No mitigation is required. ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 115 February 2020 ii) 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 Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. There are no resources in the proposed Project site that have been determined by the City to be significant pursuant to the criteria set forth in Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. Further, no specific TCRs were identified in the proposed Project site through the CHRIS records search, by the NAHC, or by the City as part of the AB 52 notification and consultation process. In an effort to proactively reach out to tribes with a cultural affiliation to the proposed Project site, the City sent notification of the proposed Project to California Native American tribal representatives identified by the NAHC as being traditionally or culturally affiliated with the geographic area pursuant to AB 52 on July 9, 2019. Of the six (6) affiliated or interested tribes, two responded: Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians Kizh Nation and Gabrieleno-Tongva Tribe. Furthermore, only one requested consultation; the response from representative, Andrew Salas, of the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians Kizh Nation was received with a request for consultation (July 16, 2019). After several calls and emails, consultation between the City and the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians Kizh Nation was scheduled for October 17, 2019; however, the meeting was cancelled (via email) by the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians Kizh Nation (Tribe) on October 15, 2019. City Staff responded to email informing the Tribe that several attempts to consult were made by Staff and that the meeting should be rescheduled. No response was received. To date, no additional correspondence has occurred and consultation is considered complete. The AB 52 government-to-government consultations initiated by the City have not resulted in the identification of a geographically defined TCR within or near the proposed Project site. As no information regarding TCRs that could be impacted by the proposed Project has been received by the City, the City has determined that no TCRs are present in the proposed Project site. However, there is still a potential for unknown subsurface TCRs to be impacted by the proposed Project, which could result in a potentially significant impact. Therefore, protocols for the inadvertent discovery of TCRs are included as mitigation measure MM-TCR-1, which when implemented, will reduce the potentially significant impact to a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The following mitigation measure would ensure that the proposed Project has a less-than- significant impact on TCRs. MM-TCR-1 Should a possible TCR be encountered, construction activities within 50 feet of the discovery shall be temporarily halted and the City notified. The City will notify Native American tribes that have been identified by the NAHC to be traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the Project. If the potential resource is archaeological in nature, appropriate management requirements shall be implemented as outlined in MM-CUL-1. If the City determines that the potential resource is a TCR (as defined by PRC, Section 21074), tribes consulting under AB 52 would be provided a reasonable period of time, typically 5 days from the date of a new discovery is made, to conduct a site visit and make recommendations ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 116 February 2020 regarding future ground disturbance activities as well as the treatment of any discovered TCRs. A qualified archaeologist shall implement a plan for the treatment and disposition of any discovered TCRs based on the nature of the resource and considering the recommendations of the tribe(s). Implementation of proposed recommendations will be made based on the determination of the City that the approach is reasonable and feasible. 3.19 Utilities and Service Systems Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequa commitments? d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications fac ilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Impact. Water. According to the General Plan EIR, the City of Arcadia is its own water supplier, and provides water to approximately 96% from the San Gabriel Valley and Raymond Groundwater Basins and from water imported from the Upper San ibution infrastructure comprises 164.6 miles of ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 117 February 2020 water lines (City of Arcadia 2010a). No water infrastructure improvements are required and no off-site impacts are necessary. The proposed Project would connect to the existing water utility infrastructure and would be to water infrastructure improvements in the City. and size of the meters and the number of fire hydrants required to serve the Project site. Wastewater. through which the City manages and operates sewer system demand, supply, and associated infrastructure (City of Arcadia 2014). Sewer lines in the City convey wastewater into trunk lines that are maintained by the Sanitation District of Los Angeles County (LACSD) 138 miles of sewer pipelines. According infrastructure needs to be upgraded to accommodate anticipated growth through 2026 (City of Arcadia 2010a The Whittier Narrows Water Reclamation Plant (WRP), located near the City of South El Monte, with a design capacity of 15 million gallons per day (mgd) and an average flow of 5.4 mgd. The San Jose Creek WRP, located adjacent to the City of Industry, with a design capacity of 100 mgd and an average flow of 77.1 mgd. The Los Coyotes WRP, located in the City of Cerritos, with a design capacity of 37.5 mgd and an average flow of 27 mgd. The Project site is currently served by existing 10-inch and 12-inch sewer lines in Colorado Place, San Rafael Road, and San Juan Drive. Wastewater from the Project area is transported to the San Jose Creek Water Reclamation Plant, which is operated by the LACSD. n, sewer system fees and permits.17 The proposed Project would be connected to the existing 12-inch high-density polyethylene pipe (HDPE) line in Colorado Place and the existing 8-inch HDPE pipe in San Rafael Road, and would be transported to the San Jose Creek Water Reclamation Plant. -2016 Capital Improvement Project Form, improvements to the sewer lines in Huntington Drive were funded and approved in 2015. To date, the 10-inch sewer pipe on Huntington Drive (from Colorado Place to Centennial Way) has been replaced with a 14-inch sewer pipe, and the 12-inch sewer pipe (from Centennial Way to the LACSD connection point) was replaced with a 16-inch sewer pipe. These improvements, including phase III of the Huntington Drive Sewer Capacity Improvement Project have been completed (City of Arcadia 2018). The proposed Project would adhere to City of Arcadia Municipal Code, Article VII, Chapter 4, Part 4, Fees and Deposits, which requires that the proposed Project pay development impact fair share contribution to sewer infrastructure improvements. Any additional sewer infrastructure improvements or expansions would constitute its fair share contribution towards any needed future capital improvements. As such, implementation of the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on wastewater infrastructure. No mitigation is required. Stormwater. The proposed Project is not expected to generate increased stormwater runoff. As described under Section 3.10, the drainage patterns of the Project site would not substantially change relative to 17 City of Arcadia Municipal Code, Article VII, Chapter 4, Part 1 through 8 Sewers. ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 118 February 2020 existing conditions. As previously discussed under Section 3.10, all development and redevelopment projects must comply with the latest LID Standards Manual, which complies with the requirements of the NPDES 2012 MS4 Permit. The LID Standards Manual provides guidance for the implementation of stormwater quality control measures in new development and redevelopment projects with the intention of improving water quality and mitigating potential water quality impacts from stormwater and non-stormwater discharges (LA County 2014). Project design, construction, and operation would be completed in accordance with the LID Standards Manual and the Project-specific LID Plan. The LID Plan would use site design and stormwater management in order to maintain -development runoff rates and -development hydrology by using design techniques that filter, store, evaporate, and detain runoff close to the source of rainfall. Compliance with storm drain system and would ensure that stormwater is retained on site, to the extent feasible. As such, the proposed Project would not require the construction or expansion of off-site stormwater drainage facilities, as the project would not contribute a substantial amount of new stormwater runoff relative to existing conditions. Solid Waste. The California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991 (AB 341) declared that cities and counties must divert 50% of all solid waste by 2000 and aims to reduce 75% of all solid waste by 2020, through source reduction, recycling and composting activities, as well as, provide adequate areas for collecting and loading recyclable materials. Under the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991, each local agency must adopt an ordinance for collecting and loading recyclable materials.18 s act by reference.19 The proposed Project would adhere to the Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Act through adherence with City Municipal Code, Article V, and, as such, solid waste generated under the proposed Project would be less than significant. Electricity and Natural Gas. SCE provides electricity to the City, and operates four substations within the and yard easements, and high-voltage transmission lines exist along the I-605 freeway (City of Arcadia 2010a). Electricity to the Project site is provided by SCE via four 66-kilovolt transmission lines located on ed in place during construction-related activities. No off-site improvements for electric power infrastructure are anticipated with the implementation of the proposed Project. Sempra Utilities provides natural gas to the City via distribution lines and laterals within the City streets and easements. A high-pressure gas line lies approximately 42 inches belowground and crosses the City along Duarte Road, from Holly Avenue to Mountain Avenue in Monrovia (City of Arcadia 2010a). These gas lines would be protected in place during construction-related activities. No off-site improvements for natural gas infrastructure are anticipated with the implementation of the proposed Project. Telecommunication Facilities. The proposed Project would not require new or expanded telecommunication facilities. In summary, the proposed Project would adhere to state and local legislation pertaining to the payment of -share contribution to increased demand for utility 18 Public Resources Code, Division 30, Part 3, Chapter 18, Section 42910 through 42912 - California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991. 19 City of Arcadia Municipal Code, Article V, Chapter 1, Part 2, Division 1, Section 5121 Recyclables Collection. ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 119 February 2020 infrastructure and services. As such, the Project would have a less than significant impact to the environment as a result of the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities. No mitigation is required. b) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? Less Than Significant Impact. As stated above, according to the General Plan EIR, the City of Arcadia is its sphere of influence. The City sources its water from the San Gabriel (Main) Valley and Raymond Groundwater Basins and from water imported from the Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District. a). The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan and does not require a General Plan Amendment; Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). As stated in the obtained from the SCAG. The SCAG data incorporates demographic trends, existing land use, general plan land use policies, and input and projections from the Department of Finance and the U.S. Census Bureau. As stated in the UWMP, the Main Basin and Raymond Basin have been well managed for the full period of their respective adjudications, resulting in a stable and reliable water supply for the City during average, single- dry, and multiple-dry water years (City of Arcadia 2016b). Additionally, imported water from MWD can be utilized as a supplemental source of supplies. City water conservation efforts will continue into the future to reduce water demands within the City due to the recently implemented tiered water rate and Water Smart program, which are intended to encourage conservation, thereby making local supplies more reliable. According to the UWMP, the City can sustainably pump 19,500 gpm from available groundwater supplies (15,200 gpm from the Main Basin and 4,300 gpm from the Raymond Basin). If the City pumps more water than the allotted amount, replacement water must be purchased from the MWD for spreading and recharging the Main San Gabriel Groundwater Basin; however, the City has not had to rely on any imported water supplies since the 2009-2010 fiscal year (City of Arcadia 2016b). In addition to groundwater and imported water supplies, the City may pre-purchase water for cyclic storage for later use. Furthermore, according to the UWMP, the Main Basin has the capacity to store approximately 8.7 million acre-feet of water, while historic basin operations have only ever reached a maximum of one million acre- feet (UWMP 2016a). Per the UWMP, the City does not experience water supply constraints or deficiencies and projects having adequate supply through the planning year 2040 (UWMP). The proposed Project would not include any wells that would directly deplete groun adequate supply through 2040. Additionally, Arcadia operates in accordance with Phase I Mandatory Water Conservation Prohibitions, which are Code sets forth the water conservation measures that are applicable to all customers and properties served by the Water Division. Restrictions include but are not limited to prohibitions on outdoor watering of sidewalks, limits on scheduling of outdoor landscape irrigation, and restrictions on provision of water to guests at restaurants, hotels, cafes, unless expressly requested by the customer, among other restrictions. ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 120 February 2020 The proposed Project would adhere to the water conservation methods established in Title 24 of the Efficient Landscaping Ordinance, per Article VII, Chapter 5, Part 5, Division 3 and 4 of the C Code.20 Additionally, the proposed Project would be subject to a development impact/connection fee, which such, the proposed Project would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. c) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity Less Than Significant Impact. As stated in Section 3.19(a), the proposed Project would be connected to the existing 12-inch HDPE wastewater line in Colorado Place and the existing 8-inch HDPE pipe in San Rafael Road, and would be transported to the San Jose Creek Water Reclamation Plant (San Jose Creek WRP). According to the LACSD, the San Jose Creek WRP provides primary, secondary and tertiary treatment for 100 million gallons of wastewater per day (mgd), 42 mgd of which is reused at different reclaimed water reuse sites (LACSD 2019). Based on the capacities of the San Jose Creek WRP, the wastewater generated by the proposed Project would be nominal (less than 0.01%) of capacity. As such, the proposed Project would not exceed current capacities of the wastewater treatment system and would not significantly impact existing wastewater treatment systems such that new facilities would be required. d) Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Less Than Significant Impact. -residential solid waste is disposed of through contracts with Republic Services, Waste Management Inc., and Valley Vista Services (City of Arcadia 2019b). These waste management services offer waste and recycling collection, green waste recycling programs, organics waste composting, special waste transportation, and transfer and materials recovery services to the City as well as many other areas in Southern California. Based on the CalEEMod solid waste generation rates, the proposed Project would generate approximately 354 pounds of solid waste per day (Appendix A). Solid waste generated by the proposed Project would be collected by Republic Services, Waste Management Inc., and Valley Vista Services and transported to a local or regional landfill. The increase in solid waste generation from implementation of the proposed Project would be minimal. Regional landfills in the Los Angeles area are anticipated to have sufficient capacity to accommodate the minor increase in solid waste generation attributable to the proposed Project. Additionally, the City adheres to the states Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991 (AB 341), which declares that cities and counties must divert 50% of all solid waste by 2000 and 75% of all solid waste by 2020, through source reduction, recycling and composting. Required compliance with this asons, solid waste impacts resulting from the construction and operation of the proposed Project would be considered less than significant. No mitigation is required. 20 City of Arcadia Municipal Code. Article VII, Chapter 5, Part 5, Division 3 (Water Conservation Plan) and 4 (Water Efficient Landscaping). ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 121 February 2020 e) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No Impact. The project Applicant is required to comply with all local, state, and federal requirements for integrated waste management (e.g., recycling, green waste) and solid waste disposal. The Project would be required to comply with the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, which requires that at least 75% of all annual solid waste materials, including building and demolition materials (wood, metal, electrical, piping, glass, drywall, asphalt, concrete), be diverted from landfills by 2020 (CalRecycle 2019). Republic Services, Waste Management Inc., and Valley Vista Services all adhere to AB 341, and, as such, the proposed Project would comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. No impact would occur. 3.20 Wildfire Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project: a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? a) Would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less Than Significant Impact. According to the General Plan EIR, the City has incorporated two emergency preparedness plans, namely: the Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan and the ACTION Plan. The Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan serves to protect life and property; increase public awareness; balance natural resource management with hazard mitigation; ensure adequate emergency services; and strengthen communication and coordination in hazard management activities (City of Arcadia 2010a). The City ACTION (Arcadians Caring Together Improves Our Neighborhoods) is a cooperative program between the Arcadia Fire Department, other City departments, and the community and has three main goals: a) to educate Arcadians ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO)PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 122 February 2020 on emergency preparedness and what to do after a major disaster; b) to help with crime prevention; and c) to help with fire prevention (City of Arcadia 2010a). According to the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Colorado Place, which abuts the Project -210 is a freeway disaster route (LADPW 2008). the adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. No short-term construction street closures are anticipated and there would be no impairment of evacuation roadways. Upon operation of the proposed Project, emergency access would be provided via the driveways on Colorado Place and San Juan Drive. As such, the proposed Project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan and impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, would the project exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? Less Than Significant Impact. The Project site is located within an urban setting and is surrounded by developed land uses, including developed open space (for outdoor recreation), horse racing, and public/institutional land uses to the west and south and single-family residential development to the north and east. According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection FHSZ Map, the City is not located within a VHFHSZ (CAL FIRE 2011). The nearest wildland areas are located at the bottom of the San Gabriel Mountains, approximately 2.6 miles north of the Project site. The proposed Project would be constructed in adherence to the requirements set forth in the California Fire Code (Title 24, Part 9). The proposed Project would not include the construction of any buildings or infrastructure that would exacerbate wildfire risks. In the unlikely event of a fire emergency at the Project site due to wildland fires, the City of Arcadia Fire Department would respond. Specifically, Fire Station 105, located at 710 S. Santa Anita Avenue, is the closest fire station, located approximately 0.6-mile southeast of the Project site. As such, impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. c) Would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? Less Than Significant Impact. As stated above, the proposed Project would not include the construction of any buildings or infrastructure that would exacerbate fire risks. The proposed Project would be constructed in adherence to the requirements set forth in the Fire Code (Title 24, Part 9 of the California Building Code). During construction of the proposed Project, emergency access to the Project site and surrounding area would be maintained. Furthermore, new access routes would be built according to California Building Code ingress/egress for emergency vehicles. In the unlikely event of a fire emergency at the Project site, the City of Arcadia Fire Department would respond. Specifically, Fire Station 105, located at 710 S. Santa Anita Avenue, is the closest fire station, located approximately 0.6-mile southeast of the Project site. Given the above, the proposed Project would not include the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that may exacerbate ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 123 February 2020 fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. d) Would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? No Impact. The proposed Project is located within a fully developed, urban area and is located on relatively flat terrain. Construction of the proposed Project would result in ground surface disruption that could temporarily alter on-site drainage patterns. However, runoff at the Project site would be managed through implementation of the BMPs described in Section 3.10. Implementation of Project-specific BMPs would ensure that the risk of flooding on or off site is minimized, to the extent practicable, during construction. The Project site as a whole would maintain the general existing drainage pattern and would remain fully developed. Given the above, the proposed Project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. 3.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Does the project have the potential to substantially 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, substantially 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? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO)PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 124 February 2020 a) Does the project have the potential to substantially 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, substantially 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? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed in Section 3.4, Biological Resources, of this IS/MND, the Project site is located in a completely developed and urbanized area, and does not support sensitive vegetation, sensitive wildlife species, or sensitive habitat. Additionally, the project area does not function as a corridor for the movement of native or migratory wildlife. All activities associated with the proposed Project would be conducted in the highly urbanized environment of the project area. Construction noise has the potential to disturb nesting birds potentially nesting in the trees and sparsely distributed ornamental vegetation on the Project site nature and would be reduced to below a level of significance with implementation of MM-BIO-1. As such, impacts to biological resources resulting from the proposed Project would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. No further mitigation is required. As described in Section 3.5 of this IS/MND, the Project site does not support any important examples of major periods in California history or prehistory. However, the presence of Gabrielino villages in the surrounding area indicates that the project area may be sensitive for buried cultural resources (refer to Appendix C). As such, there is a possibility of encountering previously undiscovered cultural resources at subsurface levels during ground-disturbing activities associated with the proposed project. Implementation of mitigation measure MM-CUL-1 and MM-TCR-1 would ensure that any uncovered archaeological resources and/or tribal cultural resources are protected. As such, after mitigation, the proposed Project would not substantially 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, substantially 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. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. No further mitigation is required. b) ively the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed Project would result in potentially significant project-level impacts involving Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, and Tribal Cultural Resources. However, mitigation measures have been identified that would reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. Furthermore, the transportation analysis presented in Section 3.17, Transportation, of this IS/MND has quantitatively assessed cumulative impacts and have determined that cumulative traffic impacts would less than significant. All reasonably foreseeable future development in the City would be subject to the same land use and environmental regulations that have been described throughout this document. Furthermore, all development projects are guided by the policies identified in compliance with applicable land use and environmental regulations would ensure that environmental effects associated with the proposed Project would not combine with effects from reasonably foreseeable future development in the City to cause cumulatively considerable significant impacts. Cumulative impacts would therefore be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. No further mitigation is required. ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 125 February 2020 c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As detailed throughout this IS/MND, the proposed Project would not exceed any significance thresholds or result in significant impacts in the environmental categories typically associated with indirect or direct effects to human beings, such as aesthetics, air quality, hazards and hazardous materials, public services, or transportation. However, as described in Section 3.13, Noise, the proposed Project could result in potentially significant impacts in the category of noise, during both construction and operation of the project. With implementation of MM-NOI-1 and MM- NOI-2, this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level. As such, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. No further mitigation is required. ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO)PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 126 February 2020 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 11663.01 127 January 2020 4 References and Preparers 4.1 References Cited 14 CCR 15000 15387 and Appendices A through L. Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended. Airnav.com. 2019. Accessed July 24, 2019. https://www.airnav.com/airports/get. APD (Arcadia Police Department). 2019. Accessed June 4, 2019. https://www.arcadiaca.gov/government/city-departments/police-department/operations-division. BonTerra Psomas. 2010. City of Arcadia 2010 General Plan Update, Draft Program Environmental Impact Report . Accessed, December 31, 2019. https://www.arcadiaca.gov/shape/ development_services_department/planning___zoning/general_plan.php#outer-708. CAL FIRE (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection). 2011. Fire Hazard Severity Zones Map. Accessed, May 30, 2019. http://frap.fire.ca.gov/webdata/maps/los_angeles/LosAngelesCounty.pdf. California Natural Resources Agency. 2009. Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action. December 2009. Accessed December 31, 2019. http://resources.ca.gov/ceqa/docs/Final_Statement_of_Reasons.pdf. California Public Resources Code, Section 21000 21177. California Environmental Quality Act, as amended. CalRecycle (California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery). 2019. Accessed June 4, 2019. https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/ConDemo/. Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2004. Transportation- and Construction-Induced Vibration Guidance Manual. June 2004. Accessed December 31, 2019. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/ noise/pub/vibrationmanFINAL.pdf. Caltrans. 2010. Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol (CO Protocol). October 13, 2010. Accessed December 2016. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/air/documents/COProtocol_searchable.pdf. Caltrans. 2011. California Scenic Highway Mapping System. Accessed, May 7, 2019. http://www.dot.ca.gov/ hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/index.htm. Caltrans. 2013. Technical Noise Supplement to the Caltrans Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. Division of Environmental Analysis, Environmental Engineering, Hazardous Waste, Air, Noise, Paleontology Office. September 2013. CAPCOA (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association). 2008. CEQA & Climate Change: Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. January 2008. CARB (California Air Resources Board). 2013. - Pavley, http://arb.ca.gov/cc/ccms/ccms.htm. ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 128 February 2020 CARB. 2014. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan Building on the Framework Pursuant to AB 32 The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. May 2014. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ scopingplan/2013_update/first_update_climate_change_scoping_plan.pdf. CARB. 2017. The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update . January 20, 2017. Accessed March 2018. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2030sp_pp_final.pdf. http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm. common-air-pollutants. CEC (California Energy Commission). 2018. California Energy Consumption Database. Accessed January 2019. http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/. http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/fam/. CGS. 2017. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation Mount Wilson Quadrangle. Accessed on April, 29, 2019. http://gmw.conservation.ca.gov/SHP/EZRIM/Maps/MOUNT_WILSON_EZRIM.pdf City of Arcadia. 2010a. Arcadia General Plan Update, Draft Program EIR. Accessed on April 30, 2019. https://www.arcadiaca.gov/government/city-departments/development-services/general-plan/general-plan-eir. City of Arcadia. 2010b. Arcadia General Plan. Accessed on April, 29, 2019. https://www.arcadiaca.gov/ government/city-departments/development-services/general-plan City of Arcadia. 2010c. Arcadia General Plan Update Draft Program EIR, Exhibit 4.6-4, Liquefaction Hazards and Historically High Groundwater map. Accessed, August 1, 2019. https://www.arcadiaca.gov/ home/showdocument?id=1064. City of Arcadia. 2014. Sewer System Management Plan. Accessed, May 28, 2019. https://www.arcadiaca.gov/ Home/ShowDocument?id=752. City of Arcadia. 2016a. Commercial and Industrial Development Standards. Accessed, May 7, 2019. https://www.arcadiaca.gov/Home/ShowDocument?id=10199. City of Arcadia. 2016b. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. Accessed, August 1, 2019. https://www.arcadiaca.gov/home/showdocument?id=6860. City of Arcadia. 2018. City Council Regular Meeting Agenda Minutes. Accessed, May 30, 2019. https://www.arcadiaca.gov/Home/ShowDocument?id=18089. City of Arcadia. 2019a. Accessed June 4, 2019. https://www.arcadiaca.gov/Home/Components/FacilityDirectory/ FacilityDirectory/42/504. ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO)PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 129 February 2020 City of Arcadia. 2019b. c Works Services Department. Accessed June 4, 2019. https://www.arcadiaca.gov/government/city-departments/public-works-services/ trash-and-recycling. County of Los Angeles (Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission). 2004. Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Plan. December 1, 2004. County of Los Angeles. 2014. Low Impact Development Standards Manual. Accessed, August 1, 2019. http:// dpw.lacounty.gov/ldd/lib/fp/Hydrology/Low%20Impact%20Development%20Standards%20Manual.pdf. County of Los Angeles. 2019. Property Assessment Information System online portal. Accessed June 3, 2019. http://maps.assessor.lacounty.gov/GVH_2_2/Index.html?configBase=http://maps.assessor.lacounty.gov/ Geocortex/Essentials/REST/sites/PAIS/viewers/PAIS_hv/virtualdirectory/Resources/Config/Default. DERP (Defense Environmental Restoration Program). 1995. Findings and Determination of Eligibility, Santa Anita Ordnance Training Center, Site No. JO9CA061600. January 6, 1995. Dibblee, T.W., and H.E. Ehrenspeck, 1998. Geologic map of the Mt. Wilson and Azusa quadrangles, Los Angeles County, California: Dibblee Geological Foundation, Dibblee Foundation Map DF-67, scale 1:24,000. DOC DLRP (California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection). 2016. Important Farmland Finder Database. Accessed, May 28, 2019. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/. DOC DLRP. 2017. State of California Williamson Act Contract Land. Accessed, May 22, 2019. ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/wa/2016%20Statewide%20Map/. DOC DLRP. 2018. Accessed May 28, 2019. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/Pages/ About.aspx. DOC DOGGR (California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources). 2019. Department of Gas and Geothermal Resources, Well Finder. Accessed, August 1, 2019. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder/#openModal/-118.03243/34.14358/15. DWR (California Department of Water Resources). 2019. SGMA Groundwater Management. Accessed, December 31, 2019. https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Groundwater-Management/SGMA-Groundwater-Management. EIA (U.S. Energy Information Administration). 2017. California Profile Data. Updated October 19, 2017. https://www.eia.gov/state/data.php?sid=CA#ConsumptionExpenditures EPA (U.S. Last updated July 1, 2016. https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/health-and-environmental-effects- particulate-matter-pm. http://www.epa.gov/region9/air/maps/. ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 130 February 2020 FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2008. FEMA Flood Map Service Center. Accessed on May 20, 2019. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=47108%20&%2047%20N% 20CHERRY%20ST%20Hammond,%20LA#searchresultsanchor. FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). 2004. Traffic Noise Model 2.5 Accessed December 31, 2019. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/Environment/noise/traffic_noise_model/tnm_v30/tnmv3.cfm. FHWA. 2008. Roadway Construction Noise Model. Accessed, December 31, 2019. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/Environment/noise/construction_noise/rcnm/index.cfm. GSI (GSI Environmental Inc.). 2018. Additional Investigation Report and Request for Closure, Santa Anita Park, 285 West Huntington Drive, Arcadia, California 91007. November 14, 2018. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007. IPCC Fourth Assessment Synthesis of Scientific-Technical Information Relevant to Interpreting Article 2 of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. LACSD (Los Angeles County Sanitation District). 2019. Accessed June 4, 2019. https://www.lacsd.org/wastewater/wwfacilities/joint_outfall_system_wrp/san_jose_creek.asp. LADPW (County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works). 2008. City of Arcadia Disaster Evacuation Routes. Accessed, May 30, 2019. https://dpw.lacounty.gov/dsg/DisasterRoutes/map/Arcadia.pdf. LADPW. 2018a. Santa Anita Habitat Mitigation Project Update October 2018. Accessed, May 29, 2019. http://dpw.lacounty.gov/wrd/Projects/SAHMP/index.cfm. LADPW SantaAnita/index.cfm. LARWQCB (Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2019. Basin Plan for the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties. Accessed, August 1, 2019. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/ losangeles/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/basin_plan_documentation.html. LEED (LEED 2009 Reference Guide for Green Building Design and Construction https://www.usgbc.org/sites/default/files/ CS%20Default%20Occupancy%20Appendix.pdf LSA Associates Inc., 1996. City of Arcadia General Plan. Luhdorff & Scalmanini (Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineers). 2014. Land Subsidence from Groundwater Use in California. Accessed October 7, 2019. https://water.ca.gov/LegacyFiles/waterplan/docs/ cwpu2013/Final/vol4/groundwater/13Land_Subsidence_Groundwater_Use.pdf. McLeod, S.A. 2019. Vertebrate Paleontology Records Check for Paleontological Resources for the Proposed Indigo Hotel Project, Dudek Project # 11663, in the City of Arcadia, Los Angeles County, Project Area. Unpublished Records Search Results Letter from the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Los Angeles, California. Miller, L.H., 1942. A New Fossil Bird Locality. Condor, 44(6):283- 284. ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO)PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 131 February 2020 NETR (Nationwide Environmental Title Research LLC). 2019a. Historic Topographical Maps of the City of Arcadia area, dating from 1894, 1896, 1898, 1900, 1904, 1907, 1908, 1910, 1913, 1915, 1920, 1927, 1928, 1931, 1933, 1940, 1941, 1947, 1958, 1964, 1967, 1974, 1988, 1994, 1999, 2012, and 2015. Accessed May, 2019. https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer. NETR. 2019b. Historic Aerial Photographs of the City of Arcadia area, dating from 1952, 1954, 1964, 1972, 1977, 1980, 1994, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2009, 2010, 2012, and 2014. Accessed May 2019. https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer. NETR. 2019c. Historic Aerials by NETR Online. Accessed June 3, 2019. https://www.historicaerials.com/. OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. Accessed February 2015. https://oehha.ca.gov/air/crnr/notice-adoption-air-toxics-hot-spots-program-guidance- manual-preparation-health-risk-0. Roth, V.L., 1984. How Elephants Grow: Heterochrony and the Calibration of Developmental Stages in Some Living and Fossil Species. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 4(1):126-145. SCAG (Southern California Association of Governments). 2016. 2016 2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. Adopted April 7, 2016. Accessed March 2017. http://scagrtpscs.net/Pages/FINAL2016RTPSCS.aspx. SCAG (Southern California Association of Governments). 2019. Transit Priority Area (TPA) 2045 SCAG Region [GIS database]. Accessed, November 26, 2019. http://gisdata-scag.opendata.arcgis.com/ datasets/c9249b6bba0f49829b67ce104f81ef20_1?geometry=-118.048%2C34.140%2C- 118.027%2C34.143. SCAQMD (South Coast Air Quality Management District). 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. SCAQMD (South Coast Air Quality Management District). 2003. White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution. August 2003. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/Agendas/ Environmental-Justice/cumulative-impacts-working-group/cumulative-impacts-white-paper.pdf?sfvrsn=2. SCAQMD (South Coast Air Quality Management District). 2005. Rule 403: Fugitive Dust. Adopted May 7, 1976. Amended June 3, 2005. SCAQMD (South Coast Air Quality Management District). 2008. Draft Guidance Document Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold. October 2008. SCAQMD (South Coast Air Quality Management District). 2009. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. - 2009. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance- thresholds/final-lst-methodology-document.pdf?sfvrsn=2. ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 132 February 2020 SCAQMD (South Coast Air Quality Management District). 2010. Greenhouse Gas CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group Meeting #15. September 28, 2010. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa-significance-thresholds/year-2008-2009/ ghg-meeting-15/ghg-meeting-15-main-presentation.pdf?sfvrsn=2. SCAQMD (South Coast Air Quality Management District) Originally published in CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Table A9-11-A. Revised March 2015. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance- thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=2 SCAQMD (South Coast Air Quality Management District). 2017. Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan. March 16, 2017. Accessed October 2017. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air- quality-management-plans/2016-air-quality-management-plan/final-2016- aqmp/final2016aqmp.pdf?sfvrsn=15. SVP (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology). 2010. Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources. 11 p. Available; http://vertpaleo.org/Membership/ Member-Ethics/SVP_Impact_Mitigation_Guidelines.aspx. SWRCB (California State Water Resources Control Board). 2019. State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State. Accessed, July 1, 2019. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/ board_info/agendas/2019/apr/040219_10_procedures_clean_v032219.pdf. The Climate Registry. 2018. Default Emission Factors. May 1. Accessed January 2019. https://www.theclimateregistry.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/The-Climate-Registry-2018-Default- Emission-Factor-Document.pdf. Transportation Research Board. 2016. Highway Capacity Manual. 6th ed. October 2016. U.S. Census Bureau. 2018. Quick Facts: Arcadia City, California. Accessed, May 28, 2019. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/arcadiacitycalifornia. U.S. DOT (U.S. Department of Transportation). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. DOT, Federal Transit Administration. September 2018. USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2019. Natural Resource Conservation Service Web Soil Survey. Accessed May 21, 2019. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 2017. Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. Accessed, May 29, 2019. https://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/MIGTREA.HTML. USFWS and NWI (National Wetlands Inventory) (Surface Water and Wetlands Mapper). 2019. Accessed, May 29, 2019. https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html. ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 133 February 2020 4.2 List of Preparers and Contributors Lead Agency City of Arcadia 240 W. Huntington Drive Arcadia, California 91007 Luis Torrico, Senior Planner Dudek 38 North Marengo Avenue Pasadena, California 91101 Kristin Starbird, Senior Project Manager Tamseel Mir, Senior Project Manager Terrileigh Pellarin, CEQA/NEPA Associate Analyst Jennifer Reed, Senior Air Quality Specialist David Larocca, Air Quality Specialist Linda Kry, Senior Archaeologist Ted Roberts, Senior Archaeologist Michael Williams, Archaeologist Michael Cady, Senior Biologist Glenna McMahon, Principal Engineer Michael Greene, INCE, Senior Noise Specialist Perry Russell, Environmental Technical Group Planner Ryan Munnikhuis, Environmental Technical Group Associate Analyst Christopher Starbird, GIS Specialist Amy Seals, Senior Technical Editor Kara Murphy, Publications Specialist ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11663.01 134 February 2020 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Response to Comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration & Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Arcadia Hotel and Annex (Hotel Indigo) Project Prepared for: City of Arcadia 240 W. Huntington Drive Arcadia, California 91007 Prepared by: 38 N. Marengo Avenue Pasadena, California 91101 MARCH 2020 Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material. 11663.01 i March 2020 Table of Contents SECTION PAGE NO. ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................................. III PREFACE ..................................................................................................................................................................... V 1 RESPONSE TO COMMENT RECEIVED ........................................................................................................... 1 Response to Comment Letter A .......................................................................................................................... 5 2 ERRATA ......................................................................................................................................................... 8 3 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ............................................................................. 10 ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO)PROJECT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS & MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 11663.01 ii March 2020 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 11663.01 iii March 2020 Acronyms and Abbreviations Acronym/Abbreviation Definition CHRIS California Historical Resources Information System CEQA California Environmental Quality Act City City of Arcadia IS/MND Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration GHG greenhouse gas HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MM mitigation measure NAHC Native American Heritage Commission TCR tribal cultural resource ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO)PROJECT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS & MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 11663.01 iv March 2020 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 11663.01 v March 2020 Preface The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) is an informational document intended to disclose to the City of Arcadia (City) and to the public the environmental consequences of approving and implementing the Arcadia Hotel and Annex Project (Hotel Indigo or proposed Project). The IS/MND for the proposed Project was released for public review and comment on February 13, 2020. The public review period ended on March 5, 2020. One comment letter was received by the City during the public review period. public comment received during the review period, to show minor changes that have been made to the IS/MND since publication in February 2020 as a result of these comments, and to set forth a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) for the proposed Project. The comment letter and associated response is presented in Section 1.0 of this document. The minor changes that have been made to the IS/MND as a result of the comment is shown in Section 2.0, and the MMRP constitutes Section 3.0. The MMRP has been prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15074(d), which requires that a lead or responsible agency adopt a mitigation monitoring plan when approving or carrying out a project when an MND identifies measures to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects. CEQA Guidelines Regarding Recirculation Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15073.5, the City is required to recirculate an IS/MND when the document is substantially revised after public notice of its availability but prior to its adoption. A substantial revision is identified as follows: (1) a new avoidable significant effect is identified and mitigation measures or project revisions must be added in order to reduce the effect to insignificance or (2) the lead agency determines that the proposed mitigation measures or project revisions will not reduce potential effects to less than significant and new measures or revisions must be required. The City has determined that based on CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5, recirculation of the IS/MND prior to adoption is not required. This conclusion is based on the fact that no new, avoidable significant effects have been identified, no new mitigation measures were added, and the text of the document has not been substantially revised in a manner requiring recirculation. Record of Proceedings The do is based are located at the address below: City of Arcadia, Planning Services Division 240 West Huntington Drive Arcadia, California 91007 The City Planning Services Division is the custodian of such documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings. The location of and custodian of the documents or other materials that constitute the record of proceedings for the proposed Project is provided in compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15074(c). ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO)PROJECT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS & MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 11663.01 vi March 2020 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 11663.01 1 March 2020 1 Response to Comment Received This section includes a copy of the comment letter provided during the public review period of the IS/MND. The comment letter received has been assigned a letter (e.g., A). The issue within the comment letter is bracketed and numbered (e.g., A-1). The comment letter is followed by a response, which is lettered and numbered to correspond with the bracketed comment. s a good-faith, reasoned effort to address the environmental issues identified by the comments. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15074(b), decision makers will consider the IS/MND together with the comment received during the public review process. ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO)PROJECT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS & MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 11663.01 2 March 2020 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO)PROJECT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS & MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 11663.01 3 March 2020 ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO)PROJECT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS & MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 11663.01 4 March 2020 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO)PROJECT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS & MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 11663.01 5 March 2020 Response to Comment Letter A Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation February 18, 2020 A-1 In this comment letter, the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians Kizh Nation (Tribe) requested the retention of a Native American Tribal Consultant to monitor all ground disturbance conducted for the Project. The letter did not identify any specific tribal cultural resources (TCRs) or other cultural resources on the Project site, nor did it express any concerns regarding the environmental analysis or the impact conclusions in the IS/MND. As described in Sections 3.5 (Cultural Resources) and 3.18 (Tribal Cultural Resources) of the IS/MND, encountering intact subsurface cultural resources or tribal cultural resources (TCRs) during Project implementation is considered unlikely. Furthermore, previous development within the Project site such as the construction of Building C, which contains a small basement, is likely to have impacted cultural deposits, if any were present on the site. However, as stated in Sections 3.5 and 3.18 of the IS/MND, there is still the potential to encounter unanticipated cultural resources or unknown subsurface TCRs during construction, which could result in a potentially significant impact to those resources. Within areas of the Project site proposed for new development, specifically the construction of Building D and associated swimming pool, the chance of discovering archaeological deposits is greater than in other areas of the site. Protocols for the inadvertent discovery of cultural resources and TCRs were included as mitigation measures MM-CUL-1 and MM-TCR-1 in the IS/MND. The analysis in the IS/MND determined that these measures would effectively reduce potentially significant impacts to below a level of significance. While no new impacts or specific on-site TCRs have been identified, the City has responded to the -TCR-1. MM-TCR-1, as revised, is provided below (new text is shown in underline). This additional monitoring provision has been added in response to the aforementioned comment received during the public review period for the IS/MND and has not been added as a result of any new significant effects or as a result of a determination that the originally proposed MM-TCR-1 was insufficient at reducing impacts. Rather, this revision was made to amplify the originally proposed measure in response to comments received during public review of the IS/MND. This revision does not change any impact conclusions in the IS/MND, is not necessary to mitigate a new significant effect, and would not create any new significant environmental effects. For these reasons, the revisions to MM-TCR-1 do not require recirculation of this IS/MND under CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5 and per CEQA Guidelines Section 15074.1. MM-TCR-1: Prior to commencement of construction activities for the Project, a regionally appropriate Native American monitor/consultant shall be retained to monitor ground disturbing activities. Notification to the tribes will be provided 30 days prior to issuance of a grading permit or any ground disturbance activities. If a tentative date is not set by the Tribe, the City has the ability to have another qualified monitor complete this task and submit the final logs to the tribe after all ground disturbance ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO)PROJECT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS & MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 11663.01 6 March 2020 activities have been completed. The Native American monitor/consultant will only be present on site during the construction phases that involve ground disturbing activities within the areas of Building D, the associated swimming pool, and paved areas within the Project site. The frequency and duration of monitoring shall be based on observations made by the Native American monitor(s) in coordination with the City. The on-site monitoring shall end when the ground disturbance activities at these specific locations are completed. The Native American Monitor/consultant shall complete daily monitoring logs that will include descriptions of daily construction activities, location of activities, soil, and any identified cultural materials or potential tribal cultural resources (TCRs). Should a possible TCR be encountered, construction activities within 50 feet of the discovery shall be temporarily halted and the City notified. The City will notify Native American tribes that have been identified by the NAHC to be traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the Project. If the potential resource is archaeological in nature, appropriate management requirements shall be implemented as outlined in MM-CUL-1. If the City determines that the potential resource is a TCR (as defined by PRC, Section 21074), tribes consulting under AB 52 would be provided a reasonable period of time, typically 5 days from the date of a new discovery is made, to conduct a site visit and make recommendations regarding future ground disturbance activities as well as the treatment of any discovered TCRs. A qualified archaeologist shall implement a plan for the treatment and disposition of any discovered TCRs based on the nature of the resource and considering the recommendations of the tribe(s). Implementation of proposed recommendations will be made based on the determination of the City that the approach is reasonable and feasible. ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO)PROJECT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS & MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 11663.01 7 March 2020 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 11663.01 8 March 2020 2 Errata The comment received by the City during the public review period for the IS/MND included information that has resulted in minor revisions to the text of the IS/MND. These revisions are shown below and are categorized by section number and page number. Text has been added is shown as underlined (i.e., underline). This errata shows changes to MM-TCR-1, as described in Section 1.0, above. These changes do not require recirculation of the IS/MND pursuant to Section 15073.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Additionally, the City finds that the revised MM-TCR-1 is equal to or more effective than the measure present in the IS/MND that was circulated for public review in February 2020. Section 1.4, Table 1, Mitigation Measures, Page 6 The following mitigation measure has been revised in the IS/MND. The changes shown below apply to each instance that this mitigation measure appears in the IS/MND. MM-TCR-1 Prior to commencement of construction activities for the Project, a regionally appropriate Native American monitor/consultant shall be retained to monitor ground disturbing activities. Notification to the tribes will be provided 30 days prior to issuance of a grading permit or any ground disturbance activities. If a tentative date is not set by the Tribe, the City has the ability to have another qualified monitor complete this task and submit the final logs to the tribe after all ground disturbance activities have been completed. The Native American monitor/consultant will only be present on site during the construction phases that involve ground disturbing activities within the areas of Building D, the associated swimming pool, and paved areas within the Project site. The frequency and duration of monitoring shall be based on observations made by the Native American monitor(s) in coordination with the City. The on-site monitoring shall end when the ground disturbance activities at these specific locations are completed. The Native American Monitor/consultant shall complete daily monitoring logs that will include descriptions of daily construction activities, location of activities, soil, and any identified cultural materials or potential tribal cultural resources (TCRs). Should a possible TCR be encountered, construction activities within 50 feet of the discovery shall be temporarily halted and the City notified. The City will notify Native American tribes that have been identified by the NAHC to be traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the Project. If the potential resource is archaeological in nature, appropriate management requirements shall be implemented as outlined in MM-CUL-1. If the City determines that the potential resource is a TCR (as defined by PRC, Section 21074), tribes consulting under AB 52 would be provided a reasonable period of time, typically 5 days from the date of a new discovery is made, to conduct a site visit and make recommendations regarding future ground disturbance activities as well as the treatment of any discovered TCRs. A qualified archaeologist shall implement a plan for the treatment and disposition of any discovered TCRs based on the nature of the resource and considering the recommendations of the tribe(s). Implementation of proposed recommendations will be made based on the determination of the City that the approach is reasonable and feasible. 11663.01 9 March 2020 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 11663.01 10 March 2020 3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program The State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15074(d), requires that a lead or responsible agency adopt a mitigation monitoring plan when approving or carrying out a project when an IS/MND identifies changes that the lead agency has required in the project or made a condition of approval to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects. As lead agency for the project, the City is responsible for adoption and implementation of the mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP). The MMRP is presented below in Table 3-1 and will be in place and effective throughout all phases of the Project. The City will be responsible for administering the MMRP and ensuring that all parties comply with its provisions. The City may delegate monitoring activities to staff, consultants, or contractors. The City will also ensure that monitoring is documented through periodic reports and that deficiencies are promptly corrected. The designated environmental monitor will track and document compliance with required measures, note any problems that may result, and take appropriate action to rectify problems. ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS & MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 11663.01 11 March 2020 Table 3-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure Mitigation Monitoring Verification of Compliance Implementing Period Implementing Party Enforcing Agency Comments Date Initials Biological Resources MM-BIO-1: Commencement of construction activities shall avoid the February 1 through August 31 bird nesting season to the greatest extent feasible. If construction activities begin within this nesting season, a survey for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within 7 days of the commencement of construction activities, but not prior to this 7-day window. The area surveyed shall include all clearing/construction areas, as well as areas within 100 feet of the boundaries of these areas, or as otherwise determined by the biologist. If no active bird nests are identified on, or within 100 feet of the limits of the proposed disturbance area, no further action is necessary and construction activities could commence. For any off-site areas that are inaccessible, the qualified biologists may survey the off-site area with binoculars to capture the full 100-foot survey area. If active nests are found during pre-construction surveys or at any time throughout the course of construction activities during the nesting bird season, all clearing/construction activities within a minimum of 100 feet of the nest shall be postponed until a wildlife biologist has identified the nesting species. If the bird species is not protected under the MBTA and/or the California Fish and Game Code, no further action is required and construction activities may proceed. If the avian species is protected under the MBTA and/or the California Fish and Game Code, a minimum buffer zone shall be established by the qualified biologist based on the type of bird/raptor species identified and the construction buffer shall be established on site through the erection of cones/flagging/fencing to clearly delineate the protection zone. Prior to construction; during construction (if active nests are identified) Contractor/ builder; qualified biologist City of Arcadia Planning Services Division ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS & MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 11663.01 12 March 2020 Table 3-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure Mitigation Monitoring Verification of Compliance Implementing Period Implementing Party Enforcing Agency Comments Date Initials All construction activities shall avoid this protection zone until a qualified biologist has confirmed that the nest(s) is no longer active and the nest is vacated, and there is no evidence of second nesting attempts. Upon completion of any site survey for nesting birds conducted by a qualified biologist, documentation of the survey activity, findings, and any resulting actions taken shall be prepared and submitted to the City. Cultural Resources MM-CUL-1: In the event that archaeological resources are unearthed during ground-disturbing activities, the construction contractor shall immediately cease all earth- disturbing activities within 100 feet of the discovery and shall retain a qualified archaeologist that meets the Secr Standards. Construction activities may continue in other areas outside of the designated protection zone, which shall be delineated with cones, flagging, or fencing. The archaeologist shall evaluate the significance of the find and determine whether the resource uncovered is a of the California P CEQA Guidelines. If the archaeological find is determined to be a resource, the archaeologist shall formulate a Mitigation Plan in consultation with the City of Arcadia that satisfies the requirements of the above-listed Code Sections. Upon approval of the Mitigation Plan by the City, the Project shall be implemented in compliance with the Ground- disturbing construction activities Project applicant; contractor/ builder; qualified archaeologist; City of Arcadia City of Arcadia Planning Services Division ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS & MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 11663.01 13 March 2020 Table 3-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure Mitigation Monitoring Verification of Compliance Implementing Period Implementing Party Enforcing Agency Comments Date Initials Plan. If the Archaeologist determines that the resource is not significant, s/he shall record the evaluation and submit the recordation form to the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC). The archaeologist shall prepare a report of the results of any study prepared as part of a testing or Mitigation Plan, following accepted professional practice. The report shall follow guidelines of the California Office of Historic Preservation although format will be dependent on the nature of the archaeological investigation required. Copies of the report shall be submitted to the City and to the CHRIS at the SCCIC. Geology and Soils MM-GEO-1: Prior to commencement of any grading activity on-site, the Applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist per the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) (2010) guidelines. The paleontologist shall prepare a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) for the project. The PRIMP shall be consistent with the SVP (2010) guidelines and should outline requirements for preconstruction meeting attendance and worker environmental awareness training, where monitoring is required within the project area based on construction plans and/or geotechnical reports, procedures for adequate paleontological monitoring and discoveries treatment, and paleontological methods (including sediment sampling for microvertebrate fossils), reporting, and collections management. The qualified paleontologist shall attend the preconstruction meeting and a paleontological monitor shall be on-site during all rough grading and other significant ground-disturbing activities in previously Prior to and during grading activity Project applicant; contractor/ builder; qualified paleontologist City of Arcadia Planning Services Division ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS & MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 11663.01 14 March 2020 Table 3-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure Mitigation Monitoring Verification of Compliance Implementing Period Implementing Party Enforcing Agency Comments Date Initials undisturbed, fine-grained older Quaternary alluvial fan deposits. These deposits may be encountered at depths as shallow as 5-10 feet below ground surface. In the event that paleontological resources (e.g., fossils) are unearthed during grading, the paleontological monitor will temporarily halt and/or divert grading activity to allow recovery of paleontological resources. The area of discovery will be roped off with a 50-foot radius buffer. Once documentation and collection of the find is completed, the monitor will remove the rope and allow grading to recommence in the area of the find. Noise MM-NOI-1.: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project Applicant shall provide a Construction Noise Control Plan (CNCP) to the City for review and approval. The CNCP shall include best management practices to reduce short- term construction noise. Enforcement of the CNCP shall be accomplished by field inspections during construction activities and/or documentation of compliance, to the Development Services Department. Recommended best management practices may include, but not be limited to, the following: All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained specifications and standards. Construction noise reduction methods such as shutting off idling equipment, maximizing the distance between construction equipment staging areas and adjacent residences, and use of electric air compressors and Prior to the issuance of a grading permit Project applicant; contractor/ builder; City of Arcadia City of Arcadia Planning Services Division ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS & MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 11663.01 15 March 2020 Table 3-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure Mitigation Monitoring Verification of Compliance Implementing Period Implementing Party Enforcing Agency Comments Date Initials similar power tools, rather than diesel equipment, should be used where feasible. Stationary equipment should be placed as far away from the adjacent residential property boundary as feasible and positioned such that emitted noise is directed away from or shielded from sensitive receptors. Acoustically attenuating shields, shrouds, or enclosures may be placed over stationary equipment. 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. Construction hours, allowable workdays, and the phone number of the job superintendent should be clearly posted at all construction entrances to allow surrounding property owners to contact the job superintendent, if necessary. In the event the City receives a complaint, appropriate corrective actions should be implemented and a report of the action provided to the reporting party Development Services Department. MM-NOI-2: The Project Applicant shall retain an acoustical level plans to ensure that the equipment specifications and plans for HVAC and emergency backup generator incorporate features to ensure that operational noise will not exceed relevant noise standards at nearby noise-sensitive land uses (e.g., residential). Such features could include, but not be limited to, the specification of quieter equipment, relocation of facilities to be of further distance from residential homes, Prior to construction Project applicant; qualified acoustical specialist City of Arcadia Planning Services Division ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS & MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 11663.01 16 March 2020 Table 3-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure Mitigation Monitoring Verification of Compliance Implementing Period Implementing Party Enforcing Agency Comments Date Initials and/or the provision of acoustical enclosures. The acoustical specialist shall certify in writing to the City that the equipment limits. Tribal Cultural Resources MM-TCR-1: Prior to commencement of construction activities for the Project, a regionally appropriate Native American monitor/consultant shall be retained to monitor ground disturbing activities. Notification to the tribes will be provided 30 days prior to issuance of a grading permit or any ground disturbance activities. If a tentative date is not set by the Tribe, the City has the ability to have another qualified monitor complete this task and submit the final logs to the tribe after all ground disturbance activities have been completed. The Native American monitor/consultant will only be present on site during the construction phases that involve ground disturbing activities within the areas of Building D, the associated swimming pool, and paved areas within the Project site. The frequency and duration of monitoring shall be based on observations made by the Native American monitor(s) in coordination with the City. The on-site monitoring shall end when the ground disturbance activities at these specific locations are completed. The Native American Monitor/consultant shall complete daily monitoring logs that will include descriptions of daily construction activities, location of activities, soil, and any identified cultural materials or potential tribal cultural resources (TCRs). Should a possible TCR be encountered, construction activities within 50 feet of the discovery shall be temporarily halted and the City notified. The City will notify Native American tribes that have been identified by the NAHC to be traditionally and Prior to construction; during construction phases that involve ground- disturbing activities Project applicant; qualified tribal monitor; City of Arcadia City of Arcadia Planning Services Division ARCADIA HOTEL AND ANNEX (HOTEL INDIGO) PROJECT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS & MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 11663.01 17 March 2020 Table 3-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure Mitigation Monitoring Verification of Compliance Implementing Period Implementing Party Enforcing Agency Comments Date Initials culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the Project. If the potential resource is archaeological in nature, appropriate management requirements shall be implemented as outlined in MM-CUL-1. If the City determines that the potential resource is a TCR (as defined by PRC, Section 21074), tribes consulting under AB 52 would be provided a reasonable period of time, typically 5 days from the date of a new discovery is made, to conduct a site visit and make recommendations regarding future ground disturbance activities as well as the treatment of any discovered TCRs. A qualified archaeologist shall implement a plan for the treatment and disposition of any discovered TCRs based on the nature of the resource and considering the recommendations of the tribe(s). Implementation of proposed recommendations will be made based on the determination of the City that the approach is reasonable and feasible.