HomeMy WebLinkAboutDraft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND)California Environmental Quality Act
INITIAL STUDY
Artis Senior Living Project
Lead
Agency:
City of Arcadia
240 W. Huntington Drive
Arcadia, CA 91007
(626) 574-5422
Contact: Vanessa Quiroz,
Associate Planner
Prepared
by:
3760 Kilroy Airport Way
Suite 270
Long Beach, CA 90806
Office: (562) 200-7165
Fax: (562) 200-1766
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page i April 2020
Table of Contents
SECTION A. Environmental Checklist Form .......................................................................... 1
SECTION B. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected .................................................... 20
SECTION C. Determination................................................................................................... 21
SECTION D. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ............................................................. 22
I. Aesthetics ....................................................................................................................................... 22
II. Agriculture and Forestry Resources ........................................................................................... 25
III. Air Quality ...................................................................................................................................... 28
IV. Biological Resources ..................................................................................................................... 34
V. Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................................ 40
VI. Energy ............................................................................................................................................. 42
VII. Geology and Soils.......................................................................................................................... 45
VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................................................ 51
IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials .............................................................................................. 56
X. Hydrology and Water Quality ..................................................................................................... 61
XI. Land Use and Planning ................................................................................................................ 67
XII. Mineral Resources ......................................................................................................................... 69
XIII. Noise ............................................................................................................................................... 70
XIV. Population and Housing .............................................................................................................. 77
XV. Public Services ............................................................................................................................... 78
XVI. Recreation ....................................................................................................................................... 80
XVII. Transportation/Traffic ................................................................................................................. 81
XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................. 85
XIX. Utilities and Service Systems ....................................................................................................... 89
XX. Wildfire ........................................................................................................................................... 94
XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance ........................................................................................... 95
SECTION E. List of Mitigation Measures ............................................................................. 97
SECTION F. References ...................................................................................................... 103
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page ii April 2020
List of Tables
Table III-1 Short-Term Construction Emissions ................................................................................. 31
Table III-2 Long-Term Operational Air Emissions ............................................................................ 32
Table III-3 Localized Significance of Construction Emissions.......................................................... 33
Table VI-1 Project and Countywide Energy Consumption ............................................................... 43
Table VIII-1 Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................. 52
Table VIII-2 Project Consistency with the 2017 CARB Scoping Plan ................................................ 54
Table VIII-3 Project Consistency with the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS ........................................................ 55
Table XIII-1 Noise Measurements ............................................................................................................ 71
Table XIII-2 Maximum Noise Levels Generated by Construction Equipment ................................. 71
Table XIII-3 Maximum Noise Levels Generated by Parking Lots....................................................... 74
Table XIII-4 Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment .................................................. 76
Table XVII-1 Estimated Number of Project Trips .................................................................................. 83
Table XIX-1 Water Consumption and Wastewater Generation Estimatesa ....................................... 91
Table XIX-2 Solid Waste Generation Estimates ..................................................................................... 93
List of Figures
Figure A-1 Regional Location Map ............................................................................................................. 6
Figure A-2 Project Location Map ................................................................................................................ 7
Figure A-3 Project Site Overlay Zones ....................................................................................................... 8
Figure A-4 North Building Elevations ........................................................................................................ 9
Figure A-5 South Building Elevations ...................................................................................................... 10
Figure A-6 Eastern And Southern Parking And Landscaping Areas ................................................... 11
Figure A-7 Western Parking And Landscaping Areas ............................................................................ 12
Figure A-8 Existing Project Site Entry And Exit Points ........................................................................ 13
Figure A-9 Proposed Site Plan ................................................................................................................... 14
Figure A-10 Proposed Elevations North And South ............................................................................... 15
Figure A-11 Proposed Elevations East And West .................................................................................... 16
Figure A-12 Conceptual Project Rendering ............................................................................................... 17
Figure A-13 Proposed Landscape Plan ....................................................................................................... 18
Figure A-14 Aerial View Of The Project Site And Surroundings ........................................................... 19
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page iii April 2020
Appendices
Appendix A Protected Tree Report
Appendix B Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas/Energy Worksheets
Appendix C Cultural Resources Identification Memorandum
Appendix D Noise Spreadsheets and Modeling Outputs
Appendix E Project Trip Generation Analysis
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page iv April 2020
This page intentionally left blank
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 1 April 2020
SECTION A. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project Title: Artis Senior Living Project
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Arcadia
240 W. Huntington Drive
Arcadia, CA 91007
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Vanessa Quiroz, Associate Planner/(626) 574-5422
4. Project Location: As shown in Figure A-1, Regional Location
Map, the City of Arcadia is located in the central
San Gabriel Valley area in the eastern portion of
Los Angeles County. As shown in Figure A-2,
Project Location Map, the Project Site is located
at the southeastern corner of the intersection of
Colorado Boulevard and Michillinda Avenue at
1150 West Colorado Boulevard, Arcadia, CA
91007.
The Project Site comprises Los Angeles County
Assessor’s Parcel Number 5776-001-012.
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Artis Senior Living of Arcadia, LLC
1651 Old Meadow Road, Suite 100
McLean, VA 22102
6. General Plan Designation: Commercial
7. Zoning: General Commercial (C-G) with an Architectural
Design Overlay and an Automobile Parking Overlay
8. Description of Project:
Existing Conditions
The proposed Project Site is designated in the City’s General Plan as Commercial with a
corresponding zoning of C-G, General Commercial. The C-G Zone is intended to provide
areas for the development of retail, offices, restaurants, and service uses. The Project Site is
included within two municipal overlay zones, the Architectural Design Overlay Zone and the
Automobile Parking Overlay Zone. As shown in Figure A-3, Project Site Overlay Zones,
these overlay zones are limited to the Project Site, with the Architectural Design Overlay Zone
covering the central and northwestern portion of the Project Site and the Automobile Parking
Overlay Zone covering the southern and eastern portions of the Project Site. The
Architectural Design Overlay Zone states that various building design characteristics (such as
building exterior materials, roof pitch, window size, landscaping, and automobile parking area)
shall be subject to Planning Commission review and approval. Further, the Architectural
Design Overlay Zone states that only one free-standing sign shall be permitted and located
within 100 feet of the northern and western property lines, the maximum building height shall
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 2 April 2020
not reach 30 feet above ground level, and no structure erected or permitted shall exceed 19,500
square feet of ground floor area.1,2 The Automobile Parking Overlay Zone restricts the overlay
area to ground level parking uses
The Project Site consists of 2.79 acres of developed land in the northwestern portion of the
City of Arcadia. The Project Site is located on the southeastern corner of the Colorado
Boulevard and Michillinda Avenue intersection, immediately south of Interstate 210 (I-210/
Foothill Freeway).
The Project Site contains an existing Coco’s Bakery and Restaurant, which was constructed in
1976. The existing Coco’s, which comprises 13,088 square feet in total floor area, is a
rectangular, one-story building located in the center of the Project Site. The building is
surrounded on all sides by a surface parking lot, with two driveway locations, one at the
northeastern corner of the Project Site along Colorado Boulevard and another at the
southwestern corner of the Project Site along Michillinda Avenue. Mature eucalyptus trees
flank the western and eastern sides of the Coco’s building. Additionally, there are decorative
shrubs and turf along the northern, eastern, and western façades of the building, with one
mature fern pine near the northeastern corner of the building. Currently, there is a mix of trees
along the perimeter of the Project Site, serving as a landscape buffer between the Project Site
and neighboring streets to the north and west and the residential neighborhoods to the east
and south. The parking lot contains pole-mounted security lights, concrete bollards with
chains that divide the parking lot on the south side of the lot, and landscape islands with
decorative shrubs. Architectural lighting is also mounted along the edge of the roof of the
northern façade and on the four corners of the roof of the Coco’s building and is directed
inwardly. This roof-mounted lighting illuminates the Coco’s sign mounted above the building
entrance on the north elevation and creates visual interest by illuminating the gently pitched
roof line. Photos of the Project Site’s existing conditions are shown in Figures A-4 through
A-8.
The Colorado Boulevard and Michillinda Avenue frontages are both improved with a
sidewalk, curb, gutter, and three streetlights each, with a sidewalk parkway comprising a strip
of turf grass. Each frontage is characterized by decorative ground cover; mature trees; a short,
white-painted cinderblock wall; and decorative shrubs located between the sidewalk and the
property line. A block and wood sign for Coco’s (and The Oak Tree Room inside Coco’s) is
located at the northwestern corner of the Project Site.
Project Characteristics
To accommodate the Proposed Project, the Coco’s building would be demolished, and
associated landscaping and surface parking lot would be removed. However, the majority of
the trees along the perimeter of the Project Site would be retained and incorporated into the
Proposed Project’s landscaping plan. As shown in Figure A-9, Proposed Site Plan, the
Proposed Project would develop a W-shaped senior living facility, which would support
memory care and assisted living services that would entirely be dedicated to people afflicted
with Alzheimer’s disease and related memory disorders. The facility would comprise a new
two-story 44,192-square-foot building with 80 senior housing units; each unit, which would
1 City of Arcadia Resolution No. 4440, signed and approved July 2, 1974.
2 City of Arcadia Ordinance No. 1510, signed and approved July 16, 1974.
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 3 April 2020
range in size generally between 216 square feet and 302 square feet, would primarily consist
of a bed and a private bathroom with a shower.
The first floor of the proposed building would contain 40 senior housing units, a lobby, offices,
resident dining rooms, storage, and several large and small activities rooms and common
spaces within 23,767 square feet of floor area, while the second floor of the proposed building
would contain 40 units of senior housing, as well as dining rooms and activities room and
common space, within 20,425 square feet of floor area. The Proposed Project would also
include decorative landscaping, private walking paths, and an outdoor plaza on the west and
south sides of the Project Site. The proposed building would extend to 37.5 feet in height.
As shown in Figures A-10 and A-11, the proposed structure would feature a
traditional/Craftsman-style design with varied massing and materials with articulation on each
of the building façades to increase visual interest and avoid flat, street-facing surfaces. The
moderately pitched roof would be made of black walnut-colored asphalt shingles and would
contain recessed, flat centers, which would screen mechanical equipment, such as heating and
air conditioning equipment and exhaust fans, from view from the street. The elevations would
feature windows with exterior shutters alongside brick and alternating vertical and horizontal
cement fiber board siding. The design would include decorative features, such as trellises on
the north, east, and west elevations, as well as columns and decorative railing at the front and
rear entrances. An 8-foot-high wooden fence, with a decorative wooden topper, would enclose
the southern portion of the Project Site, which would include a gazebo, lawn, outdoor plaza,
and walking paths described above. This fence would connect to the northwestern and
northeastern corners of the building and extend to the southern property line. There is one
gate with a Knox Box that connects the walkways within the fenced enclosure to the parking
area on the east side of the Project Site. Two gated pathways with Knox Boxes would connect
the enclosed walking paths to Michillinda Avenue on the west side of the Project Site. The
majority of the building would extend to approximately 30 feet in height, with the front
entrance, located in the center of the building, extending to 37.5 feet in height. The building
would be topped with a small, decorative cupola, which would extend to approximately 40
feet, 10 inches in height. A conceptual rendering of the Proposed Project is displayed in
Figure A-12.
The Proposed Project would include multiple new sources of light, including pole-mounted
LED security lighting in parking areas and the passenger drop-off area; path lighting on
internal walkways; accent lighting over building doorways; and a lighted sign located on the
northwest corner of the Project Site.
Vehicle parking would include 55 regular parking stalls and 4 parking stalls that comply with
the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Vehicular access to the
proposed building would be from a single ingress/egress point on Colorado Boulevard,
located at an existing ingress/egress point for the Project Site. A circular drive in front of the
proposed building’s entrance would accommodate passenger loading and unloading. A
separate loading dock for materials and food deliveries would be located near the Project Site’s
driveway at the northeastern corner of the proposed building. Directly north of the loading
space would be the trash enclosure and an emergency generator for the senior care facility.
The exterior finishes and materials of the enclosures would match the senior care facility. The
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 4 April 2020
enclosure to the trash area and emergency generator would stand between 8 and 12 feet in
height.
The majority of trees along the perimeter of the Project Site would be preserved in place to
continue to form a vegetative screen between the Project Site and the residential uses to the
east and south. The proposed building would be surrounded by landscaping, including
drought-tolerant shrubs and ground cover, flower gardens, decorative trees, a lawn
area/outdoor plaza with a gazebo, and a meandering concrete walkway with connections
through locked gates to the existing sidewalks on Michillinda Avenue and Colorado Boulevard.
The existing curb, gutter, and sidewalks along the Project Site’s Colorado Boulevard and
Michillinda Avenue frontages would be replaced as part of the Proposed Project. The public
right-of-way along the Project Site’s Colorado Boulevard frontage would be widened to 12
feet in width, which would require a four-foot dedication from the Project Site, as shown in
Figure A-9. Additional decorative trees would be planted in the parking area to provide shade
and additional screening from adjacent uses. A detailed landscape plan is available as
Figure A-13, Proposed Landscape Plan.
The Proposed Project would require the following City approvals:
Adoption of the IS/MND
Zone Change: To revoke the existing Architectural Design (D) Overlay Zone and
Automobile Parking (P) Overlay Zone from the Project Site;
Architectural Design Review Approval;
Conditional Use Permit to allow for the development of the Proposed Project in a C-
G Zone;
Tree Encroachment Permit; and
Minor Administrative Modification for the request to exceed the maximum permitted
fence height of 6 feet.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
The Project Site is located in a fully urbanized part of the City of Arcadia, where the built
environment consists of a mixture of single-family residential and commercial uses to the east
in the City of Pasadena, and I-210 to the north, across the street from the Project Site.
Colorado Avenue is a four-lane, east-west running roadway with a center turn lane, classified
as a Secondary Travel Corridor by the Arcadia General Plan Circulation and Infrastructure
Element. Michillinda Avenue is a four-lane, north-south running roadway that forms the
western boundary of the City of Arcadia. Land uses west of Michillinda Avenue are located in
East Pasadena, a neighborhood in unincorporated Los Angeles County.
Figure A-14, Aerial View of the Project Site and Surroundings, provides a view of the
local land use pattern in the vicinity of the Project Site. These surrounding land uses include
one-level, detached, single-family homes to the east and south, which were generally
constructed between the 1930s and 1970s; a gasoline station with a convenience store and a
single-family home across Michillinda Avenue to the west; an approximately 40-foot-high
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 5 April 2020
commercial building to the northwest; and mature trees and I-210 across Colorado Boulevard
to the north.
10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required:
California Department of Social Services (DSS)
Division of the State Architect
11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project
area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is
there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of
impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.?3
Yes. The City sent notification letters to the Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe and the Gabrieleño
Band of Mission Indians—Kizh Nation on January 10, 2020. On January 23, 2020, Andrew
Salas, of the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation submitted a formal request
to consult with the City. The tribal consultation process commenced on April 1, 2020 via a
conference call attended by Andrew Salas and Matt Teutimez of the Gabrileño Band of
Mission Indians, Lisa Flores and Vanessa Quiroz of the City of Arcadia, and Madonna Marcelo
and John Bellas of Michael Baker International (the City’s environmental consultant). Please
refer to Section XVIII, Tribal Cultural Resources, of this Initial Study for a discussion of the
results of the consultation.
3 NOTE: Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project
proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal
cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process. (See Public
Resources Code section 21080.3.2.) Information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage
Commission’s Sacred Lands File per Public Resources Code section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources
Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that Public
Resources Code section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.
FIGURE A-1
Regional Location MapG:\Projects\Margo\Arciada\Figure1.mxd (10/22/2019)
Map Detail
Los Angeles
County
Leg end
Project Site
0 3
MILES
^
Project Site
^
Source:ESRI streetmap
FIGURE A-2
Project Location Map
%&g(
W Orange Grove Ave
Michillinda AveFoothill BlvdG:\Projects\Margo\Arciada\Figure2.mxd (10/23/2019)
0 800
Feet
Project Site
Source: ESRI World Imagery ServiceRosemead BlvdColorado Blvd
FIGURE A-9
Proposed Site PlanNot to Scale
Source: Gateway Engineering, Inc., March 2020
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 20 April 2020
SECTION B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following
pages.
☐ Aesthetics ☐ Agriculture and Forestry Resources ☐ Air Quality
☐ Biological Resources ☐ Cultural Resources ☐ Energy
☐ Geology/Soils ☐ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ☐ Hazards & Hazardous Materials
☐ Hydrology/Water Quality ☐ Land Use/Planning ☐ Mineral Resources
☐ Noise ☐ Population/Housing ☐ Public Services
☐ Recreation ☐ Transportation/Traffic ☐ Tribal Cultural Resources
☐ Utilities/Service Systems ☐ Wildfire ☐ Mandatory Findings of
Significance
For the evaluation of potential impacts, the questions in the Initial Study Checklist are stated and an
answer is provided according to the analysis undertaken as part of the Initial Study. The analysis
considers the long-term, direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the project. To each question,
there are four possible responses:
No Impact. The project would not have any measurable environmental impact on the
environment.
Less Than Significant Impact. The project would have the potential for impacting the
environment, although this impact would be below established thresholds that are considered
to be significant.
Less Than Significant Impact With Measures Incorporated. The project would have the
potential to generate impacts which may be considered a significant effect on the environment,
although measures or changes to the development’s physical or operational characteristics can
reduce these impacts to levels that are less than significant.
Potentially Significant Impact. The project would have impacts which are considered
significant, and additional analysis is required to identify measures that could reduce these
impacts to less than significant levels.
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 22 April 2020
SECTION D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
I. Aesthetics
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
AESTHETICS:
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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Discussion
The Proposed Project is not classified as a “transit-oriented infill project” as set forth in Section 21099
of the Public Resources Code (PRC), and, thus, the provisions of that section do not apply to this
Project.
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Less Than Significant Impact. A scenic vista is defined as a publicly accessible, prominent vantage
point that provides expansive views of highly valued landscapes or prominent visual elements
composed of man-made or natural features. Michillinda Avenue and North Altura Road, which both
provide views of the San Gabriel Mountains for northbound travelers, could be considered public
vantage points that provide a view of a highly valued landscape (i.e., the San Gabriel Mountains);
however, the mountain views are distant, not expansive, and are extensively obstructed by existing
development, utilities, and landscaping. Further, because the majority of the City is relatively flat,
including the area surrounding the Project Site, the City of Arcadia General Plan does not identify any
prominent vantage points from which the public can view an expansive scenic vista within or beyond
the City.4,5
As discussed in the Project Description of this Initial Study, the Project Site is located in a highly
urbanized area, dominated by features of a built environment. The surrounding development includes
a mixture of building sizes, styles, and forms, and includes single-family residential, low- and mid-rise
commercial, and freeway infrastructure. Many of the main arterial roadways in the City of Arcadia that
4 City of Arcadia, Arcadia General Plan Land Use and Community Design Element, November 2010.
5 City of Arcadia, Arcadia General Plan Parks, Recreation, and Community Resources Element, November 2010.
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 23 April 2020
are oriented north and south provide views of the San Gabriel Mountains in the distance. As such,
motorists traveling northbound on Michillinda Avenue (along the western boundary of the Project
Site) and North Altura Road (one block east of the Project Site) have distant views of the San Gabriel
Mountains, which begin approximately 1.9 miles north of the Project Site. Views of the mountains are
partially obstructed by mature trees and existing development along both of these streets, I-210, and
the overpass over Michillinda Avenue, as well as utility poles, traffic signals, and business signs on
either side of Michillinda Avenue. As a result of these existing impediments, views of the San Gabriel
Mountains are only available straight north and are obstructed to the northeast and northwest. In
addition, because the proposed senior housing building would be set back approximately 106 feet
from the Project Site’s eastern boundary and set back approximately 52 feet from Michillinda Avenue,
the proposed building would not substantially impact the existing, limited mountain views available to
motorists. Further, the existing restaurant building is approximately 20 feet in height and is surrounded
by mature eucalyptus trees that extend to approximately 60 feet high. The majority of the Proposed
Project would extend to approximately 30 feet in height, with the front entrance, located in the center
of the building, extending to 37.5 feet in height (see Figures A-10 and A-11, which illustrate the
Proposed Project’s building elevations and indicate building heights). The building would be topped
with a small, decorative cupola, which would extend to approximately 40 feet, 10 inches in height. The
existing eucalyptus trees on the Project Site are visible from North Altura Road, looking west over the
existing single-family homes. The Proposed Project may also be visible from North Altura Road
looking west over the existing single-family homes; however, the Proposed Project would not obstruct
any existing views of the San Gabriel Mountains to the north from North Altura Road. Therefore,
effects of the Proposed Project on scenic vistas would be less than significant.
b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to,
trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
Less Than Significant Impact. The closest officially designated State scenic highway to the Project
Site is part of the Angeles Crest State Scenic Highway, State Route 2 (SR-2), from near La Cañada-
Flintridge north to the San Bernardino County line. This State scenic highway is approximately 8.5
miles northwest of the Project Site. The Arroyo Seco Historic Parkway (SR-110), between mileposts
25.7 and 31.9 in Los Angeles, is approximately 5 miles west of the Project Site. The distance between
the Project Site and these officially designated scenic highways indicates that the Proposed Project
would not be visible from a State scenic highway. Finally, I-210 north of SR-134 is designated as an
eligible scenic highway; however, since the Project Site is approximately 5 miles west of this eligible
scenic highway, the Proposed Project would not be visible from this viewshed. As such, the Proposed
Project would not adversely affect the viewshed from a State scenic highway.
There are a number of scenic resources on the Project Site. Although there are no rock outcroppings
or historic buildings on the Project Site, the Project Site’s mature trees could be considered scenic
resources because the City’s General Plan states that “Arcadia’s trees are a significant aesthetic and
ecological resource” and are “one of the City’s real treasures,” distinguishing Arcadia from other cities
in the vicinity.6 Specifically, mature trees of various species are located around the perimeter of the
Project Site, nearly all of which are protected by the City of Arcadia, as is described in further detail
in Section IV, Biological Resources, of this Initial Study. As stated in the Project Description of this
Initial Study, these protected trees provide a visual barrier between the Proposed Project and
6 City of Arcadia, Arcadia General Plan Land Use and Community Design Element, November 2010, page 2-21.
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 24 April 2020
surrounding uses and maintaining the existing visual character of the Project area.7 Therefore, because
of the Project Site’s distance from the nearest officially designated scenic highway and the lack of
impacts to scenic resources on the Project Site, the Proposed Project would have a less-than-
significant impact on scenic resources, such as trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings within a
State scenic highway.
c) Would the project, 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?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would be located in a fully urbanized area,
where there is a variety of nonresidential and residential land uses and extensive urban infrastructure
improvements (see Figure A-14, Aerial View of Project Site and Surroundings). For purposes of
determining impact significance for projects within urbanized areas, a project is evaluated for whether
it would conflict with applicable zoning or other regulations governing “scenic quality.” The term
“scenic quality” is not specifically defined in the threshold language of Appendix G of the CEQA
Guidelines. No applicable federal or State regulations pertain to aesthetic impact; however, the
Proposed Project would need to comply with Arcadia Municipal Code regulations governing scenic
quality for areas zoned General Commercial.
The Project is consistent with the underlying General Commercial (C-G) zone because the
development of a residential care facility is allowed with an approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
from the City.8 However, the Project would require a zone change to remove an existing Architectural
Design (D) Overlay Zone and an Automobile Parking (P) Overlay Zone from the Project Site.
While the Proposed Project would conflict with the existing overlay zones covering the Project Site,
the Proposed Project would be consistent with underlying City zoning upon approval of a CUP.
Further, the Arcadia Development Code does not contain any specific zoning regulations that govern
scenic quality other than the protected tree ordinances described in Section IV, Biological Resources,
of this Initial Study. As stated above, all protected trees on the Project Site would be preserved in
place, providing visual barriers between the Proposed Project and surrounding uses and maintaining
the existing visual character of the Project vicinity, as presented in Figure A-13, Proposed
Landscape Plan. Per the Protected Tree Report, available as Appendix A and further discussed in
Section IV, Biological Resources, of this Initial Study, no mitigation measures to offset tree removals
would be required as part of the Proposed Project.9 Therefore, the Proposed Project would be
consistent with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality, and impacts would
be less than significant.
7 Arbor Care, Inc., Protected Tree Report: Tree Survey, Encroachment, Protection and Mitigation 1150 West
Colorado Boulevard, Arcadia, CA 91106, revised December 2019.
8 City of Arcadia, Arcadia Municipal Code Section 9102.03.020.
9 Arbor Care, Inc., Protected Tree Report: Tree Survey, Encroachment, Protection and Mitigation 1150 West
Colorado Boulevard, Arcadia, CA 91106, revised December 2019.
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 25 April 2020
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. The Project Site is currently developed with an existing Coco’s
building, which is surrounded by a surface parking lot and scattered landscaped areas. Existing sources
of light on the Project Site include building security lights on the restaurant building and pole-mounted
parking lot lights. The area surrounding the Project Site is highly urbanized and, therefore, is already
impacted by nighttime lighting from streetlights along Colorado Boulevard and Michillinda Avenue,
as well as traffic signals at the intersection of Colorado Boulevard and Michillinda Avenue, vehicle
headlights, and existing parking lot and building security lights at the commercial and gasoline station
uses across Michillinda Avenue from the Project Site. The residential neighborhoods south and east
of the Project Site do not contribute substantial nighttime lighting to the Project vicinity, apart from
residential security and landscape lighting, and overhead streetlights located along North Altura Road
and Altura Terrace.
The Proposed Project would contain multiple new sources of nighttime lighting, such as security
lighting on internal walkways, overhead LED lights in the parking areas, and lights at building
entrances, as well as accent lights along walking paths adjacent to landscaped areas and vehicle
headlights from those entering and exiting the Project Site. The Proposed Project would be required
to demonstrate compliance with Section 9103.01.120(D) of the Arcadia Development Code as part of
the City’s design review process, which limits potential light and glare impacts by requiring that lights
be directed downward and shielded/recessed to avoid spillage to adjacent properties and prohibits
flashing or roof-mounted lights that are directed outward. This Arcadia Development Code section
also prohibits light fixtures that are inappropriate for the scale, intensity, and height of the use they
are serving. Further, the Project would be allowed one sign, the lighting of which would have to
comply with City of Arcadia sign regulations.10 Additionally, the Project would not utilize glossy or
reflective construction materials that would generate significant amounts of glare off-site. Therefore,
the Project would not generate excessive light or glare, and by complying with lighting regulations in
the Arcadia Development Code, would result in a less-than-significant impact on day or nighttime
views in the Project area.
II. Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES:
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer
to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California
Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining
whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer
to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory
of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and
forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.
Would the project:
10 City of Arcadia, Arcadia Municipal Code Article IX, Division 3, Section 9103.11, Signs.
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 26 April 2020
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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))?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Discussion
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. As stated in the Project Description of this Initial Study, the Project Site is located in a
fully urbanized part of the City of Arcadia, where the built environment consists of a mixture of single-
family residences, commercial buildings, and major highway infrastructure. The Project Site is
currently developed with a Coco’s restaurant, which is surrounded by a surface parking lot and
ornamental landscaping. No agricultural uses or operations occur on-site or in the vicinity of the
Project Site. Additionally, neither the Project Site nor the area surrounding it are mapped as Prime
Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide or Local Importance pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Department of Conservation.11 Therefore, the
Project would not convert farmland to a non-agricultural use, and no impact would occur.
b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
No Impact. The Project Site is zoned as C-G (General Commercial) by the City and designated for
Commercial in the City’s General Plan. Agricultural uses are not permitted on properties zoned C-G.
11 California Department of Conservation, California Important Farmland Finder, accessed November 8, 2019,
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/.
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 27 April 2020
Further, neither the Project Site nor the surrounding area is subject to a Williamson Act contract.12
Therefore, the Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural uses or a Williamson
Act contract, and no impact would occur.
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. The Project Site is zoned as C-G (General Commercial) by the City and designated for
Commercial in the City’s General Plan. Accordingly, the Project Site does not include any forestland
or timberland and is almost entirely covered by man-made, impervious surfaces (i.e., building and
surface parking lot). Therefore, the Project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forestland, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production, and no impact
would occur.
d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
No Impact. The Project Site is located in a fully urbanized area and does not include any forestland
or timberland. Therefore, the Project would not result in the loss or conversion of forestland to non-
forest use, and no impact would occur.
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 in the response to Checklist Question II.c, above, the Project Site is fully
urbanized and almost entirely covered by impervious surfaces. While the Proposed Project would alter
the Project Site, resulting in a greater amount of pervious areas due to the increase in landscaped areas,
the Project would not result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or forestland to non-
forest use, and no impact would occur.
12 California Department of Conservation, The California Land Conservation Act of 1965 2016 Status Report, December
2016.
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 28 April 2020
III. Air Quality
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
AIR QUALITY:
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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Discussion
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality
plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Arcadia is located within the South Coast Air Basin
(Basin), which is bounded by the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the north
and east and by the Pacific Ocean to the south and west. The South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD) has jurisdiction in the Basin, which has a history of recorded air quality violations
and is an area where both State and federal ambient air quality standards are exceeded.13 Areas that
meet ambient air quality standards are classified as attainment areas, while areas that do not meet these
standards are classified as nonattainment areas. The air quality in the Los Angeles County portion of
the Basin does not meet the ambient air quality standards for ozone (O3), coarse particulate matter
(PM10), fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and lead and is therefore classified as a nonattainment area for
these pollutants.14 The SCAQMD is required to reduce emissions of air pollutants for which the Basin
is in federal nonattainment (i.e., O3 and PM2.5).
In order to reduce emissions, the SCAQMD adopted the 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP),
which establishes a program of rules and regulations directed at reducing air pollutant emissions and
achieving State and federal air quality standards.15 The 2016 AQMP is a regional and multiagency
effort including the SCAQMD, the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). In
addition to the AQMP, the SCAQMD regulates construction activities through Rule 403, which
requires that excessive fugitive dust emissions be controlled by regular watering or other dust
prevention measures, thus greatly reducing PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations.
13 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan, March 2017.
14 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan, March 2017.
15 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan, March 2017.
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 29 April 2020
The 2016 AQMP pollutant control strategies are based on the latest scientific and technical
information and planning assumptions, including the 2016-2040 Regional Transportation
Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), updated emission inventory methodologies for
various source categories, and SCAG’s latest growth forecasts.16 SCAG’s latest growth forecasts were
defined in consultation with local governments and with reference to local general plans. Therefore,
the SCAQMD considers projects that are consistent with the 2016 AQMP to also have less-than-
significant cumulative impacts.17
Criteria for determining consistency with the 2016 AQMP are defined by the following indicators:
Criterion 1:
The Proposed Project will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations,
or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay the attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions
reductions specified in the AQMP.
Since this criterion pertains to pollutant concentrations, rather than to total regional emissions, an analysis
of the Project’s pollutant emissions relative to localized pollutant concentrations is used as the basis for
evaluating project consistency. As discussed in the response to Checklist Question III.c, below, localized
emissions of CO, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 generated by the Project would be less than significant. Therefore,
the Proposed Project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality
violations. Because reactive organic gases (ROGs) are not a criteria pollutant, there is no ambient standard
or localized threshold for ROGs. Due to the role ROGs play in O3 formation, it is classified as a precursor
pollutant and only a regional emissions threshold has been established. Further, as discussed in the
response to Checklist Question III.b, below, the Proposed Project would result in emissions below the
SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not have the potential to cause or affect a
violation of the ambient air quality standards. Finally, the Proposed Project would result in less-than-
significant impacts with regard to localized emissions during Project construction and operation. As such,
the Proposed Project would not delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or 2016 AQMP
emissions reductions and, therefore, meets the first criterion for consistency with the 2016 AQMP.
Criterion 2:
The Proposed Project will be consistent with the population, housing, and employment growth projections utilized
in the preparation of the AQMP and will implement all feasible air quality mitigation measures.
A project is consistent with the 2016 AQMP in part if it is consistent with the population, housing, and
employment assumptions that were used in the development of the 2016 AQMP. In the case of the 2016
AQMP, the basis for the projections of air pollutant emissions include the Arcadia General Plan and
SCAG’s RTP/SCS. The RTP/SCS also provides socioeconomic forecast projections of regional
population growth.
The Project proposes to construct a senior living facility and associated surface parking lot. The existing
General Plan land use designation for the Project Site is Commercial, with a corresponding zoning of C-
G, General Commercial. Further, the Project Site is within two municipal overlay zones, the Architectural
16 Southern California Association of Governments, 2016–2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable
Communities Strategy, April 2016.
17 South Coast Air Quality Management District, SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds, March 2015.
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 30 April 2020
Design overlay zone and the Automobile Parking overlay zone. While the Proposed Project would conflict
with the existing overlay zones covering the Project Site, the Proposed Project would be consistent with
the underlying City zoning upon approval of a CUP, as further discussed in response to Checklist Question
XI.b, below. Therefore, the Proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan. The population, housing,
and employment forecasts, which are adopted by SCAG’s Regional Council, are based on the local plans
and policies applicable to the City. As the SCAQMD has incorporated these same projections into the
2016 AQMP, it can be concluded that the Proposed Project would be consistent with the projections.
The Proposed Project would not require mitigation and would result in less-than-significant air quality
impacts, as described in responses to Checklist Questions III.b through III.d, below. Further, compliance
with all emissions reduction regulations established by the SCAQMD, such as Rule 403 controlling fugitive
dust, would be required. As such, the Proposed Project meets the second AQMP consistency criterion.
In conclusion, the Proposed Project would not result in a long-term impact on the region’s ability to meet
State and federal air quality standards. As discussed above, the Proposed Project’s long-term influence
would also be consistent with the SCAQMD’s and SCAG’s goals and policies and is, therefore, considered
consistent with the 2016 AQMP. As such, impacts would be less than significant.
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. The Project Site is located in the Basin, which is considered a
nonattainment area for certain criteria pollutants. The Project would involve demolition, grading, and other
construction activities, and would result in long-term operations at the Project Site; therefore, it would
contribute to regional and localized pollutant emissions during construction (short-term) and Project
occupancy (long-term). Further discussion of construction-related and operation-related emissions are
provided below.
Construction
The Project involves construction activities associated with demolition, grading, paving, building
construction, and architectural coating phases. It is anticipated that the Project would be constructed over
approximately 19 months. Variables factored into estimating the total construction emissions include the
level of activity, length of construction period, number of pieces and types of equipment in use, site
characteristics, weather conditions, number of construction personnel, and the amount of materials to be
transported on- or offsite. The analysis of daily construction emissions has been prepared utilizing the
California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2016.3.2.18 Refer to Appendix B, Air
Quality/Greenhouse Gas/Energy worksheets, for the CalEEMod outputs and results. Table III-1
presents the anticipated daily short-term construction emissions associated with the Project.
18 South Coast Air Quality Management District, California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2016.3.2.
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 31 April 2020
Table III-1
Short-Term Construction Emissions
Emissions Source Pollutant (pounds/day)a,b
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Year 1 4.38 49.34 32.32 0.07 5.53 3.26
Year 2 3.50 17.82 20.01 0.04 1.72 1.02
Year 3 3.48 1.35 2.37 0.00 0.23 0.11
Maximum Daily
Emissions 4.38 49.34 32.32 0.07 5.53 3.26
SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Is Threshold
Exceeded? No No No No No No
Notes: ROG = reactive organic gases; NOx = nitrogen oxide; CO = carbon monoxide; SO 2 = sulfur
dioxide; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter
a Emissions were calculated using CalEEMod, version 2016.3.2.
b Modeling assumptions include compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 which requires properly
maintaining mobile and other construction equipment; replacing ground cover in disturbed areas
quickly; watering exposed surfaces three times daily; covering stockpiles with tarps; watering all haul
roads twice daily; and limiting speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour.
Source: Refer to Appendix B for detailed model input/output data.
Construction activities, such as land clearing and ground disturbance, are a source of fugitive dust
emissions that may have a substantial, temporary impact on local air quality. Fugitive dust emissions vary
substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity, specific operations, and weather
conditions, and would be short term, ceasing upon Project completion. As stated above, SCAQMD Rule
403 requires that excessive fugitive dust emissions be controlled by regular watering or other dust
prevention measures. Adherence to SCAQMD Rule 403 would greatly reduce PM10 and PM2.5
concentrations. As shown in Table III-1, total PM10 and PM2.5 emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD
thresholds during construction. Other construction-related exhaust emissions would result from the
transport of machinery and supplies to and from the Project Site and emissions produced by equipment
used on-site. As presented in Table III-1, construction equipment and worker vehicle exhaust emissions
(SO2, CO, and NOx) would be below the established SCAQMD significance thresholds.19
In addition to gaseous and particulate emissions, the application of asphalt and surface coatings creates
ROG emissions, which are O3 precursors. As required, all architectural coatings for the proposed
structure would comply with SCAQMD Rule 1113, Architectural Coating, which provides
specifications on painting practices and regulates the ROG content of paint.
As shown in Table III-1, Project-related total daily construction emissions of particulate matter,
equipment and vehicle exhaust, and ROG emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD significance
thresholds. As such, air quality impacts would be less than significant.
Operation
Emissions during Project operation would be predominantly associated with motor vehicle use
(mobile source emissions). To a lesser extent, area sources, such as the use of landscape maintenance
equipment, and architectural coatings, as well as energy sources, such as non-hearth natural gas and
19 South Coast Air Quality Management District, SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds, March 2015.
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 32 April 2020
electricity, would also contribute to overall emissions. The total daily operational emissions in winter
and summer are displayed in Table III-2.
Table III-2
Long-Term Operational Air Emissions
Emissions Source Pollutant (pounds/day)a,b
ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Existing Coco’s Restaurant Emissions
Area Source Emissions 0.33 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy Emissions 0.09 0.81 0.68 0.00 0.06 0.06
Mobile Emissions 0.87 3.68 8.35 0.02 1.79 0.50
Total Daily Emissions2 1.29 4.49 9.04 0.02 1.85 0.56
Proposed Artis Senior Living Facility Emissions
Area Source Emissions 1.30 1.27 7.13 0.01 0.13 0.13
Energy Emissions 0.03 0.22 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02
Mobile Emissions3 0.39 1.95 5.26 0.02 1.53 0.42
Total Daily Emissions2 1.72 3.44 12.49 0.03 1.68 0.57
Total Net Daily Emissions
(Proposed – Existing)
0.43 -1.05 3.45 0.01 -0.17 0.01
SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Is Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Notes: ROG = reactive organic gases; NOx = nitrogen oxide; CO = carbon monoxide; SO2 = sulfur dioxide; PM10
= coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter
a Emissions were calculated using CalEEMod, version 2016.3.2.
b The numbers may be slightly off due to rounding.
Source: Refer to Appendix B for detailed model input/output data.
As shown in Table III-2, the Project would generate a substantial reduction in mobile source
emissions. This is because the Project would result in a net reduction of approximately 374 daily
vehicle trips as compared with existing conditions (Coco’s Restaurant).20 This net reduction in vehicle
trips is discussed further in Section XVII, Transportation/Traffic, of this Initial Study. Additionally,
area source emissions, such as emissions generated from consumer products, architectural coatings,
and internal combustion landscaping equipment, would result in a modest increase over existing
conditions. As shown in Table III-2, the total daily emissions from mobile, area source, and energy
emissions would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for ROG, NO X, CO, SOX, PM10, or PM2.5. Thus,
operational air quality impacts would be less than significant.
c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Less Than Significant Impact. Sensitive receptors are defined as facilities or land uses that include
members of the population that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants. Examples of
these sensitive receptors are residences, schools, hospitals, and daycare centers. CARB has identified
the following groups of individuals as the most likely to be affected by air pollution: the elderly over
65, children under 14, athletes, and persons with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases, such
as asthma, emphysema, and bronchitis.21 In order to identify impacts to sensitive receptors, the
SCAQMD recommends addressing localized significance thresholds (LSTs) for construction and
20 Michael Baker International, Artis Senior Assisted Living Facility Trip Generation Analysis, December 17, 2019.
21 South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, November 1993.
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 33 April 2020
operations impacts (area sources only).22 The closest sensitive receptors are residences adjoining the
Project Site to the east and south. These sensitive receptors may be potentially affected by air pollutant
emissions generated during on-site construction activities
Table III-3 presents the localized construction-related emissions for NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 in
comparison to the appropriate LST designated by SCAQMD. The localized emissions presented in
Table III-3 are less than the emissions displayed in Table III-2 because localized emissions include
only on-site emissions (i.e., from construction equipment and fugitive dust) and do not include off-
site emissions (i.e., from hauling activities). As shown in Table III-3, the Project’s localized
construction emissions would not exceed the LST with adherence to SCAQMD rules and
requirements. Therefore, localized significance impacts from construction would be less than
significant.
Table III-3
Localized Significance of Construction Emissions
Sourcea Pollutant (pounds/day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Year 1b 46.40 30.88 5.20 3.16
Year 2c 15.62 16.36 0.81 0.76
Year 3d 1.30 1.81 0.07 0.07
Maximum Daily
Emissions 46.40 30.88 5.20 3.16
SCAQMD Localized
Significance Thresholde 128 953 7 5
Thresholds Exceeded? No No No No
Notes: NOx = nitrogen oxide; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine
particulate matter
a Modeling assumptions include compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 which requires properly
maintaining mobile and other construction equipment; replacing ground cover in disturbed areas quickly;
watering exposed surfaces three times daily; covering stockpiles with tarps; watering all haul roads twice
daily; and limiting speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour.
b Year 1 grading phase emissions present the worst-case scenario for NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5.
c Year 2 building construction phase emissions present the worst-case scenario for NOX, CO, PM10, and
PM2.5.
d Year 3 architectural coating phase emissions present the worst-case scenario for NOX, CO, PM10, and
PM2.5.
e The LST was determined using Appendix C of the SCAQMD Final Localized Significant Threshold
Methodology guidance document for pollutants NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. The LST was based on the
anticipated daily acreage disturbance for construction (the thresholds for 2 acres were used), the distance
to sensitive receptors (25 meters), and the source receptor area (SRA 9).
Source: Refer to Appendix B for detailed model input/output data.
Regarding operational emissions, SCAQMD states that LSTs would apply to the operational phase of
a Proposed Project if the Project includes stationary sources or attracts mobile sources that may spend
extended periods queuing and idling at the site (e.g., warehouse or transfer facilities).23 Because the
Proposed Project does not include such uses, no long-term LST analysis is needed and operational
LST impacts would be less than significant.
22 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, July 2008.
23 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, July 2008.
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 34 April 2020
Therefore, because the Project would not exceed short-term or long-term LSTs, the Project would
not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and air quality impacts would
be less than significant.
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. According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses
associated with odor complaints typically include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food
processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding.24
The Proposed Project does not include any uses identified by the SCAQMD as being associated with
odors.
Construction activities associated with the Project may generate other emissions and detectable odors
from heavy-duty equipment exhaust and architectural coatings. However, construction-related
emissions and odors would be short term in nature and cease upon Project completion. In addition,
the Project would be required to comply with the California Code of Regulations, Title 13,
Sections 2449(d)(3) and 2485, which minimizes the idling time of construction equipment either by
shutting it off when not in use or by reducing idling time to no more than five minutes. This would
further reduce the detectable odors from heavy-duty equipment exhaust. The Project would also be
required to comply with the SCAQMD Regulation XI, Rule 1113 – Architectural Coatings, which
would minimize odor impacts from ROG emissions during architectural coating. Any odor impacts
to existing adjacent land uses would be short term and minimal. As such, the Project would not result
in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people,
and impacts would be less than significant.
IV. Biological Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES:
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and 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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
24 South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, November 1993.
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 35 April 2020
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Discussion
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?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project Site is located in a fully urbanized area where the built
environment consists of a mixture of single-family residential and commercial buildings and major
highway infrastructure. The Project Site is currently developed with a restaurant building, which is
surrounded by surface parking and landscaping. As stated in the Project Description of this Initial
Study, mature eucalyptus trees flank the western and eastern sides of the restaurant building.
Additionally, there are decorative shrubs and turf along the northern, eastern, and western façades of
the building, with one mature fern pine near the northeastern corner of the building. There is a mix
of existing trees along the perimeter of the Project Site, serving as landscape buffers between the
Project Site and neighboring streets to the north and west and the residential neighborhoods to the
east and south. In total, there are 72 trees located on the Project Site. According to the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS), the only threatened or endangered species that have potential of occurring
in this part of Arcadia are the California condor, the coastal California gnatcatcher, and the Braunton’s
milk-vetch flowering plant.25 While there are 72 trees on the Project Site, the Site does not contain any
native habitat that would support the California condor or the coastal California gnatcatcher. The
Project Site’s manicured landscaping does not support native plant species, such as the Braunton’s
milk-vetch. Due to the disturbed nature of the Project Site, the Project Site would not support special-
status species listed by the USFWS, or species listed on the California Department of Fish and
25 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Environmental Conservation Online System: Information for Planning and
Consultation, resource list generated November 22, 2019.
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 36 April 2020
Wildlife’s (CDFW) Special Plant and Animal Lists.26 Further, the Arcadia General Plan does not
identify any sensitive or special-status species, apart from protected trees, which are discussed in the
response to Checklist Question IV.e of this Initial Study. Therefore, the Project would not have a
substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modification, on any species identified as
a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
the CDFW or USFWS. As such, impacts would be less than significant.
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 US Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact. As previously stated, the Project Site is located in an urbanized area and is currently
developed as a restaurant with associated parking and landscaping. No riparian or other sensitive
natural community exists on the Project Site or in the immediate surrounding area.27,28 Further, the
Project Site is not located in or adjacent to a Biological Resource Area or Significant Ecological Area
as defined by the County of Los Angeles.29 Additionally, there are no other sensitive natural
communities or critical habitat identified by the CDFW or USFWS located on or adjacent to the
Project Site.30,31,32 Therefore, the Proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community, and no impact would occur.
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. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act defines wetlands as “those areas that are inundated
or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that
under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in
saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.”
The Project Site is located in an urbanized area and is mostly covered by impervious surfaces except
for some ornamental landscaping in front of the existing restaurant building and along the site
frontages. There are no water bodies or federally protected wetlands on the Project Site or in the
immediate vicinity.33,34 Therefore, the Project would not have an adverse effect on State or federally
protected wetlands, and no impact would occur.
26 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), Special Plant and Animal Lists,
https://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/list.html, accessed November 8, 2019.
27 City of Arcadia, Arcadia General Plan, Land Use and Community Design Element, November 2010.
28 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), NEPAssist, National Land Cover Database 2016 Project Site and
Area land cover, map generated December 10, 2019.
29 Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning, GIS-NET Public, Planning & Zoning Information,
http://rpgis.isd.lacounty.gov/Html5Viewer/index.html?viewer=GISNET_Public.GIS-NET_Public, accessed
November 8, 2019.
30 CDFW, Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS), https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/bios/, accessed
November 8, 2019.
31 CDFW, CDFW Lands, https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/lands/, accessed November 8, 2019.
32 USFWS, Environmental Conservation Online System: Information for Planning and Consultation, map generated
November 22, 2019.
33 USEPA, NEPAssist, , accessed November 8, 2019.
34 USFWS, National Wetlands Inventory, , accessed November 22, 2019.
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 37 April 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. There are no waters or streams present on
the Project Site. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not impact or interfere with the movement
of any native resident or migratory fish. Wildlife corridors are typically made up of undeveloped
wildlife habitat and open space linkages between larger patches of wildlife habitat. Habitat linkages
may also include more tenuous linkages like narrow vegetated pathways or islands of habitat that act
as stepping stones between larger habitat areas for some species. The Project Site has been highly
disturbed and is surrounded by developed, urban land uses; however, there are 72 existing trees on
the Project Site, which could provide habitat to animals capable of flight (i.e., birds).35
The Coco’s building, trees, and ornamental landscaping may provide suitable roosting and nesting
habitat for bird species. Migratory nongame native bird species are protected under the federal
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (50 CFR Section 10.13). Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513
of the California Fish and Game Code prohibit take of all birds and their active nests including raptors
and other migratory nongame birds (as listed under the federal MBTA). The Proposed Project would
result in the removal of unprotected trees, the existing Coco’s building, and other landscaping, which
could be used as habitat for nesting birds. While migratory bird species are considered highly mobile
and would naturally avoid areas with loud construction noise, removal of potential nesting habitat
would result in the potential for minor impacts. As such, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would be
implemented, which would reduce impacts on migratory wildlife species to a less-than-significant level
with mitigation incorporated.
BIO-1 Tree removal shall not occur during the local nesting season (February 1 to September
15 for nesting birds and February 1 to June 30 for nesting raptors), to the extent
practicable. If any construction or tree removal occurs during the nesting season, a
nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to commencement
of grading or removal of any trees on the property. If the biologist determines that
nesting birds are present, restrictions may be placed on construction activities in the
vicinity of the nest observed until the nest is no longer active, as determined by the
biologist based on the location of the nest, type of the construction activities, the
existing human activity in the vicinity of the nest, and the sensitivity of the nesting
species. Grading and/or construction may resume in this area when a qualified
biologist has determined that the nest is no longer occupied, and all juveniles have
fledged. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City of the
Planning & Community Development Administrator or Designee.
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 with Mitigation Incorporated. The City of Arcadia has a Tree Preservation
Ordinance (TPO) that protects trees with a diameter of 12 inches or greater (or greater than 10 inches
in diameter if there are multiple trunks), as well as street trees.36 Several trees are considered
35 Arbor Care, Inc., Protected Tree Report: Tree Survey, Encroachment, Protection and Mitigation 1150 West
Colorado Boulevard, Arcadia, CA 91106, revised December 2019.
36 City of Arcadia, Code of Ordinances, Article IX, Chapter 7, Tree Preservation, and Chapter 8, Comprehensive Tree
Management Program.
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 38 April 2020
“unprotected” regardless of their size, including fruit trees, Brazilian pepper trees, palm trees,
eucalyptus trees, and Italian cypress trees. Of the 72 trees located on the Project Site, 12 are considered
protected under the TPO with all but two of these protected trees considered to be in good health.
There are four additional protected trees that are off-site but have canopies that encroach onto the
Project Site. In total, there are 16 protected trees located on the Project Site or that have canopies that
extend onto the Project Site. As discussed in the Protected Tree Report, included as Appendix A of
this Initial Study, these protected trees include species, such as fern pines, carrotwoods, Japanese pear,
southern magnolias, deodar cedar, coast redwood, and Canary Island pines, and are primarily located
along the perimeter of the Project Site. In particular, Tree No. 49 (see Appendix A), a protected deodar
cedar located on the Project Site’s Colorado Boulevard frontage, is in fair condition but is showing
branch die-back.
The Proposed Project would remove a total of 18 unprotected trees, which include a mix of Victorian
box trees, lemon-scented gum trees, a fern pine, and an evergreen pear tree. Of the 18 unprotected
trees to be removed, 13 trees are located in the center of the Project Site, around the existing restaurant
building; two trees are flanking the existing driveway onto Colorado Boulevard; two trees are located
in a planter in the southeastern corner of the parking lot; and one dead tree stump is located on the
Project Site’s Colorado Boulevard frontage. No healthy, protected trees would be removed as part of
Project Site modifications. Of the 16 protected trees that are on or adjacent to the Project Site, all 12
of the on-site protected trees would experience some light grading within their immediate area, less
than 6 inches deep within the dripline of the tree. The Protected Tree Report estimates that the
Proposed Project would remove or sever less than 20 percent of the total root mass of each of these
protected trees. Project-related construction activities would not encroach upon the four off-site
protected trees. Accordingly, the Protected Tree Report determined that the Project would not
adversely affect the long-term viability of the protected trees on or adjacent to the Project Site. As
such, no protected trees would be removed or irrevocably damaged as part of Project-related grading
and construction.
While some minor damage to the protected tree root systems are anticipated as part of the Proposed
Project, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2 is required to prevent substantial damage to
on- and off-site protected trees, via soil compaction or grading encroachment into protected tree root
systems. The goal of Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would be to enclose the largest possible amount of
space underneath the tree so that the heavy equipment required for demolition and construction can
be routed away from root zones. Further, the TPO requires an applicant to demonstrate that a
proposed project’s landscape plan is consistent with the TPO. Therefore, with implementation of
Mitigation Measure BIO-2 to meet the requirements of the TPO, the Proposed Project would not
conflict with the City’s TPO, and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
BIO-2 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall demonstrate that the Project
landscaping plan and planned construction are consistent with the City’s Tree
Protection Ordinance and the Protected Tree Study. The tree protection activities shall
include the following:
1. Prior to demolition, the contractor and consulting arborist shall meet on-site to
make sure tree protection zones are established around all protected trees to be
preserved and to review the goals for the tree protection plan.
2. Tree protection zone fences shall be placed around each protected tree. Fences
shall be at least 4 feet tall and constructed of chain-link fencing secured on metal
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 39 April 2020
posts. Where fences are not feasible (e.g., in haul routes or areas where workers
will need frequent access), soil and root protection material can be installed.
3. The contractor shall maintain the fences and/or soil protection material
throughout the completion of the Project. No staging of materials or equipment
or washing out shall occur within the fenced protected zones.
4. Trees should be irrigated throughout the year. A deep watering that provides
good soil moisture to a depth of 16 inches is optimal. The trees shall be deeply
water once every 21 to 28 days during the summer and fall seasons when rain is
unlikely.
5. For Tree No. 49, a protected deodar cedar located on the Project Site’s Colorado
Boulevard frontage, the deadwood shall be removed to prevent the dead
branches from falling. However, no reduction pruning in the live crown of the
tree is required. The tree shall be monitored for its health during the life of the
Project, and irrigation shall occur at the same frequency of the other trees.
6. The arborist shall monitor a few critical phases of the Project, including pre-
demolition, to direct the installation of protective fences and soil protection
measures; grading and excavation; any utility or drainage trenching that is
required within a tree protection zone; and a final evaluation during the landscape
installation phase.
7. Additional construction best practices described in the Protected Tree Report
shall be implemented.
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. There are no adopted, approved, or proposed habitat conservation plans, natural
community conservation plans, or other approved local, regional, or State conservation plans that
cover habitats located in the City of Arcadia.37 Therefore, the Proposed Project would not conflict
with such plans, and no impact would occur.
37 City of Arcadia, General Plan Update Draft Program EIR, Section 4.4 Biological Resources, June 2010.
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 40 April 2020
V. Cultural Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CULTURAL RESOURCES:
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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Discussion
The analysis in this section is based on the “Cultural Resources Identification Memorandum for the
Artis Senior Living Project” prepared by Michael Baker International in January 2020, included as
Appendix C of this Initial Study. The memo report summarized the methods and results of a South
Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) records search, literature review, and historical map
review to determine whether the Project would result in significant impacts to cultural resources,
including historical and archaeological resources.
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical
resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
No Impact. No historical resources (built environment) were identified on the Project Site. The
current restaurant building, built in 1976, does not meet the age requirement for evaluation for
eligibility for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) and,
therefore, is not a historical resource as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a). Further,
there are no cultural resources listed or eligible for listing in the California Register within the
immediate vicinity of the Project Site (i.e., within 1.5 blocks of the Project Site). Because physical
alterations associated with the Proposed Project would not extend beyond the Project Site, there
would be no impact to on-site or off-site historical resources as a result of the Project’s
implementation. Therefore, the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, and no impact to
historical resources would occur.
b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The Project Site is fully paved and
landscaped with no exposed soils. No archaeological resources were identified on the Project Site or
within a quarter-mile of the Project Site. The Project Site was first developed with a hotel and
restaurant known as Eaton’s Santa Anita Hotel and Restaurant between 1940 and 1975 when it was
demolished for the current 1976-built restaurant. No other historic literature or maps indicate
occupation or development of the Project Site prior to circa 1940. Furthermore, neither the current
building nor the previous Eaton’s restaurant building was identified as significant in the records search
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 41 April 2020
or literature review (see Appendix C of this Initial Study). Accordingly, the site sensitivity for
subsurface archaeological resource is considered low because the Project Site has been developed and
redeveloped. However, the potential exists for unanticipated discovery of archaeological resources
during Project-related ground disturbance activities. Therefore, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 is
required to ensure that impacts to archaeological resources pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.5 would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Mitigation Measure
CUL‐1 Treatment of previously unidentified archaeological deposits. If suspected
prehistoric or historical archaeological deposits are discovered during construction, all
work within 25 feet of the discovery shall be redirected and a Secretary of the Interior
Professional Qualified archaeologist and/or Registered Professional Archaeologist
shall assess the situation and make recommendations regarding the treatment of the
discovery. Impacts to significant archaeological deposits shall be avoided if feasible,
but if such impacts cannot be avoided, the deposits shall be evaluated for their
eligibility for the California Register of Historical Resources. If the deposits are not
eligible, no further protection of the find is necessary. If the deposits are eligible,
impacts shall be avoided or mitigated. Acceptable mitigation may consist of, but is not
necessarily limited to, systematic recovery and analysis of archaeological deposits,
recording the resource, preparation of a report of findings, and accessioning recovered
archaeological materials at an appropriate curation facility.
c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
dedicated cemeteries?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project would not likely disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries. Research conducted as part of the preparation of the
“Cultural Resources Identification Memo Report for the Artis Senior Living Project” found no
indications of any past human burial activities on or near the Project Site. However, there is the
potential to discover buried human remains during Project-related earth-moving activities. According
to the California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, there must be no further excavation or
disturbance of a site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the Los
Angeles County coroner has determined the manner and cause of any death, and the
recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made
to the person responsible for the excavation or to his or her authorized representative. Project
personnel/construction workers are prohibited to collect or move any human remains and associated
materials. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the coroner must notify the Native
American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours of this identification. The NAHC will
immediately identify a Native American most likely descendant to inspect the site and provide
recommendations within 48 hours for the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave goods.
Accordingly, impacts related to the disturbance of human remains, including those interred outside of
dedicated cemeteries, would be less than significant with the Project’s compliance with California
Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5.
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 42 April 2020
VI. Energy
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
ENERGY:
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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Discussion
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.
This analysis focuses on three sources of energy that are relevant to the Proposed Project: electricity,
natural gas, and transportation fuel for vehicle trips associated with Project construction and new
development. The estimated construction fuel consumption is based on the Project’s construction
equipment list, timing/phasing, and hours of duration for construction equipment, as well as vendor,
hauling, and construction worker trips. The analysis of operational electricity/natural gas usage is
based on the CalEEMod version 2016.3.2 modeling results for the Project, which quantifies energy
use for the proposed occupancy. The Project’s estimated electricity/natural gas consumption is based
primarily on CalEEMod’s default settings for Los Angeles County and consumption factors provided
by Southern California Edison (SCE) and the Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) (the
electricity and natural gas providers, respectively, for the City of Arcadia and the Project Site). The
results of the CalEEMod modeling are included in Appendix B, Air Quality/Greenhouse
Gas/Energy Worksheets. The amount of operational fuel consumption was estimated using the
CARB Emissions Factor 2017 (EMFAC2017) computer program, which provides projections for
typical daily fuel (i.e., diesel and gasoline) usage in Los Angeles County, and the Project’s annual vehicle
miles traveled (VMT) outputs from CalEEMod.
Construction
Project construction would consume energy in two general forms: (1) the fuel energy consumed by
construction vehicles and equipment; and (2) bound energy in construction materials, such as asphalt,
steel, concrete, pipes, and manufactured or processed materials, such as lumber and glass.
Fossil fuels for construction vehicles and other energy-consuming equipment would be used during
site clearing, grading, and construction. Fuel energy consumed during construction would be
temporary and would not represent a significant demand on energy resources. In addition, some
incidental energy conservation would occur during construction through compliance with State
requirements that heavy-duty diesel equipment not in use for more than five minutes be turned off.
Project construction equipment would also be required to comply with the latest USEPA and CARB
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 43 April 2020
engine emissions standards. These emissions standards require highly efficient combustion systems
that maximize fuel efficiency and reduce unnecessary fuel consumption. Due to increasing
transportation costs and fuel prices, contractors and owners have a strong financial incentive to avoid
wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy during construction.
Substantial reductions in energy inputs for construction materials can be achieved by selecting building
materials composed of recycled materials that require substantially less energy to produce than non-
recycled materials. The Project-related incremental increase in the use of energy bound in construction
materials, such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes and manufactured or processed materials (e.g., lumber
and gas), would not substantially increase demand for energy compared to overall local and regional
demand for construction materials. It is reasonable to assume that production of building materials,
such as concrete, steel, etc., would employ all reasonable energy conservation practices in the interest
in minimizing the cost of doing business. As indicated in Table VI-1, the Project’s fuel consumption
from construction would be approximately 36,934 gallons, which would increase fuel use in the
County by 0.0069 percent. As such, construction would have a nominal effect on local and regional
energy supplies. It is noted that construction fuel use is temporary and would cease upon completion
of construction activities. There are no unusual Project characteristics that would necessitate the use
of construction equipment that would be less energy efficient than at comparable construction sites
in the region or State. Therefore, construction fuel consumption would not be any more inefficient,
wasteful, or unnecessary than other similar development projects of this nature. As such, impacts
related to energy conservation would be less than significant.
Table VI-1
Project and Countywide Energy Consumption
Energy Type
Project Annual
Energy
Consumptiona
Los Angeles County
Annual Energy
Consumptionb
Percentage
Increase
Countywideb
Net Electricity Consumptionc -257 MWh 68,486,000 MWh -0.0004%
Net Natural Gas Consumptiond -21,351 therms 2,921,000,000 therms -0.0007%
Fuel Consumption
Construction Fuel Consumptione 36,934 gallons 533,800,838 gallons 0.0069%
Net Operational Automotive Fuel
Consumptione,f -8,182 gallons 3,975,480,911 gallons -0.0002%
Notes:
a As modeled in CalEEMod version 2016.3.2.
b The project net reduction in electricity and natural gas consumption are compared to the total consumption in Los Angeles County
in 2018. The project’s automotive fuel consumption is compared with the projected countywide fuel consumption in 2020.
Los Angeles County electricity consumption data source: California Energy Commission, Electricity Consumption by County,
http://www.ecdms. energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx, accessed December 30, 2019.
Los Angeles County natural gas consumption data source: California Energy Commission, Gas Consumption by County,
http://www.ecdms.energy. ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx, accessed December 30, 2019.
c Net electricity consumption is calculated by subtracting the existing (i.e., Coco’s Restaurant) electricity consumption quantity from
the Project’s total electricity consumption quantity. Refer to energy calculation sheets in Appendix B.
d Net natural gas consumption is calculated by subtracting the existing (i.e., Coco’s Restaurant) natural gas consumption quantity
from the Project’s total natural gas consumption quantity. Refer to energy calculation sheets in Appendix B.
e Project fuel consumption calculated based on CalEEMod results. Countywide fuel consumption is from the CARB EMFAC2017
model.
f Net operational automotive fuel consumption is calculated by subtracting the existing (i.e., Coco’s Restaurant) operational
automotive fuel consumption quantity from the Project’s total operational automotive fuel consumption quantity. Refer to energy
calculation sheets in Appendix B.
Source: Refer to Appendix B for assumptions used in this analysis.
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 44 April 2020
Operation
The Project’s estimated energy consumption is summarized in Table VI-1, which shows that the
Project’s electricity usage would constitute an approximate 0.0004-percent reduction from Los
Angeles County’s typical annual electricity consumption and an approximate 0.0007-percent reduction
from Los Angeles County’s typical annual natural gas consumption. The Project’s construction fuel
consumption would increase Los Angeles County’s consumption by 0.0069 percent. However, the
Project would generate a net decrease of approximately 374 daily trips when compared to the existing
use (i.e., Coco’s Restaurant). As a result, the Project’s operational vehicle consumption would decrease
Los Angeles County’s fuel consumption by 0.0002 percent.
Building Energy Demand
The Project would consume energy for interior and exterior lighting; heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning (HVAC) systems; refrigeration; electronics systems; appliances; and security systems. The
Project would be required to comply with Title 24 standards,38 which provide minimum efficiency
standards related to various building features, including appliances, water and space heating and
cooling equipment, building insulation and roofing, and lighting. Implementation of Title 24 standards
significantly reduces energy usage. Furthermore, the electricity provider, SCE, is subject to California’s
Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS), which requires investor-owned utilities, electric service
providers, and community choice aggregators to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy
resources to 33 percent of total procurement by 2020 and to 50 percent of total procurement by 2030.
As indicated in Table VI-1, operational energy consumption would represent an approximate 0.0004-
percent reduction in electricity consumption and a 0.0007-percent reduction in natural gas
consumption from current countywide usage. Therefore, the Project would not result in the
inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of building energy, and impacts related to energy
conservation would be less than significant.
Transportation Energy Demand
Pursuant to the Federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, the National Highway Traffic
and Safety Administration (NTSA) is responsible for establishing additional vehicle standards and for
revising existing standards. Compliance with federal fuel economy standards is not determined for
each individual vehicle model. Rather, compliance is determined based on each manufacturer’s average
fuel economy for the portion of their vehicles produced for sale in the U.S. Table VI-1 provides an
estimate of the daily fuel consumed by vehicles traveling to and from the Project Site. As indicated in
Table VI-1, Project operations are estimated to reduce existing vehicle consumption by approximately
8,182 gallons of fuel per year, which would decrease the Los Angeles County’s automotive fuel
consumption by 0.0002 percent. The Project would not result in any unusual characteristics that would
result in excessive operational fuel consumption associated with vehicular travel. Fuel consumption
associated with Project-related vehicle trips would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or
unnecessary in comparison to other similar developments in the region. As such, impacts related to
energy conservation would be less than significant.
38 California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6, California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and
Nonresidential Buildings, 2019.
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 45 April 2020
b) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or
energy efficiency?
No Impact. The City adopted the 2019 Energy Action Plan Update (EAP), which updates the City’s
2012 Energy Action Plan. The City is part of the San Gabriel Valley Energy Wise Partnership
(SGVEWP), which is a collaboration between SCE, SoCalGas, the San Gabriel Valley Council of
Governments, and 29 cities in the San Gabriel Valley. Through the SGVEWP, member cities are able
to participate in the SCE Energy Leader Model, which recognizes cities for increasing their energy
efficiency in municipal facilities and communities, and participating in demand-response programs
and long-term strategic planning. Implementation of the EAP has allowed Arcadia to reach the second
highest level of energy efficiency, Gold, under the Energy Leader Model.
The 2019 EAP builds on the community goals and policies in the 2012 EAP and adds additional goals
and policies for City-owned properties. The 2019 EAP outlines three City energy conservation targets:
reduce municipal electricity usage by 780,662 kilowatt hours by 2023; achieve Platinum level status in
SCE’s Energy Leader Program; and complete three or more municipal energy-efficiency projects by
2023. As these goals are municipal targets, aimed at reducing electricity usage at City-owned and City-
controlled facilities, the Proposed Project’s energy reduction features would not contribute to or
obstruct the attainment of these goals. However, the Project’s overall energy-efficiency measures—
e.g., installing energy-efficient appliances, heaters, and HVAC systems; using water-efficient
landscaping (which would reduce the electricity used for water transport and treatment); and
incorporation of building code-mandated energy-efficient designs—would generally support the City’s
energy reduction goals. The Project’s energy consumption would be typical of senior living
development projects in Southern California and would not result in an increased energy demand
beyond the capacity of SCE or SoCalGas. As such, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct
any plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and, as such, no impact would occur.
VII. Geology and Soils
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
GEOLOGY AND SOILS:
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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 46 April 2020
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Discussion
a.i) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving 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. According to the City of Arcadia General Plan Safety Element, the
Raymond Hill Fault Zone and the Sierra Madre Fault Zone are the only active or potentially active
earthquake faults that pass through the City of Arcadia.39,40 In addition, two deep blind thrust faults
are located beneath Arcadia, i.e., the relatively shallow Elysian Park Fault and the relatively deep
Puente Hills Fault. These are considered blind thrust faults due to their depth and because the fault
movement consists of upward or thrusting action. The Safety Element states that there is also the
Eaton Wash groundwater barrier; however, this fault shows no surface geological evidence of
existence and the nature of this buried fault is unknown.41 The Raymond Fault traverses a large portion
of the City and has a potential to cause a 5-6-foot offset if severe ground shaking occurs. The Sierra
Madre Fault crosses the northern portion of the City and could result in large ground rupture
movements (possibly 10 feet or more in the event of a 7.2 magnitude earthquake).42
39 City of Arcadia, General Plan Safety Element, Figure S-1, Regional Faults, November 2010.
40 California Department of Conservation, Fault Activity Map of California, 2010.
41 City of Arcadia, General Plan Safety Element, November 2010.
42 City of Arcadia, General Plan Safety Element, November 2010.
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 47 April 2020
The Project Site is located north of the Raymond Fault and south of the Sierra Madre Fault. An
“inferred or possible groundwater barrier” fault runs directly west and south of the Project Site. As
displayed in Figure S-2 of the Safety Element, the Project Site is not located within the Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zone for either the Sierra Madre Fault or the Raymond Fault; however, the Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone for the Raymond Fault is located just one-half mile southeast of the
Project Site.43 Further, the Project Site is not located within a Fault Hazard Management Zone, which
would require geologic investigations to be performed if conventional structures that are designed for
human occupancy are proposed within the zone.
While the Proposed Project is near these fault zones, the Proposed Project is subject to review by the
City of Arcadia Building Services Division to ensure compliance with aspects of the California
Building Standards Code pertaining to seismic safety (California Code of Regulations, Title 24), which
the City adopted into the City’s Code of Ordinances in 2010.44 Because the Project Site is located
outside of Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault and Hazard Management Zones identified above and
because the Project is required to adhere to building regulations dictating seismic safety, the Project
would not directly or indirectly cause potential adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault. Therefore, potential impacts related to rupture
of a known earthquake fault would be less than significant.
a.ii) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking?
Less Than Significant Impact. As with most of Southern California, the Project Site is in an area
that is subject to strong ground shaking due to earthquakes on local and regional faults. As stated
above, the Raymond Fault and the Sierra Madre Fault are the only faults to traverse the City and are
located south and north of the Project Site, respectively. The 2019 California Building Code provides
procedures for earthquake-resistant structural design that include considerations for on-site soil
conditions, occupancy, and the configuration of the structure including the structural system and
height. With adherence to the seismic design parameters as outlined in the California Building Code,
the Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking. Therefore, potential impacts
related to seismic ground shaking would be less than significant.
a.iii) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
Less Than Significant Impact. Liquefaction is the loss of strength in generally cohesionless (granular),
saturated soils when the pressure of groundwater held within a soil or rock, in gaps between particles
(referred to as “pore-water pressure”) induced in the soil by a seismic event, becomes equal to or exceeds
the overburden pressure. Lateral spread or flow refers to landslides that commonly form on gentle slopes
and that have rapid fluid-like flow movement, like water. In general, lateral spreading is a result of
liquefaction.
The primary factors that influence the potential for liquefaction include groundwater table elevation; the
relative density of the soil; and the intensity and duration of ground shaking. The depth within which the
43 City of Arcadia, General Plan Safety Element, Figure S-2, Alquist-Priolo and Fault Rupture Hazard Zones, November
2010.
44 City of Arcadia, Code of Ordinances, Article VIII, Chapter 1, Building Code.
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 48 April 2020
occurrence of liquefaction may impact surface improvements is generally identified as the upper 50 feet
below the existing ground surface.
According to the Safety Element, the Project Site is located within a liquefaction zone due to the relatively
shallow groundwater depth of approximately 40 feet.45 However, the 2019 California Building Code
provides requirements for earthquake-resistant structural design that include considerations for on-site soil
conditions, occupancy, and the configuration of the structure including the structural system and height.
Other mitigation guidance provided by the California Geological Survey (CGS) includes removal and/or
densification of liquefiable soils to eliminate liquefaction hazards.46 With adherence to the seismic design
parameters as outlined in the California Building Code, incorporated into the Arcadia Municipal Code by
reference, and CGS guidance, the Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, such as
liquefaction. Therefore, potential impacts related to seismic-related ground failure would be less than
significant.
a.iv) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides?
No Impact. The Project Site is located in a fully urbanized area and is surrounded by single-family
residential buildings, a gas station, highway infrastructure (I-210), and a medium-rise commercial building.
The Project Site’s topography is relatively flat, with a slight slope to the southeast (a difference in elevation
of approximately 10 feet between the northwestern corner and the southeastern corner of the Project Site).
Further, the Project Site is not located within an earthquake-induced landslide hazard area, as identified by
the Safety Element. Accordingly, the Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides. Therefore, no impact related
to landslides would occur.
b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Less Than Significant Impact. Because of the extensive ground alterations that have occurred on-site
since the Project Site was originally developed, it is unlikely that any native topsoil is remaining in the near
surface. There would, thus, be no impact involving loss of topsoil.
During construction of the Proposed Project, the uncovered soils on-site may become exposed to wind
or rainstorms and, thus, subject to erosion. The Proposed Project must comply with SCAQMD Rule 403,
Fugitive Dust, to reduce the amount of particulate matter in the ambient air due to man-made fugitive dust
sources by requiring actions to prevent, reduce, or mitigate fugitive dust emissions. This rule requires that
construction activities include a variety of best available control measures, including measures that would
prevent wind-induced erosion of uncovered soils, such as to apply chemical stabilizers to areas that would
remain inactive for 10 days or longer, replant disturbed areas as soon as practical, and suspend grading
when wind speeds exceed 25 miles per hour. Storm-related erosion of uncovered soils during construction
activities would be prevented by complying with the County of Los Angeles’ National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit requirements. These requirements are further
discussed in Section X.a, Hydrology and Water Quality, below. In general, the NPDES permit requires
construction activities to incorporate best management practices (BMPs) to prevent erosion and prevent
loose soils from washing off-site. In general, BMPs for the Proposed Project would include the use of
45 City of Arcadia, General Plan Safety Element, Figure S-3, Liquefaction and Landslide Hazards, November 2010.
46 California Geological Survey, Special Publication 117A: Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in
California, 2008.
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 49 April 2020
berms or drainage ditches to divert water around the site and preventing sediment from migrating off the
site by using temporary swales, silt fences, or gravel rolls. Additionally, because the Proposed Site is greater
than 1 acre, the City requires the preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, which would
establish erosion and sedimentation controls, such as methods to minimize the footprint of the disturbed
area, controls to prevent tracking off-site, spill prevention, non-stormwater controls (i.e., vehicle washing),
and methods to protect native vegetation and trees. Therefore, the potential for soil erosion during any
construction activity would be reduced to less than significant through Project compliance with these
existing regulations.
Finally, the Proposed Project would result in almost the entire site covered in either impervious surfaces,
such as the building, surrounding parking areas, outdoor structures (i.e., outdoor gathering spaces, refuse
and generator enclosures, and storage shed), and concrete walkways, or managed landscaped areas.
Because almost the entire site would be covered by either impervious surfaces or managed gardens/turf
areas, there would be very little potential for wind- or storm-induced erosion during the long-term
operation of the Project. Accordingly, the Project would not result in soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.
Therefore, potential impacts related to soil erosion or the loss of topsoil would be less than significant.
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. As stated above, the Project Site’s topography is relatively flat, with
a slight slope to the southeast. Further, the Project Site is not located within an earthquake-induced
landslide hazard area, as identified by the Safety Element. Therefore, there would be no risk resulting
from on- or off-site landslide. Further, while the project is located in a liquefaction area, the Project
would be required to comply with seismic design parameters as outlined in the California Building
Code, incorporated into the Arcadia Municipal Code by reference. Further, compliance with CGS
guidance described above for addressing liquefaction hazards would reduce potential liquefaction
impacts to site improvements to a less-than-significant level.
Other hazards include subsidence, which is the compaction of the ground when large amounts of
groundwater or oil have been withdrawn from fine-grained sediments or when underlying limestone
deposits dissolve, as well as collapsible soils, which undergo a volume reduction when the pore spaces
become saturated with water, with the weight of overlying structures causing settlement. Both of these
hazards can result in building settlement and damage to foundations and walls. Subsidence may cause
differential settlement of the overlying structure and substantially more damage than if the structure
were to settle evenly throughout. Large-scale subsidence due to fluid withdrawal (water or oil) has not
been reported in or near the City.47 Therefore, it is unlikely that the Project Site is located on soils that
are vulnerable to subsidence or collapse. Nevertheless, the Project would be required to comply with
seismic safety design regulations required by the California Building Code or those described by the
CGS guidance, such as extending piles or caissons to non-collapsible soils, or utilizing various methods
of soil compaction prior to construction. These building regulations would provide appropriate
building design criteria needed to protect structural integrity of structures against such geologic
hazards. Accordingly, with compliance with required design criteria, the Project would not result in
on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. Therefore, potential
impacts related to unstable soils would be less than significant.
47 City of Arcadia, General Plan Update Draft Program EIR, 2010.
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 50 April 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 generally associated with soils, alluvium, and bedrock
formations that contain clay minerals susceptible to expansion under wetting conditions and contraction
under drying conditions. Depending upon the type and amount of clay present in a geologic deposit,
volume changes (shrink and swell) can cause severe damage to slabs, foundations, and concrete flatwork.48
Hanford, Vista Amargosa, and Tujunga-Soboba soils that underlie the City do not have high shrink-swell
potential and thus are not considered expansive. However, due to the granular (sandy) nature of the
alluvium in the flatter areas of the City, expansive clays would most likely be present in older alluvial,
bedrock formation soils in the hillside areas, and in sag-pond areas (e.g., the Los Angeles Arboretum and
Santa Anita Racetrack areas) caused by past impoundments along the northern side of the Raymond Fault.
While the Project Site is located in an area with potential to contain expansive soils, the Project would be
required to adhere to seismic safety design regulations required by the California Building Code, such as
those described above. Further, the City’s Building regulations provide appropriate building design criteria
needed to protect structural integrity of structures against soil expansion. Accordingly, with compliance
with required design criteria, the Project would not result in direct or indirect risks to life or property due
to expansive soils. Therefore, potential impacts related to expansive soils would be less than significant.
e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks
or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
No Impact. All wastewater generated by the Proposed Project would be discharged via a lateral
connection to an existing sanitary sewer infrastructure in Michillinda Avenue and Colorado Boulevard.
There would be no on-site wastewater disposal system. Therefore, no impact related to unstable soils
due to the use of septic tanks would occur.
f) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site
or unique geologic feature?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Paleontological resources, as
defined by the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, are the physical remains
or other physical evidence of plants and animals preserved in soils and sedimentary rock formations.
The Project Site has been extensively disturbed in the past and is currently covered with a restaurant
structure and other improvements (such as outdoor parking areas). However, there would be some
potential for encountering vertebrate paleontological resources during grading activities for the
Proposed Project. To avoid the potential destruction of undiscovered paleontological resources,
Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would be imposed to ensure proper identification and treatment of
paleontological resources that may be discovered during grading. Therefore, with mitigation
incorporated, potentially significant impacts would be reduced to less than significant.
GEO-1 Paleontological Resource Monitor. If paleontological resources (fossils) are
discovered during Project grading, work shall be halted in that area until a qualified
paleontologist can be retained to assess the significance of the find. The Project
48 City of Arcadia, General Plan Update Draft Program EIR, 2010.
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 51 April 2020
paleontologist shall monitor remaining earth-moving activities at the Project Site and
shall be equipped to record and salvage fossil resources that may be unearthed during
grading activities. The paleontologist shall be empowered to temporarily halt or divert
grading equipment to allow recording and removal of the unearthed resources. Any
fossils found shall be evaluated in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines and offered
for curation at an accredited facility approved by the City of Arcadia. Once grading
activities have ceased or the paleontologist determines that monitoring is no longer
necessary, monitoring activities shall be discontinued.
VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS:
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly
or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on
the environment?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions
of greenhouse gases?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Discussion
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. California is a substantial contributor of greenhouse gases (GHGs),
emitting over 440 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO 2) per year.49 Methane (CH4) is also an important
GHG that potentially contributes to global climate change. GHGs are global in their effect, which is
to increase Earth’s ability to absorb heat in the atmosphere. As primary GHGs have a long lifetime in
the atmosphere, accumulate over time, and are generally well-mixed, their impact on the atmosphere
is mostly independent of the point of emission.
The City of Arcadia has not adopted a numerical significance threshold for assessing impacts related
to GHG emissions. Similarly, SCAQMD, CARB, or any other State or regional agency has not yet
adopted a numerical significance threshold for assessing GHG emissions that is applicable to the
Project. Notwithstanding, for informational purposes, the following analysis calculates the amount of
GHG emissions that would be attributable to the Project using recommended air quality models, as
described below. The primary purpose of quantifying the Project’s GHG emissions is to satisfy CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.4(a), which calls for a good-faith effort to describe and calculate emissions.
The estimated emissions inventory is also used to determine if there would be a reduction in the
Project’s incremental contribution of GHG emissions as a result of compliance with regulations and
requirements adopted to implement plans for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions.
49 California Energy Commission, California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2017,
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/2000_2016/ghg_inventory_trends_00-16.pdf, accessed
December 27, 2019.
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 52 April 2020
However, the significance of the Project’s GHG emissions impacts is not based on the amount of
GHG emissions resulting from the Project.
Direct, Project-related GHG emissions include emissions from construction activities, area sources,
and mobile sources, while indirect, Project-related GHG emissions include emissions from electricity
consumption, water demand, and solid waste generation. Operational GHG estimations are based on
energy emissions from natural gas usage and automobile emissions. Table VIII-1 presents the
estimated CO2, N2O, and CH4 emissions of the Proposed Project. In accordance with SCAQMD
guidance, projected GHGs from construction have been quantified and amortized over 30 years
(representing the life of the Project), which are added to the annual average operation emissions.50 As
shown in Table VIII-1, the Project would result in a GHG emissions reduction of approximately
209.75 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MT CO2e) per year when compared to the existing
Coco’s Restaurant. This overall reduction in GHG emissions can be attributed to the decrease in total
daily vehicle trips associated with the development as compared with existing conditions.51 This
reduction in total daily vehicle trips is further discussed in Section XVII, Transportation/Traffic, of
this Initial Study.
Table VIII-1
Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Source
CO2 CH4 N2O Total
Metric
Tons of
CO2ec
Metric
Tons/yeara
Metric
Tons/yeara
Metric
Tons of
CO2eb
Metric
Tons/year1
Metric
Tons of
CO2eb
Construction Emissions
Total Construction Emissionsc
(amortized over 30 years) 21.48 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 21.58
Operational Emissions
Existing Coco’s Restaurant Emissions
Area 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mobile Source 395.80 0.02 0.62 0.00 0.00 396.43
Energy 302.82 0.01 0.28 0.00 1.37 304.48
Solid Waste 2.43 0.14 3.59 0.00 0.00 6.02
Water Demand 12.77 0.10 2.61 0.00 0.77 16.15
Total Existing Operational Emissionsc 713.83 0.28 7.10 0.01 2.14 723.08
Proposed Artis Senior Living Facility Emissions
Area 18.64 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.10 18.77
Mobile Source 309.49 0.02 0.41 0.00 0.00 309.91
Energy 129.10 0.01 0.14 0.00 0.54 129.78
Solid Waste 3.75 0.22 5.54 0.00 0.00 9.28
Water Demand 26.33 0.14 3.43 0.00 1.04 30.81
Total Project Operational Emissionsc 487.31 0.38 9.56 0.01 1.68 498.55
Total Project Net Operational
Emissions3 -226.52 0.10 2.46 0.00 -0.46 -224.53
Total Project Emissions
Total Project Emissions
(Construction + Net Operational) -205.04 0.10 2.56 0.00 -0.46 -202.95
Total Project-Related Emissionsc -202.95 MTCO2e
Notes: CO2 = carbon dioxide; CH4 = methane; N2O = nitrous oxide
50 South Coast Air Quality Management District, California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2016.3.2.
51 Michael Baker International, Artis Senior Assisted Living Facility Trip Generation Analysis, dated December 17,
2019.
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 53 April 2020
a Emissions calculated using the CalEEMod version 2016.3.2.
b Carbon dioxide equivalent values calculated using the EPA Website, Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator,
https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator, accessed January 22, 2020.
c Totals may be slightly off due to rounding.
Refer to Appendix B for detailed model input/output data.
Because the Proposed Project would result in a net reduction in overall Project-related emissions, the
Project would not generate GHG emissions that would have a significant impact on the environment.
Rather, the Project would represent a reduction in GHG emissions as compared to existing conditions.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less Than Significant Impact. As described above, there is no applicable adopted or accepted
numerical threshold of significance for GHG emissions. Therefore, a methodology for evaluating the
Project’s impacts related to GHG emissions focuses on its consistency with Statewide, regional, and
local plans adopted for the purpose of reducing and/or mitigating GHG emissions. This evaluation
of consistency with such plans is the sole basis for determining the significance of the Project’s GHG-
related impacts on the environment.
2017 CARB Scoping Plan
The goal to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (Executive Order S-3-05) was codified by
the California legislature as the 2006 Global Warming Solutions Act (Assembly Bill [AB] 32).52 In
2008, CARB approved a Scoping Plan as required by AB 32, which was updated in 2017.53 This update
focuses on implementation of a 40 percent reduction in GHGs by 2030 compared to 1990 levels. To
achieve this, the 2017 Scoping Plan draws on a decade of successful programs that addresses the major
sources of climate-changing gases in every sector of the economy, such as clean cars and trucks,
renewable energy, reduction of pollutants such as hydrofluorocarbon refrigerants and methane, and
cleaner fuels. Achieving the 2030 target under the updated Scoping Plan will also spur the
transformation of the California economy and fix its course securely on achieving an 80 percent
reduction in GHG emissions by 2050, consistent with the global consensus of the scale of reductions
needed to stabilize atmospheric GHG concentrations at 450 ppm carbon dioxide equivalent, and
reduce the likelihood of catastrophic climate change.
Table VII-2 evaluates applicable reduction actions/strategies by emissions source category to
determine how the Project would be consistent with or exceed reduction actions/strategies outlined
in the 2017 Scoping Plan.
52 California Air Resources board, California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, November 2017.
53 The Climate Change Scoping Plan was approved by CARB on December 11, 2008.
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 54 April 2020
Table VIII-2
Project Consistency with the 2017 CARB Scoping Plan
Actions and Strategies Project Consistency Analysis
SB 350 Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction
Achieve a 50 percent RPS by 2030, with a doubling of energy
efficiency savings by 2030.
Consistent. The Project would not be an electrical
provider or delay the goals of Senate Bill (SB) 350.
Furthermore, the Project would utilize electricity from
Southern California Edison (SCE), which would be
required to comply with SB 350. As the Project would
use the electricity from SCE, the Project would be in
compliance with SB 350.
Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS)
Increase stringency of carbon fuel standards; reduce the
carbon intensity of fuels by 18 percent by 2030, which is up
from 10 percent in 2020.
Consistent. Motor vehicles driven by the Proposed
Project’s employees, residents, and visitors would be
required to use LCFS-compliant fuels; thus, the Project
would be in compliance with this goal.
Mobile Source Strategy (Cleaner Technology and Fuels Scenario)
Maintain existing GHG standards of light- and heavy-duty
vehicles while adding an addition 4.2 million zero-emission
vehicles (ZEVs) on the road. Increase the number of ZEV
buses, delivery trucks, or other trucks.
Consistent. The Project would be required to comply
with the CALGreen Residential Mandatory Measure
4.106.4 Electric vehicle (EV) charging for new construction. As
such, the Project would support the use of ZEV vehicles
and would not conflict with the goals of the Mobile
Source Strategy.
Short-Lived Climate Pollutant (SLCP) Reduction Strategy
Reduce the GHG emissions of methane and
hydrofluorocarbons by 40 percent below the 2013 levels by
2030. Furthermore, reduce the emissions of black carbon
by 50 percent below the 2013 levels by the year 2030.
Consistent. The Project does not involve sources that
would emit large amounts of methane (refer to Table
VIII-1). Furthermore, the Project would comply with all
CARB and SCAQMD hydrofluorocarbon regulations.
As such, the Project would not conflict with the SLCP
reduction strategy.
SB 375 Sustainable Communities Strategies
Increase the stringency of the 2035 GHG emissions per
capita reduction target for MPOs.
Consistent. As shown in Table VIII-3, the Project
would be consistent with the SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS and
would not conflict with the goals of SB 375.
Source: California Air Resources Board, California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, November 2017.
SCAG 2016-2040 RTP/SCS
The 2016-2040 RTP/SCS is expected to help California reach its GHG reduction goals, with reductions
in per capita transportation emissions of 9 percent by 2020 and 13 percent by 2035.54 Furthermore,
although there are no per capita GHG emission reduction targets for passenger vehicles set by CARB for
2040, the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS GHG emission reduction trajectory shows that more aggressive GHG
emission reductions are projected for 2040.55 At the regional level, the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS is an applicable
plan adopted for the purpose of reducing GHGs. In order to assess the Project’s consistency with the
2016-2040 RTP/SCS, Table VIII-3 evaluates the Project’s land use assumptions for consistency with
those included in the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS. Generally, Projects are considered consistent with the
provisions and general policies of applicable City and regional land use plans and regulations, such as
SCAG’s 2016-2040 RTP/SCS, if they are compatible with the general intent of the plans and would not
54 California Air Resources Board, Regional Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets Pursuant to SB 375,
Resolution 10-31.
55 Southern California Association of Governments, 2016–2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities
Strategy, p. 153, April 2016.
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 55 April 2020
preclude the attainment of their primary goals. Table VIII-3 demonstrates the Project’s consistency with
applicable actions and strategies set forth in the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS.
Table VIII-3
Project Consistency with the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS
Actions and Strategies Responsible
Party(ies) Project Consistency Analysis
Land Use Actions and Strategies
Encourage the use of range-limited battery
electric and other alternative fueled vehicles
through policies and programs, such as
neighborhood-oriented development,
complete streets, and electric (and other
alternative fuel) vehicle supply equipment in
public parking lots.
Local
Jurisdictions,
Councils of
Government,
SCAG,
County
Transportation
Commission
(CTCs)
Consistent. The Project would not impair the City or
SCAG’s ability to encourage the use of alternatively-
fueled vehicles through various policies and programs.
Specifically, the Project would be required to comply
with the CALGreen Residential Mandatory Measure
4.106.4 Electric vehicle (EV) charging for new construction.
Collaborate with the region’s public health
professionals to enhance how SCAG
addresses public health issues in its regional
planning, programming, and project
development activities.
SCAG,
State,
Local
Jurisdictions
Consistent. The Project would not impair the ability
of the City, SCAG, or State to collaborate with the
region’s public health professionals regarding the
integration of public health issues in regional planning.
Support projects, programs, and policies that
support active and healthy community
environments that encourage safe walking,
bicycling, and physical activity by children,
including but not limited to development of
complete streets, school siting policies, joint
use agreements, and bicycle and pedestrian
safety education.
Local
Jurisdictions,
SCAG
Consistent. The Project would include opportunities
for healthy, physical activities for its patrons, including
walking paths, landscaped open space areas, and an
outdoor plaza.
Support projects, programs, policies, and
regulations that encourage the development
of complete communities, which includes a
diversity of housing choices and educational
opportunities, jobs for a variety of skills and
education, recreation and culture, and a full
range of shopping, entertainment, and
services all within a relatively short distance.
Local
Jurisdictions,
SCAG
Consistent. As the Project proposes the development
of a senior living facility, the Project would provide
increased housing choices and job opportunities.
Transportation Network Actions and Strategies
Explore and implement innovative strategies
and projects that enhance mobility and air
quality, including those that increase the
walkability of communities and accessibility
to transit via non-auto modes, including
walking, bicycling, and neighborhood electric
vehicles or other alternative fueled vehicles.
SCAG,
CTCs,
Local
Jurisdictions
Consistent. Per CALGreen, the Project would be
required to provide electric vehicle (EV) charging
spaces. Therefore, the Project would serve to reduce
vehicle trips that generate GHG emissions, thereby
contributing to a reduction in GHG emissions.
Collaborate with local jurisdictions to provide
a network of local community circulators that
serve new transit-oriented development
(TOD), high-quality transit areas (HQTAs),
and neighborhood commercial centers. Thus,
providing an incentive for residents and
employees to make trips on transit.
SCAG,
CTCs,
Local
Jurisdictions
Consistent. The Project would not impair the ability
of SCAG, CTCs, or the City to provide such a network
of local community circulators that serve new TOD,
HQTAs, and neighborhood commercial centers.
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 56 April 2020
Table VIII-3 (Continued)
Project Consistency with the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS
Actions and Strategies Responsible
Party(ies) Project Consistency Analysis
Develop first-mile/last-mile strategies on a
local level to provide an incentive for
making trips by transit, bicycling, walking,
or neighborhood EV or other ZEV
options.
CTCs,
Local
Jurisdictions
Consistent. The Project would not impair the CTCs
or the City’s ability to develop first-mile/last-mile
strategies. In support of this action/strategy, the
Project would provide EV parking on-site.
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Actions and Strategies
Encourage the development of
telecommuting programs by employers
through review and revision of policies that
may discourage alternative work options.
Local
Jurisdictions,
CTCs
Consistent. The project would not impair the CTCs or
City’s ability to encourage the development of
telecommuting programs by employers.
Emphasize active transportation and
alternative fueled vehicle projects as part of
complying with the Complete Streets Act
(AB 1358).
State,
SCAG,
Local
Jurisdictions
Consistent. The Project would not impair the CTCs
or City’s ability to develop infrastructure plans and
education programs to promote active transportation
options and other alternative fueled vehicles.
Transportation System Management (TSM) Actions and Strategies
Work with relevant state and local
transportation authorities to increase the
efficiency of the existing transportation
system.
SCAG,
Local
Jurisdictions,
State
Consistent. The Project would not impair the ability
of the State, SCAG, or City to work with relevant
transportation authorities to increase the efficiency of
the existing transportation system.
Source: Southern California Association of Governments, 2016–2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy,
April 2016.
In summary, the plan consistency analyses provided above demonstrates that the Project complies
with the plans, policies, regulations, and GHG reduction actions/strategies outlined in the 2017 CARB
Scoping Plan and SCAG 2016-2040 RTP/SCS. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with any
applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing emissions of
GHGs. Furthermore, because the Project would result in a net reduction of GHG emissions and the
Project is consistent with the aforementioned plans, policies, and regulations, the Project’s incremental
increase in GHG emissions as described above would not result in a significant impact on the
environment. Therefore, Project-specific impacts with regard to consistency with climate change
programs and policies would be less than significant.
IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS:
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 57 April 2020
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan
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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Discussion
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. Materials are generally considered hazardous if they are poisonous
(toxicity), can be ignited by open flame (ignitability), corrode other materials (corrosivity), or react
violently, explode, or generate vapors when mixed with water (reactivity). The term “hazardous
material” is defined in California Health and Safety Code as any material that, because of its quantity,
concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard
to human health and safety or to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment
(Section 25501(n)(1)). The code additionally states that a hazardous material becomes a hazardous
waste once it is abandoned, discarded, or recycled.
The transportation, use, and disposal of hazardous materials, as well as the potential release of
hazardous materials to the environment, are closely regulated through State and federal laws. Such
laws include those incorporated into the California Health and Safety Code, such as the California
Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory law and the California Hazardous Waste
Control law, as well as other regulations governing hazardous waste promulgated by State and federal
agencies, such as the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, California Department of
Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), California Division of Occupational Safety and Health, the
Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the USEPA.
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 58 April 2020
The Proposed Project would include a memory care facility, along with associated surface parking and
landscaping areas. Maintenance of the facility and grounds by employees and contractors would likely
involve the routine transport, use, and disposal of minor quantities of typical household hazardous
materials, such as cleaning products, solvents, adhesives, refrigerants, paints, other chemical materials
used in building maintenance, small amounts of oil and fuels from internal combustion engines,
pesticides and herbicides, sharp or used needles, and electronic waste. This level of hazardous materials
use would be typical for institutional uses and has not been identified as a significant threat to the
environment. Regulations, such as those mentioned above, strictly regulate the use, transportation,
and disposal of hazardous waste; they include training for employees in how to properly handle and
dispose of hazardous materials, as well as filing floor plans with the Los Angeles County Fire
Department showing locations of hazardous material storage.
Given the age of the existing restaurant building on-site (constructed in the 1970s), there is potential
for the building to contain asbestos-containing materials (ACM) and/or lead-based paint (LBP). If
ACM or LBP is found during the demolition phase of construction, the applicant would be required
to comply with 40 CFR Part 61, Cal OSHA rule 1529, and South Coast Air Quality Management
District Rule 1403 when it comes to identification, removal, handling, and disposal of ACM. The
applicant must also comply with requirements detailed in 24 CFR Part 35, Cal OSHA rule 1532.1, and
40 CFR Part 745 regarding evaluation, testing, and reducing lead-based paint hazards. Compliance
with these regulations would ensure that Project-related contamination would be effectively disposed
of during the demolition phase and would, therefore, have no effect on the health and safety of area
residents.
Based on the type of land use proposed, the relatively minor anticipated level of use, storage, and
disposal of hazardous materials, and the requirement to comply with various State and federal laws
regulating hazardous materials, the Project would not result in a significant impact involving the
routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Therefore, potential impacts related to
hazardous materials would be less than significant.
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. Locations known to contain toxic substances and contamination are
identified using data from DTSC. The Project Site is not identified as a clean-up site or located within
one-half mile of a clean-up site listed in the DTSC EnviroStor database.56 However, the GeoTracker
database, maintained by the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), identified five
clean-up sites within one-half mile of the Project Site. These clean-up sites are located at 3706 Foothill
Boulevard (two clean-up sites at this address), 3698 Colorado Boulevard, 4000 Foothill Boulevard,
and 3880 Colorado Boulevard and are all leaking underground storage tank (LUST) clean-up sites.
According to the SWRCB, each of these clean-up sites was addressing soil contamination associated
with leaking gasoline tanks. Each site has been cleaned up (as of 2008), and each of the individual
cases closed. Because Project-related ground disturbance would be limited to the Project Site, which
is not listed on hazardous waste disposal or clean-up databases maintained by the State, the Project
56 California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), EnviroStor Database search, accessed October 21,
2019.
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 59 April 2020
would not result in reasonably foreseeable upset of existing contamination located at the clean-up sites
in the Project vicinity.
Construction activities may also include refueling and minor maintenance of construction equipment
on-site, which could lead to minor fuel and oil spills; however, as described in the response to Checklist
Question X.a, below, a variety of routine construction control measures would be incorporated,
including spill prevention/containment, sedimentation and erosion controls, and irrigation controls,
to prevent conditions that would release hazardous materials into the environment during Project
construction.
Additionally, as stated above, operation of the proposed institutional facility would not result in
substantial use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials. Further, any such use, transport, and
disposal of hazardous materials would be strictly regulated by State and federal laws. As such, there
would not be a significant hazard to the public involving the accidental release of hazardous materials
into the environment during Project operation.
Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in any reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment, and impacts would be
less than significant.
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?
No Impact. The nearest school to the Project Site is Hugo Reid Primary School, which is located
approximately one-half mile south of the Project Site (located at 1153 de Anza Place).57 Therefore,
there are no existing or proposed schools within one-quarter mile of the Project Site, and no impact
would occur.
d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials
sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
No Impact. The Project Site is not included on the Cortese list, which is the list of sites compiled by
DTSC under Government Code Section 65962.5. As such, the Project Site is not included on DTSC’s
list of hazardous waste facilities subject to corrective action pursuant to Section 25187.5 of the Health
and Safety Code; land designated as hazardous waste property or border zone property pursuant to
Article 11; information received regarding waste disposals on public land; all sites listed pursuant to
Section 25356 of the Health and Safety Code; or all sites included in the Abandoned Site Assessment
program.58,59 As such, the Proposed Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment, and no impact would occur.
57 City of Arcadia, General Plan Parks, Recreation, and Community Resources Element, Figure PR-4: AUSD School Locations,
November 2010.
58 California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), Cortese List: Section 65962.5(a),
https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/section-65962-5a/, accessed October 21, 2019.
59 California DTSC, EnviroStor Hazardous Waste and Substance Site List, 2019.
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 60 April 2020
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 nearest airport to the Project Site is the San Gabriel Airport (also known as El Monte
Airport), which is approximately 4.5 miles southeast. Therefore, the Project Site is not within 2 miles
of a public airport and would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or
working in the Project area, 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?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project Site is currently occupied by a restaurant building, which
is currently receiving police, fire, and paramedic services provided by the City of Arcadia. Access to
the Project Site is currently available on Michillinda Avenue and Colorado Boulevard. The Proposed
Project would have one ingress and egress point onto Colorado Boulevard, with available right-turn
and left-turn egress options. Project inhabitants would have access to major thoroughfares such as
Michillinda Avenue, I-210, and Foothill Boulevard (identified as a Principal Travel Corridor by the
City’s General Plan) during an emergency evacuation. Further, the Proposed Project would be
consistent with the General Plan land use and zoning designations. Therefore, development of the
Project Site as proposed would not impair implementation of an adopted emergency response plan or
evacuation plan. As such, potential impacts related to emergency response or evacuation would be
less than significant.
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, as
identified by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.60,61 Very High Fire Hazard
Severity Zones in the City of Arcadia are concentrated on the northeast side of the City, in the foothills
near the Cities of Monrovia and Sierra Madre, approximately 2.1 miles northeast of the Project Site.
The Project Site is in a fully urbanized area with an urban street network, a fully pressurized water
system, and managed landscaping limited to decorative trees and shrubs. The Project Site does not
include and is not surrounded by wildland areas, such as low-density hillside areas with large quantities
of uncultivated, combustible plants. Therefore, the Project would not expose people or structures,
either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. As
such, no impact related to wildland fire would occur.
60 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA Arcadia,
September 2011.
61 City of Arcadia, General Plan Safety Element, Figure S-6: Fire Hazard Zones, November 2010.
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 61 April 2020
X. Hydrology and Water Quality
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY:
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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Discussion
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. The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board
(LARWQCB) prepares and maintains a basin plan which identifies narrative and numerical water
quality objectives to protect all beneficial uses of the waters of that region. The basin plan strives to
achieve the identified water quality objectives through implementation of Waste Discharge
Requirements (WDRs) and by employing three strategies for addressing water quality issues: control
of point source pollutants, control of nonpoint source pollutants, and remediation of existing
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 62 April 2020
contamination. The project site is located in the Los Angeles region and is, therefore, covered under
the Basin Plan for the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties (Basin Plan).
Point sources of pollutants are well-defined locations at which pollutants flow into water bodies
(discharges from wastewater treatment plants and industrial sources, for example). These sources are
controlled through regulatory systems including permitting under California’s WDRs and the NPDES
program; permits are issued by the appropriate RWQCB and may set discharge limitations or other
discharge provisions. According to the Basin Plan, nonpoint sources of pollutants are typically derived
from project site runoff caused by rain or irrigation and have been classified by the USEPA into one
of the following categories: agriculture, urban runoff, construction, hydromodification, resource
extraction, silviculture, and land disposal.
The Project could have both short- and long-term impacts on water quality. Short-term impacts would
occur during the construction phase of the Project, when the pollutants of greatest concern are
sediment, which may run off the Project site due to site grading or other site preparation activities,
and hydrocarbon or fossil fuel remnants from the construction equipment. In addition, on-site
watering activities to reduce airborne dust could contribute to pollutant loading in surface runoff.
However, construction runoff is regulated by the NPDES Construction General Permit, which
requires identification of a variety of water quality control BMPs to be specified on construction plans
and implemented throughout construction. Measures are required to keep stormwater out of
construction zones; conduct regular site maintenance and “good housekeeping practices” to prevent,
minimize, and dispose of solid and liquid wastes; capture and control any site runoff so that water
pollutants don’t enter storm drains; and have response procedures in place in the event of accidental
spills of water contaminants. This permit applies to all construction which disturbs an area of at least
1 acre and is administered by the relevant RWQCB. As stated in response to Checklist Question VII.b
of this Initial Study, the City would require the preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
for the Proposed Project, which would establish erosion and sedimentation controls, such as methods
to minimize the footprint of the disturbed area, controls to prevent tracking off-site, spill prevention,
non-stormwater controls (i.e., vehicle washing), and methods to protect native vegetation and trees.
Further, the City would require a NPDES Construction General Permit for discharge of stormwater
associated with Project construction activities. Through these existing, mandatory regulatory
compliance measures, potential water quality impacts during construction would be avoided or
reduced to less than significant levels and would avoid conflicts with water quality standards
established by the LARWQCB.
Long-term impacts would result from operation of the completed Project. Such impacts could result
from stormwater runoff of impervious surfaces on the Project site. The Project is considered a
Planning Priority Project as it is a development equal to or greater than 1 acre in size that adds more
than 10,000 square feet of impervious surface area. As such, the Project would require a Low Impact
Development Plan (LID Plan), which would be reviewed and approved through the City’s plan check
process, to comply with the following requirements:62
Retain stormwater runoff on-site for the Stormwater Quality Design Volume (SWQDv)
defined as the runoff from:
62 City of Arcadia, Code of Ordinances, Article VII, Chapter 8, Part 2, Section 7828, Low Impact Development – Control
of Runoff Required for Planning Priority Projects.
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 63 April 2020
o The 85th percentile 24-hour runoff event as determined from the Los Angeles County
85th percentile precipitation isohyetal map; or
o The volume of runoff produced from a 0.75 inch, 24-hour rain event, whichever is
greater.
Minimize hydromodification impacts to natural drainage systems.
When, as determined by the City, 100 percent on-site retention of the SWQDv is technically
infeasible, the infeasibility shall be demonstrated in the submitted LID plan.
If partial or complete on-site retention is technically infeasible, the Project Site may biofiltrate 1.5
times the portion of the remaining SWQDv that is not reliably retained on-site.
BMPs required by the City’s LID ordinance include ensuring sidewalks fronting the Project Site are
clear of dirt or litter; cleaning parking lots with 25 or more spaces as frequently and thoroughly as
practicable; diverting surface and roof flows to landscaped areas before discharge; and treating any
portion of the SWQDv that cannot be retained or biofiltered on-site in order to reduce pollutant
loading. Therefore, with conformance to the City’s LID requirements and incorporation of required
construction and post-construction BMPs, the Project would not result in the violation of any water
quality standards or WDRs, and impacts would be less than significant.
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 City is a retail water supplier that serves the majority of its
residents. In 2016, the City prepared the most recent Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) in
cooperation with other water-serving agencies in the surrounding region. The City is a subagency of
the Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District (Upper District), a wholesale water agency.
The UWMP states that the City currently derives its water supply from groundwater wells that produce
water from two groundwater basins: the Main San Gabriel Basin (the City’s main groundwater source)
and the Raymond Basin. In the 2014-2015 fiscal year, the City pumped a total of 12,010 acre-feet from
the Main Basin and 3,316 acre-feet from the Raymond Basin.63 Further, the City can purchase
imported water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD); however, the
City does not typically use this alternative (the last time water was imported was in the 2009-2010
fiscal year) because the City’s groundwater supplies are sufficient to meet water demands.64 The City
owns and operates seven active groundwater wells in the Main Basin, with a collective capacity of
15,200 gallons per minute (gpm). Additionally, there are seven groundwater wells in the Raymond
Basin, with a collective capacity of 4,300 gpm.65 The UWMP concluded that based on current
management practices, including reduced pumping in the Raymond Basin, the City would be able to
rely on the Main Basin, the Raymond Basin, and imported water for adequate supply for 20 years (as
of publication of the UWMP in 2016), under single-year and multiple-year drought scenarios.
There are no groundwater wells on the Project Site and none are proposed. Further, the Proposed
Project would not involve a General Plan amendment or zone change. The City’s UWMP has
63 City of Arcadia, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, prepared by Stetson Engineers, Inc., Page 6-1, June 2016.
64 City of Arcadia, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, prepared by Stetson Engineers, Inc., June 2016.
65 City of Arcadia, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, prepared by Stetson Engineers, Inc., June 2016.
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 64 April 2020
accounted for future water consumption of existing and planned land uses, such as the Proposed
Project.
Operation of the Proposed Project would not interfere with groundwater recharge. The Project Site
is located in an urbanized area and is currently developed with a restaurant building and a surface
parking lot. The Proposed Project would replace these existing improvements with an approximately
44,000-square-foot assisted living and memory care facility surrounded by surface parking, drive aisles,
outdoor walking paths and community areas, and managed landscaping. As such, the Proposed Project
would reduce, but not substantially change, the amount of impervious surface area on-site to affect
groundwater levels beneath the Project Site. If groundwater levels were to be affected, the effect would
be minimal and likely beneficial given the Project’s reduction in overall impervious surfaces as
compared with existing conditions. Therefore, the Project would not substantially deplete
groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. Impacts to groundwater would be
less than significant.
c.i) 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 result in substantial erosion or siltation
on- or off-site?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project Site is fully developed and landscaped and does not
contain any natural drainage courses. There is also no historical evidence of localized ponding or
flooding on the Project Site. Because the Project Site is currently fully developed, the Proposed Project
would not result in a substantial alteration of the existing drainage pattern, as the Proposed Project
would continue to discharge excess stormwater into the City’s storm sewer system.
Construction and operation of the Proposed Project could result in some erosion or siltation on- or
off-site. As stated in the response to Checklist Question VII.b of this Initial Study, erosion of
uncovered soils during construction activities would be prevented by complying with the NPDES
Construction General Permit requirements, which require construction activities to incorporate BMPs
to prevent erosion off-site. Additionally, because the Proposed Site is greater than 1 acre, the City
requires the preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, which would establish erosion
and sedimentation controls. Otherwise, the operation of the Proposed Project would result in almost
the entire site covered in either impervious surfaces, such as the building, surrounding parking areas,
outdoor structures (i.e., outdoor gathering spaces, refuse and generator enclosures, and storage shed),
and concrete walkways, as well as managed landscaped areas. Because almost the entire site would be
covered by either impervious surfaces or managed gardens/turf areas, there would be very little
potential for erosion during long-term operation of the Project.
Therefore, the Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the Project Site or
area in a manner that would result in erosion or siltation, on- or off-site, and impacts related to erosion
and siltation would be less than significant.
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 65 April 2020
c.ii) 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 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. As stated in response to Checklist Question X.c.i, the existing,
relatively flat Project Site is fully developed with a restaurant building and an impervious, surface
parking lot. Therefore, the Proposed Project, which would include a slight reduction in impervious
surfaces due to the increase in landscaped areas, would not result in a substantial alteration of the
existing drainage pattern of the Project Site. Because the Project Site is not located within a Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Hazard Zone (the Project Site is located in a Zone
X, Area of Minimal Flood Hazard), there is no evidence that the site or the immediately surrounding
area is subject to flooding.66 Therefore, potential impacts of the Proposed Project on local drainage
and flooding would be less than significant.
c.iii) 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 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?
Less Than Significant Impact. See the responses to Thresholds X.c.i and X.c.ii, above. The existing,
relatively flat Project Site is fully developed with a restaurant building and an impervious, surface
parking lot. Therefore, the Proposed Project, which would include a slight reduction in impervious
surfaces, would not result in a substantial alteration of the existing drainage pattern of the Project Site.
As the Proposed Project would increase the total amount of pervious landscape areas on the Project
Site, it would not contribute additional runoff as compared with existing conditions. Further, the
Project would be required to develop a LID Plan, which would retain stormwater runoff on-site for
the SWQDv defined as the runoff from the 85th percentile 24-hour runoff event. Further, the SWPPP
discussed above would prevent discharge of sediment or other water pollution commonly generated
by Project construction. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area in a manner which would create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. As such, potential impacts of the
Proposed Project on stormwater drainage systems would be less than significant.
c.iv) 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 impede or redirect flood flows?
Less Than Significant Impact. As stated above, the Project Site is located within a Zone X, Area
of Minimal Flood Hazard, according to the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map for the area. Further,
because the project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the Project Site, the
Project would not alter the site or area in a manner which would impede or redirect flood flows, and
impacts would be less than significant.
66 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Flood Insurance Rate Map 06037C1400F, September 26, 2008.
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 66 April 2020
d) Would the project in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due
to project inundation?
No Impact. A seiche is the sudden oscillation of water that occurs in an enclosed, landlocked body
of water due to wind, earthquake, or other factors. There are no reservoirs or other bodies of water
near the Project Site that could result in seiche impacts to the Project; therefore, the Project would
not place structures in areas subject to inundation by seiche.
A tsunami is an unusually large wave or set of waves that is triggered in most cases by a seaquake or
an underwater volcanic eruption. The Project Site is located more than 25 miles away from the Pacific
Ocean. Given this distance, the Project would not place structures in areas subject to inundation by
tsunami.
Finally, as stated above, the Project Site is located within a Zone X, Area of Minimal Flood Hazard,
according to the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map for the area. However, the Project Site is located
within a designated inundation area for the Morris S. Jones Reservoir. As stated in the General Plan
Safety Element, the dams above Arcadia are regulated and monitored for structural safety by the
California Department of Water Resources, in accordance with Division 3 of the California State
Water Code. Such regulation reduces the chance of catastrophic failure and inundation of downstream
areas, such as the Project Site.67 Water quality controls on-site, such as maintenance of landscape areas,
and proper storage of any hazardous materials would prevent the release of pollutants in the unlikely
event that the Project Site would be inundated by catastrophic dam failure. Therefore, the Project Site
is not located within a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zone and would have no impact as it relates to
the release of pollutants due to flood-, tsunami-, or seiche-related inundation.
e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan
or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. As stated above, the City of Arcadia’s 2015 UWMP states that the
Main Basin groundwater supply is the City’s main source of water, accounting for approximately 78
percent of the City’s water supply. The Main Basin Watermaster, an organization created in the 1970s
to resolve water demand issues that arose in the San Gabriel Basin, is tasked with general management
of the groundwater basin, including addressing volatile organic compound (VOC) contamination that
was discovered in the 1970s and 1980s. The Watermaster’s Five Year Water Quality and Supply Plan
is an annually updated document that projects both water supply and water quality. In the 2019 plan
update (2019 Supply Plan), the Watermaster reports that total groundwater production for the Main
Basin in fiscal year 2018-2019 was 189,100 acre-feet, which is lower than the 10-year average of
203,000 acre-feet.68 While groundwater production has experienced a general long-term increase,
corresponding to a population increase in the Main Basin’s service area, a gradual decrease in
production since the late 2000s is likely resulting from increased water conservation practices by
consumers. The 2019 Supply Plan shows that 2018-2019 fiscal year groundwater production in the
City of Arcadia was approximately 10,774 acre-feet and projects groundwater demands to fluctuate
between 9,565 and 10,953 acre-feet between the 2019-2020 and the 2023-2024 fiscal years.69 Further,
the groundwater elevations at all seven of the Main Basin groundwater wells in the City of Arcadia are
projected to increase between 2018 and 2024, indicating a projected increase in water supplies.70 Lastly,
67 City of Arcadia, General Plan Safety Element, November 2010.
68 Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster, Five-Year Water Quality and Supply Plan, Figure 10, November 2019.
69 Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster, Five-Year Water Quality and Supply Plan, Appendix A, November 2019.
70 Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster, Five-Year Water Quality and Supply Plan, Appendix B, November 2019.
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 67 April 2020
the 2019 Supply Plan details how the Watermaster coordinates with local and regional agencies to
monitor groundwater quality and potential groundwater well contamination points.
Because the Proposed Project would not result in a substantial increase in potable water demand, and
because it would not involve the use, disposal, or storage of hazardous chemicals that could impact
water quality, the Proposed Project would not interfere with the Main Basin Watermaster’s 2019
Supply Plan, and impacts would be less than significant.
XI. Land Use and Planning
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
LAND USE AND PLANNING:
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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Discussion
a) Would the project physically divide an established community?
No Impact. As shown in Figure A-13, Aerial View of the Project Site and Surroundings, of this
Initial Study, the Project Site is located within a fully urbanized area where the built environment
consists of single-family residential uses to the east and south, commercial uses to the west, and I-210
to the north. The physical arrangement of the surrounding private lots, streets, and utility
infrastructure has been established for many years. The Proposed Project would use an existing public
street (Colorado Boulevard) for access to the senior living facility and would connect to existing
utilities in adjacent streets. The Proposed Project would not result in the construction of a linear
feature, such as railroad tracks, a flood control channel, or a major roadway, or the removal of a means
of access that would result in a physical division of an established community. No physical alterations
to any land use or the physical structure of this part of the City of Arcadia are proposed outside of the
Project Site. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not physically divide an established community
and there would be no impact.
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. As stated in the Project Description of this Initial Study, the existing
General Plan land use designation for the Project Site is Commercial, with a corresponding zoning of
C-G, General Commercial. A residential care facility is allowed within the C-G, General Commercial
with an approved CUP.71 The Project Site is also included within two existing overlay zones, the
Architectural Design Overlay Zone and the Automobile Parking Overlay Zone. The Architectural
Design Overlay Zone states that various building design characteristics (such as building exterior
materials, roof pitch, window size, landscaping, and automobile parking area) shall be subject to
71 City of Arcadia, Development Code Section 9102.03.020.
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 68 April 2020
Planning Commission review and approval. Further, the Architectural Design Overlay Zone states
that only one free-standing sign shall be permitted and located within 100 feet of the northern and
western property lines, the maximum building height shall not reach 30 feet above ground level, and
no structure erected or permitted shall exceed 19,500 square feet of ground floor area.72,73 The
Automobile Parking overlay zone states that the overlay area shall be limited to ground level parking
only.
As part of the Project, the Applicant has requested a zone change to remove these two overlay zones.
Regardless, the Project would not represent a substantial change in urban form over existing
conditions. More specifically, the eastern portion of the Project Site, which is currently included within
the Automobile Parking Overlay Zone, would remain as surface parking under the Proposed Project
conditions. The southern portion of the Project Site, which is also included within the Automobile
Parking Overlay Zone, would include developed open space with no above-ground structures except
a small storage shed in the southeastern corner of the Project Site and an eight-foot-high decorative
fence around the perimeter of the open space area. Further, the majority of the proposed memory
care facility located on the northeastern portion of the Project Site would be limited to 30 feet in
height, consistent with the existing Architectural Design Overlay Zone, with only the north-central
portion of the facility extending to 37.5 feet in height (with an additional 2.5-foot-high decorative
cupola). With the removal of these two overlay zones, development on the Project Site would be
regulated by the development standards of the underlying General Commercial (C-G) zone, such as
regulations regarding building height and setback distance from residential land uses. These
development standards include, but are not limited to, a 40-foot building height maximum and a 20-
foot building setback when abutting residential uses. Based on the Project details included in the
Project Description, the Project would be consistent with the development standards and regulation
of the underlying General Commercial (C-G) zone upon approval of a CUP. Further, the Arcadia
General Plan Parks, Recreation, and Community Resources Element does not identify any land use
restrictions for the Project Site that would require conservation of the Project Site for purposes of
protecting wildlife habitat or other natural resources. There are no policies in the Safety Element that
establish land use restrictions for the Project Site pertaining to avoidance of environmental hazards
on or near the Project Site. The Project Site is not within an area where special land use policies or
zoning standards have been created for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects,
nor is it within a local coastal program. As such, the Project would not conflict with an applicable land
use plan, policy, or regulation established for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect, and impacts related to land use and planning would be less than significant.
72 City of Arcadia Resolution No. 4440, signed and approved July 2, 1974.
73 City of Arcadia Ordinance No. 1510, signed and approved July 16, 1974.
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 69 April 2020
XII. Mineral Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
MINERAL RESOURCES:
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and
the residents of the state?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-
important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan or other land
use plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Discussion
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. The Project Site is located within a fully urbanized area and is currently developed with
a restaurant building and a surface parking lot. The City’s General Plan EIR Mineral Resources Section
states that there are no oil, gas, or geothermal resources within the City of Arcadia.74 The only oil well
in the City of Arcadia is owned by the Vosburgh Oil Corporation and is plugged and abandoned.75
Because this well is abandoned and located approximately 2.5 miles southeast of the Project Site, the
Project Site is not located within any known oil, gas, or geothermal resource areas, and the Project Site
is already developed with a non-extraction use, the Project would not result in the loss of availability
of a known mineral resource that would be of regional or Statewide value. Therefore, no impact to
mineral resources would occur.
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. As stated above, the Project Site is located in a fully urbanized area and is currently
developed with a restaurant building and a surface parking lot. The City’s General Plan EIR Mineral
Resources section states that the Project Site is located within a Mineral Resource Zone-3 (MRZ-3)
area, which is composed of the northwestern and southern portions of the City where the available
data which would be used to determine the significance of mineral deposits are unavailable.76 Other
areas of the City, including areas along the Sierra Madre Wash, Santa Anita Wash, and the San Gabriel
River, are designated as MRZ-2 because significant mineral deposits may be present and development
in such areas should be controlled. The City’s General Plan EIR identifies four sites within the City
that are located within MRZ-2 zones and remain undeveloped at the time of the General Plan update
in 2010. These are the Los Angeles County flood control wash and infiltration basin, the former
Rodeffer sand and gravel excavation site, the Peck Road Spreading Basins/Water Conservation Park,
and the Livingston-Graham sand and gravel excavation site. The Project Site is not located within or
adjacent to these MRZ-2 locations. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in the loss of
74 City of Arcadia, General Plan Update Draft Program EIR, Section 4.10 Mineral Resources, July 2010.
75 California Department of Conservation, Department of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources, Well Finder online
mapping application, map generated December 3, 2019.
76 City of Arcadia, General Plan Update Draft Program EIR, Exhibit 4.10-1, July 2010.
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 70 April 2020
availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan. As
such, no impact to mineral resources would occur.
XIII. Noise
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
NOISE:
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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Discussion
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 with Mitigation Incorporated. The Project vicinity consists of
residential and commercial uses. The primary sources of stationary noise in the Project vicinity are
urban activities (e.g., mechanical equipment, HVAC units, and parking areas). The noise associated
with these sources may represent a single-event noise occurrence, or short-term or long-
term/continuous noise. The majority of existing noise in the Project vicinity is generated by vehicular
sources along I-210 and Colorado Boulevard. According to the Arcadia General Plan, traffic noise
levels along I-210 and Colorado Boulevard range from 60 to 85 dBA CNEL. Additionally, aircraft
overflights and trains are a source of noise in the City of Arcadia.
To quantify existing ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity, three noise measurements were taken
on December 11, 2019 (see Table XIII-1). The noise measurement sites were representative of typical
existing noise exposure within and immediately adjacent to the Project Site. Ten-minute measurements
were taken between 10:00 a.m. and 11:30 a.m. Short-term (L eq) measurements are considered
representative of the noise levels throughout the day.
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 71 April 2020
Table XIII-1
Noise Measurements
Site
No. Location Leq
(dBA)
Lmin
(dBA)
Lmax
(dBA)
Peak
(dBA) Time
1 In front of 1159 Altura Terrace, Arcadia, CA
91007 73.5 93.3 47.8 100.3 10:09 a.m.
2 Northeast corner of Catalpa Road and North
Altura Road 55.5 67.7 51.3 87.2 10:26 a.m.
3 Corner of 21 South Michillinda Avenue, adjacent
to Michillinda Avenue 66.8 79.9 58.8 99.4 10:57 a.m.
Notes: dBA = A-weighted decibels; Leq = Equivalent Sound Level; Lmin = Minimum Sound Level; Lmax = Maximum Sound Level
Source: Michael Baker International, December 11, 2019, available as Appendix D of this Initial Study.
Construction
Construction of the Proposed Project would occur over approximately 19 months and would include
demolition, grading, paving, building construction, and architectural coating. Ground-borne noise and
other types of construction-related noise impacts would typically occur during the grading phase. This
phase of construction has the potential to create the highest levels of noise. Typical noise levels
generated by construction equipment are shown in Table XIII-2. It should be noted that the noise
levels identified in Table XIII-2 are maximum sound levels (Lmax), which are the highest individual
sounds occurring at an individual time period. Operating cycles for these types of construction
equipment may involve one or two minutes of full power operation followed by three to four minutes
at lower power settings. Other primary sources of acoustical disturbance would be due to random
incidents, which would last less than one minute (such as dropping large pieces of equipment or the
hydraulic movement of machinery lifts).
Table XIII-2
Maximum Noise Levels Generated by Construction Equipment
Type of Equipment Acoustical Use Factor1 Lmax at 10 Feet (dBA) Lmax at 50 Feet (dBA)
Concrete Saw 20 104 90
Crane 16 93 81
Concrete Mixer Truck 40 93 79
Backhoe 40 92 78
Dozer 40 96 82
Excavator 40 95 81
Forklift 40 92 78
Paver 50 91 77
Roller 20 94 80
Tractor 40 98 84
Water Truck 40 94 80
Grader 40 99 85
General Industrial Equipment 50 99 85
Notes: dBA = A-weighted decibels; Lmax = Maximum Sound Level
1. Acoustical Use Factor (percent): Estimates the fraction of time each piece of construction equipment is operating at full power
(i.e., its loudest condition) during a construction operation.
Source: Federal Highway Administration, Roadway Construction Noise Model (FHWA-HEP-05-054), January 2006.
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 72 April 2020
Pursuant to Arcadia Municipal Code Article IV, Chapter 2, Disorderly Conduct, Nuisances, Etc., construction
activities may only occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and
between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturday. Construction activities are prohibited on Sundays and
holidays. These permitted hours of construction are included in the Arcadia Municipal Code in
recognition that construction activities undertaken during daytime hours are a typical part of living in
an urban environment and do not cause a significant disruption. The potential for construction-related
noise to affect nearby residential receptors would depend on the location and proximity of
construction activities to these receptors. Construction would occur throughout the Project Site and
would not be concentrated or confined in the area directly adjacent to sensitive receptors. Therefore,
construction noise would be acoustically dispersed throughout the Project Site and not concentrated
in one area near adjacent sensitive uses. It should be noted that the noise levels depicted in Table
XIII-2 are maximum noise levels, which would occur sporadically when construction equipment is
operated in proximity to sensitive receptors.
The closest existing sensitive receptors are residents adjoining (i.e., approximately 10 feet) the Project
Site to the east and south. As indicated in Table XIII-2, typical construction noise levels would range
from approximately 91 to 104 dBA at this distance. Although construction noise is allowed during the
City’s allowable construction hours and is not considered to be a significant impact during those hours,
the Project could expose adjoining residential uses to temporary high noise levels (91 to 104 dBA)
during construction activities. Consequently, Mitigation Measure NOI-1 is recommended to reduce
short-term construction noise impacts through noise reduction methods. Mitigation Measure
NOI-1 requires all construction equipment to be equipped with properly operating and maintained
mufflers, stationary construction equipment to be located such that emitted noise is directed away
from the nearest noise sensitive receptors, and equipment staging is in areas farthest away from
sensitive receptors. Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would ensure that construction
noise impacts at nearby sensitive receptors do not interfere with normal residential activities.
Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1, noise impact from construction
activities would be considered less than significant.
Operation
Mobile Noise
The existing Coco’s Restaurant generates approximately 582 trips per day, and the Proposed Project
would generate approximately 208 trips per day.77 Therefore, the Proposed Project would generate a
net decrease of approximately 374 daily trips when compared to the existing use. As such, the Project’s
trip generation would reduce existing traffic volumes and, in turn, reduce traffic noise levels along
local roadways. Therefore, Project-related traffic noise would be less than significant.
In addition to the mobile sources of noise identified above, the Project vicinity may also be impacted
by noise generated by emergency ambulance visits to the Project Site. While there may be a perception
that the proposed use would result in a greater number of ambulance visits to the area than the existing
commercial use, it is not possible and highly speculative to predict medical emergencies that require
visits from emergency vehicles. Ambulances traveling to and from the Project Site would likely use
high-volume transit corridors, such as Colorado Boulevard and Michillinda Avenue, to access the
Project Site, rather than passing through the residential neighborhoods to the east and south. Further,
the decision to use a siren and lights is made by the vehicle driver and is dependent upon traffic
77 Michael Baker International, Artis Senior Assisted Living Facility Trip Generation Analysis, December 17, 2019.
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 73 April 2020
conditions and the welfare of the patient. As such, emergency response vehicles may not engage the
siren in every instance and would likely turn off the siren upon arriving at the facility. Thus, because
an ambulance siren may not be engaged in every emergency response situation, and because a siren
would likely be turned off upon arrival, noise impacts resulting from ambulance visits to the Project
Site are anticipated to be infrequent and short-lived in nature. Additionally, the proposed memory care
facility would employ medical staff who would be able to address non-life-threatening medical
emergencies, such as minor injuries and falls, thus reducing the number of visits from rapid-response
emergency vehicles. Regular trips by Project residents to health care facilities would be accommodated
through family members or other non-emergency medical transport services, none of which would be
equipped with sirens. Finally, Arcadia Municipal Code Section 4610.1(I) exempts emergency vehicles
from the restrictions placed on sound amplifying equipment. Therefore, Project-related ambulance
noise associated with the Project would be less than significant.
Stationary Noise
Stationary noise sources associated with the Proposed Project would include mechanical equipment,
slow-moving trucks, and parking activities. These noise sources are typically intermittent and short in
duration and would be comparable to existing sources of noise experienced in the Project vicinity.
Mechanical Equipment
Typically, mechanical equipment can result in noise levels of approximately 55 dBA at 50 feet from
the source. Mechanical equipment (e.g., HVAC units and emergency generators) for the Project would
be located in fully enclosed spaces throughout the proposed senior living facility. Therefore, the
Project would not place mechanical equipment near sensitive receptors (i.e., existing residences
adjoining the Project Site to the east and south). As such, noise from mechanical equipment would
not be perceptible at the closest sensitive receptors. Impacts from mechanical equipment would be
less than significant.
Slow-Moving Trucks
The Proposed Project may involve occasional deliveries and trash/recycling pickups from slow-
moving trucks. Typically, a medium two-axle delivery truck can generate a maximum noise level of 75
dBA at a distance of 50 feet.78 This maximum noise level is assumed to be generated by a truck that is
operated by an experienced “reasonable” driver with typically applied accelerations. Noise associated
with deliveries and trash/recycling pickups would be consistent with the existing noise environment,
as these activities already occur at the commercial uses in the surrounding area. Additionally, slow-
moving truck noise would be intermittent, short in duration, and would not generate excessive noise
levels over an extended period of time. Therefore, impacts resulting from truck delivery activities
would be less than significant.
Parking Areas
Traffic associated with senior living facility parking areas is typically not of sufficient volume to exceed
community noise standards, which are based on a time-averaged scale such as the Day-Night Sound
Level (Ldn) scale. However, the instantaneous maximum sound levels generated by a car door
slamming, engine starting up, and car pass-bys may be an annoyance to adjacent noise-sensitive
receptors. Estimates of the maximum noise levels associated with some parking activities are presented
78 Measurements taken by Michael Baker International in 2006.
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 74 April 2020
in Table XIII-3. The Project proposes a surface parking lot with approximately 55 regular parking
stalls and 4 parking stalls that comply with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements.
Table XIII-3
Maximum Noise Levels Generated by Parking Lots
Noise Source Maximum Noise Levels
at 10 Feet from Source
Maximum Noise Levels
at 50 Feet from Source
Car door slamming 75.0 dBA Leq 61 dBA Leq
Car starting 74.0 dBA Leq 60 dBA Leq
Car idling 67.0 dBA Leq 53 dBA Leq
Notes: dBA = A-weighted Decibels; Leq = Equivalent Sound Level
Source: Kariel, H. G., “Noise in Rural Recreational Environments,” Canadian Acoustics 19(5), 3-10, 1991.
It should be noted that parking lot noise generates instantaneous noise levels compared to noise
standards in the Ldn scale, which are averaged over time. As a result, actual noise levels over time
resulting from parking lot activities would be far lower. The adjoining residences to the east and south
would be located approximately 10 feet from the proposed surface parking lot. As such, parking lot
noise levels would be approximately 67 to 75 dBA at these sensitive receptors. However, parking lot
activities and associated noise levels are intermittent and sporadic, and an existing parking lot is located
within the same distance to the nearest adjoining residences as the proposed surface parking lot.
Therefore, as the Project would not introduce a new source of noise in the Project vicinity, and parking
lot noise would be infrequent, noise impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
NOI-1 Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, the Project applicant shall demonstrate, to the
satisfaction of the City of Arcadia Planning Division, that the Project complies with
the following:
Construction contracts specify that all construction equipment, fixed or mobile,
shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers and other
State-required noise attenuation devices.
The contractor shall provide evidence that a construction staff member will be
designated as a noise disturbance coordinator and will be present on-site during
construction activities. The noise disturbance coordinator shall be responsible for
responding to any local complaints about construction noise. When a complaint is
received, the noise disturbance coordinator shall notify the City within 24 hours
of the complaint and determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too
early or bad muffler) and shall implement reasonable measures to resolve the
complaint, as deemed acceptable by the Planning & Community Development
Administrator (or designee). All notices that are sent to residential units
immediately surrounding the construction site and all signs posted at the
construction site shall include the contact name and the telephone number for the
noise disturbance coordinator. All necessary signage and notices shall be posted
on or sent to residential units immediately surrounding the construction site no
less than two weeks prior to the start of noise-generating construction activities on
the Project Site.
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 75 April 2020
During construction, stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that
emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers.
Prior to issuance of any Grading or Building Permit, the Project applicant shall
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director (or
designee) that construction noise reduction methods shall be used where feasible.
These reduction methods may include shutting off idling equipment, installing
temporary acoustic barriers around stationary construction noise sources,
maximizing the distance between construction equipment staging areas and
occupied residential areas, and utilizing electric air compressors and similar power
tools.
Construction haul routes shall be designed to avoid noise-sensitive uses (e.g.,
residences and convalescent homes) to the extent feasible.
b) Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
Less Than Significant Impact. Project construction can generate varying degrees of ground-borne
vibration, depending on the construction procedure and construction equipment used. Operation of
construction equipment generates vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in
amplitude with distance from the source. The effect on buildings located in the vicinity of the
construction site often varies depending on soil type, ground strata, and construction characteristics
of the receiver building(s). The results from vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the
lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibration at moderate levels, to slight
damage at the highest levels. Groundborne vibrations from construction activities rarely reach levels
that damage structures.
Construction vibration impacts include human annoyance and building damage. Human annoyance
occurs when construction vibration rises significantly above the threshold of human perception for
extended periods of time. Building damage can be cosmetic or structural. Ordinary buildings that are
not particularly fragile would not experience any cosmetic damage (e.g., plaster cracks) at distances
beyond 30 feet. This distance can vary substantially depending on the soil composition and
underground geological layer between vibration source and receiver. In addition, not all buildings
respond similarly to vibration generated by construction equipment. For example, buildings that are
constructed with typical timber frames and masonry show that a vibration level of up to 0.2 inch-per-
second peak particle velocity (PPV) is considered safe and would not result in any construction
vibration damage.79 The City currently does not have a significance threshold to assess construction
vibration impacts.80 Therefore, this analysis uses the Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
architectural damage criterion for continuous vibrations at non-engineered timber and masonry
buildings of 0.2 inch-per-second PPV and human annoyance criterion of 0.2 inch-per-second PPV in
accordance with California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) guidance.81 The FTA has
79 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018.
80 City of Arcadia Municipal Code Article IX, Division 3, Section 9103.13, Performance Standards, exempts vibration
generated from construction activities.
81 California Department of Transportation, Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, Table 20,
September 2013.
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 76 April 2020
published standard vibration velocities for construction equipment operations. The vibration levels
produced by construction equipment is illustrated in Table XIII-4.
Table XIII-4
Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment
Equipment
Approximate peak particle
velocity at 28 feet
(inches/second)a
Approximate peak particle
velocity at 40 feet
(inches/second)a
Vibratory roller 0.177 0.104
Large bulldozer 0.075 0.044
Loaded trucks 0.064 0.038
Jackhammer 0.030 0.017
Small bulldozer 0.003 0.001
Notes:
a Calculated using the following formula:
PPV equip = PPVref x (25/D)1.5
where: PPV (equip) = the peak particle velocity in in/sec of the equipment adjusted for the distance
PPV (ref) = the reference vibration level in in/sec from Table 7-4 of the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment
Manual
D = the distance from the equipment to the receiver
Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018.
Ground-borne vibration decreases rapidly with distance. The nearest structures are located
approximately 28 feet to the south and 40 feet to the east of the proposed construction activities. As
indicated in Table XIII-4, vibration velocities from typical heavy construction equipment used during
Project construction would range from 0.003 (a small bulldozer) to 0.177 (vibratory roller) inch-per-
second PPV at the nearest structure (i.e., 28 feet) from the source of activity, which would not exceed
FTA’s 0.2 inch-per-second PPV threshold. Further, construction vibration would not cause excessive
human annoyance as the highest ground-borne vibration nearest sensitive receptors (i.e., 0.177 inch-
per-second PPV) would not exceed the 0.2 inch-per-second PPV human annoyance criteria.
Therefore, the proposed construction activities associated with the Project would not expose sensitive
receptors to excessive ground-borne vibration levels. As such, vibration impacts associated with
construction would be less than significant.
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 nearest airport to the Project Site is the San Gabriel Airport (also known as El
Monte Airport), which is approximately 4.5 miles to the southeast. According to the County of Los
Angeles’ Airports and Airport Influence Areas Map, the Project Site is not located within the El Monte Airport
Influence Area.82 Additionally, the Project Site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or
related facilities. Therefore, Project implementation would not expose people residing or working in
the Project area to excessive noise levels associated with aircraft, and no impacts would occur.
82 County of Los Angeles, Airports and Airport Influence Areas Map,
http://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/upl/project/ALUC_Airports_Aug2018_rev3.pdf, accessed December 26, 2019.
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 77 April 2020
XIV. Population and Housing
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
POPULATION AND HOUSING:
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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Discussion
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 roads or other infrastructure)?
Less Than Significant. The Proposed Project would construct an 80-bed senior-living, memory care
facility; however, it would not include construction of growth-inducing infrastructure, such as roadway
or utility extensions to areas not already provided with such services. The Project is anticipated to
generate approximately 80 residents and approximately 40 employees.83,84 Because the Project is
consistent with the underlying zoning and General Plan designation for the parcel, the population
growth associated with the Project would have been anticipated and planned for in the City of Arcadia
General Plan. Further, the SCAG 2016-2040 RTP/SCS provides population and employment growth
estimates for municipalities within its jurisdiction, including the City of Arcadia. The 2016-2040
RTP/SCS estimates that population in Arcadia will increase from 56,700 in 2012 to 65,900 by 2040,
and employment would increase from 28,900 in 2012 to 34,400 in 2040.85 Using these growth
forecasts, the Proposed Project would account for approximately 0.9 percent of forecasted population
growth between 2012 and 2040 and 0.7 percent of forecasted employment growth between 2012 and
2040 in the City of Arcadia. As such, the Proposed Project would not result in substantial unplanned
population growth in the area, either directly or indirectly and impacts would be less than significant.
b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. The Project Site currently contains a restaurant building and surface parking lots and
does not currently contain any housing units. Thus, there are no current on-site residents or housing
83 Employees were calculated using the Southern California Association of Government’s Employment Density
Report, which provided an average employee density of 14.24 employees per acre for Special Care Facilities in Los
Angeles County. As the Project Site is 2.79 acres in size, the estimated number of employees serving the project
would be 40.
84 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), Employment Density Study Summary Report, Table B-1,
Employment Densities (employees per acre) by Anderson Code, All Counties, 2001.
85 Southern California Association of Governments, Appendix, Demographics and Growth Forecast, Table 11, April 2016.
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 78 April 2020
units on the Project Site that would be displaced as part of the Proposed Project. Therefore, there
would be no impact.
XV. Public Services
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
PUBLIC SERVICES:
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
i) Fire protection? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
ii) Police protection? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iii) Schools? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
iv) Parks? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
v) Other public facilities? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Discussion
a.i) 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 fire protection?
Less Than Significant Impact. The development of 80 assisted living and memory care residential
units, along with landscaping, outdoor living areas, drive aisles, and a surface parking lot, would
incrementally increase the demand for fire protection and emergency medical services.
In compliance with Standard Condition 4.13-1 in the City’s General Plan EIR, new development in
the City must comply with the California Fire Code and Arcadia Fire Department regulations
pertaining to building construction, fire flows and pressures, hydrant placement, and other
requirements that would reduce the creation of fire hazards and would facilitate emergency response.
Further, building plans and structures are reviewed by the Arcadia Fire Department for compliance
with applicable safety and emergency access standards. This review would determine if fire flow (1,000
gallons per minute for two hours for residential construction), access, and fire hydrant placement
would be sufficient or if expanded facilities are required. Upon review of the Project’s Site plan, the
Arcadia Fire Department determined that site circulation and emergency access would be sufficient
to accommodate a fire engine.
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 79 April 2020
Therefore, with compliance with California Fire Code and Arcadia Fire Department regulations
governing hydrant placement, fire flows, and building construction, and with the Arcadia Fire
Department’s review and approval of the Project Site’s access and circulation plans, the Project would
have a less-than-significant impact on service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives
for fire protection and emergency medical services.
a.ii) 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 police protection?
Less Than Significant Impact. The development of 80 assisted living and memory care residential
units, along with landscaping, outdoor living areas, drive aisles, and a surface parking lot, would
incrementally increase the demand for police protection (such as Project Site security and responding
to minor crimes). Law enforcement is provided by the Arcadia Police Department, with the nearest
police station located approximately 1.7 miles southeast of the Project Site, at 250 West Huntington
Drive. The Arcadia Police Department is equipped with an 18-bed, pre-arraignment jail, an evidence
lab, a computer forensics lab, and other investigative equipment.86 The Police Department is staffed
by 68 sworn officers and 33 non-sworn support staff for an officer to population ratio of 1.36 sworn
officers per 1,000 persons.87
As discussed in Section XIV, Population and Housing, above, the Proposed Project is anticipated to
generate approximately 80 residents and approximately 40 employees. The Proposed Project would
also include on-site security resources, such as security guards and orderlies, to patrol the grounds,
monitor locked entry and exit points to the property, and protect residents. Therefore, the Proposed
Project is anticipated to have limited need for police services, other than to address infrequent minor
crimes or vandalism issues on the property. Further, the Proposed Project would be required to
comply with Policy S-5.11 of the Arcadia General Plan, which states that new development projects
would be required “to pay their fair share of costs associated with any necessary increases in public
safety equipment, facilities, and staffing to provide life safety protection.”88
Therefore, because the Proposed Project would include security personnel to address Project-specific
security concerns, and because any other Project-related police service demands would be mitigated
by the required fair share fees paid by the Project applicant, impacts would be less than significant.
a.iii) 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 schools?
No Impact. The Project Site is located within the Arcadia Unified School District; however, the
Project would include demolition of an existing restaurant building and construction of 80 memory
care residential units. Because the 80 units would be inhabited by seniors affected by memory loss,
86 City of Arcadia, General Plan Update Draft Program EIR, Section 4.13, Public Services, 2010.
87 City of Arcadia, General Plan Update Draft Program EIR, Section 4.13, Public Services, 2010.
88 City of Arcadia, General Plan Safety Element, Policy S-5.11, page 8-37, November 2010.
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 80 April 2020
there would be no school-age children living on the Project Site. The Project may indirectly result in
the increase of school-age children living in Arcadia through the addition of approximately 40
employees. A portion of these employees may choose to live in Arcadia; however, the City is
surrounded by urban areas that offer many housing options in other school districts. As such, the
number of school-age children associated with the Proposed Project that would live within the Arcadia
Unified School District would be negligible. Therefore, impact on schools would not occur.
a.iv) 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 parks?
No Impact. As previously discussed, the Proposed Project would involve demolition of an existing
restaurant use and construction of an 80-unit memory care facility. The Project would include an
enclosed landscaped outdoor area with gardens, walking paths, and a gazebo on the south side of the
Project Site for use by the Project’s residents. As such, the Proposed Project would provide outdoor
recreation space for Project residents and would, therefore, not create a substantial adverse physical
impact on City park facilities. No impact to parks would occur.
a.v) 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 other public facilities?
No Impact. The Project would involve the development of an 80-unit memory care facility, which
would provide on-site services, such as activities rooms and outdoor recreation space, for Project
residents. As such, Project residents are anticipated to have limited mobility and are not expected to
substantially increase the demand on public facilities, such as libraries and other government buildings.
Therefore, no impact other public facilities would occur.
XVI. Recreation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
RECREATION:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 81 April 2020
Discussion
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. As discussed in response to Checklist Question XV.a.iv, above, the Proposed Project
would involve demolition of an existing restaurant building and construction of an 80-unit memory
care facility. As such, Project residents are expected to have limited mobility and are not expected to
increase the demand on municipal park facilities. Further, the Proposed Project would provide an
enclosed, outdoor recreation area for residents, which would include walking paths, gardens, and a
plaza. Therefore, the Proposed Project is anticipated to have no impact on park 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?
No Impact. As stated above in response to Checklist Question XVI.a, the Project is not anticipated
to increase the demand on municipal parks and recreational facilities in Arcadia. The Proposed Project
would include construction of an outdoor, enclosed recreation space for Project residents that would
include walking paths, gardens, and a plaza. The environmental impacts associated with construction
of these outdoor amenities are included in the Project analysis discussed in this Initial Study.
Therefore, there would be no additional impacts associated with constructing these outdoor recreation
amenities beyond those already discussed.
XVII. Transportation/Traffic
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
TRANSPORTATION:
Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Would the project 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? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 82 April 2020
Discussion
a) Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the
circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including transit,
roadways, bicycle and pedestrian facilities??
Less Than Significant Impact.
Construction
Project construction is proposed to be completed in approximately 19 months. The phases of
construction include demolition, grading, paving, building construction, and architectural coating.
Demolition, grading, and paving are anticipated to take three months to complete; building
construction would be completed in 12 months; and architectural coating would be completed in four
months. The grading phase would occur over 10 days and would result in 1,485 cubic yards of cut and
3,350 cubic yards of fill. Therefore, 1,865 cubic yards of soil would be imported to the Project Site
during the grading phase. The City of Arcadia limits construction activities to between the hours of
7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturday;
therefore, construction-related traffic would occur only during those time periods, on an intermittent
basis, depending on the scope and intensity of the work taking place.89 While construction traffic
would temporarily affect traffic flow on the surrounding street network, particularly along the truck
haul routes, the impacts would be temporary and would fluctuate in intensity throughout the
construction day and vary throughout the overall construction program, with less traffic generated in
phases following the demolition and grading phases. Because the construction traffic impacts
associated with the Proposed Project would be temporary, they would not significantly affect the
performance of the vehicular transportation network with respect to level of service standards or other
metrics related to congestion and travel delay.
Operation
Project-related, long-term traffic impacts include those of employee, visitor, and delivery vehicles
associated with the proposed memory care facility. A trip generation analysis, conducted for the
Proposed Project, compared anticipated trip generation associated with the Proposed Project to traffic
count data collected for the existing restaurant and bakery building.90 The analysis used the Institute
of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10 th Edition (2017) to determine the trip
generation rates appropriate for an assisted living facility. The results of the Project trip generation
analysis are provided in Table XVII-1.
89 City of Arcadia, Municipal Code Article IV, Chapter 2, Part 6, Nighttime Construction.
90 Michael Baker International, Inc., Technical Memorandum: Artis Senior Assisted Living Facility Trip Generation Analysis,
December 17, 2019, available as Appendix E of this Initial Study.
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 83 April 2020
Table XVII-1
Estimated Number of Project Trips
Land Use Source ITE
Code Intensity Daily Trips AM Peak Hour
Trips
PM Peak Hour
Trips
Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out
Assisted
Living
(Proposed
Project)
ITE Trip
Generation
Manual,
10th
Edition
254 80 Beds 208 104 104 15 9 6 21 8 13
Coco’s
Bakery
Restaurant
(Existing)
Traffic
Count
Data
-- 13,000 Square
Feet 582 297 285 26 17 9 32 19 13
Estimated New Trips (Proposed Project minus
Existing) -374 -193 -
181 -11 -8 -3 -11 -11 0
Sources: Michael Baker International, Technical Memorandum: Artis Senior Assisted Living Facility Trip Generation Analysis, December 17,
2019, available as Appendix E of this Initial Study; ITE, Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, 2017.
As shown in Table XVII-1, the Proposed Project is eligible for a trip credit since the existing
restaurant building is currently in operation. Therefore, while the Proposed Project would result in an
estimated 208 total daily vehicle trips, the number of new trips associated with the Project would be
less than zero because the existing restaurant use currently generates 374 more daily trips than would
be expected from the Proposed Project. Therefore, the Project would have a less-than-significant
impact regarding trip generation.
Regarding trip distribution, the existing Project Site has two access points, as shown in Figure A-7.
The West Colorado Boulevard driveway provides full access (right- and left-turn for both ingress and
egress) and the Michillinda Avenue driveway provides partial access (right-turn ingress and right-turn
egress only). The Proposed Project would have a single, full-access driveway along West Colorado
Boulevard, which would be shifted slightly east of the existing driveway. While the Project would
concentrate all Project-related ingress and egress to the West Colorado Boulevard driveway, the overall
estimated reduction in Project-related trips as compared with the existing restaurant use would result
in a negligible impact on intersection impacts at this driveway. Specifically, the anticipated change in
site trips entering and exiting the site at the West Colorado Boulevard driveway would range from
negative four to three during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. As such, it is anticipated that these minimal
changes in site trips would not impact intersection operations at the proposed West Colorado
Boulevard driveway. Further, all traffic associated with the Project Site would be removed from the
existing Michillinda Avenue driveway. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have a less-than-
significant impact on trip distribution and intersection performance.
Finally, the Proposed senior living facility would include 80 units and would be dedicated to people
afflicted with Alzheimer’s disease or other memory disorders. The outdoor spaces on the south side
of the Proposed Project, which would be accessible to residents, would be contained/secured and
monitored by facility staff. As such, there would be little to no impact on surrounding bus, pedestrian,
or bicycle transit systems as a result of resident demand. Project employees would have a small impact
on bus, pedestrian, or bicycle systems; however, the difference between the number of employees and
visitors that would utilize transit or bicycle infrastructure to access the Project as compared with the
number of employees and patrons using transit or bicycle infrastructure to access the existing
restaurant is anticipated to be negligible. Further, the Proposed Project would not alter the existing
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 84 April 2020
bus stop in the West Colorado Boulevard right-of-way on the north side of the Project Site. As such,
there would be no impact on transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities as a result of the Proposed Project.
In summary, the Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the
circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including transit, roadways, bicycle
and pedestrian facilities, and, as such, impacts related to transportation would be less than significant.
b) Would the project conflict with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Less Than Significant Impact. By July 1, 2020, transportation impact assessments prepared in
accordance with CEQA will be required to determine if a Proposed Project would conflict with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.3(b), which outlines a new set of criteria for analyzing transportation impacts
using vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the primary measure of transportation impact. VMT is generally
defined as the amount and the distance of automobile travel associated with a Project. The City has
not adopted guidelines to set new significance criteria for transportation impacts based on VMT for
land use projects and plans in accordance with this checklist question. However, since the Project will
be considered for approval prior to July 1, 2020, the Project is not required to demonstrate compliance
with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b).
Nevertheless, as discussed in Checklist Question XVII.a, above, the Project would replace an existing
Coco’s restaurant with an 80-bed assisted living facility. As shown above, when compared to existing
conditions, the Project would result in a substantial reduction in daily trips. Given the overall
substantial reduction in trips based on the trip generation analysis, the Project's impact on Citywide
and regional VMT would be considered less than significant.
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 is located on a 2.79-acre property at the corner
of a major intersection. The Project proposes a surface parking lot with drive aisle and a drop-off
circle in front of the main entrance (northern building elevation). The Project would not generate
incompatible uses of area roadways, such as large farm equipment, that could impair circulation or
safety on area roads. Further, there is no internal street network proposed as part of the Project and,
therefore, no potential hazards associated with a geometric design feature, such as a sharp curve, would
occur within the Project Site. The Project would result in a single entrance and exit driveway onto
West Colorado Boulevard, as described above; however, this driveway would be designed to meet the
mandatory design standards of the City of Arcadia as it relates to width, intersection control, and sight
distance. Therefore, adherence to applicable City requirements would ensure the Proposed Project
would not result in any hazardous geometric design feature, and impacts would be less than significant.
d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access?
Less Than Significant Impact. Project-related building plans and structures would be reviewed by
the Arcadia Fire Department for compliance with applicable safety and emergency access standards.
This review would determine if fire flow, access, and fire hydrant placement are sufficient or if
expanded facilities are required. Further, the Project Site is located in an urban setting, surrounded by
multiple arterial roadways that could lead to the Proposed Project’s driveway on West Colorado
Boulevard. As such, because the Project Site would be designed to accommodate emergency response
vehicles and because it is located in an urban environment where the surrounding street network
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 85 April 2020
allows for access to the Project Site from multiple directions, impacts related to emergency access
would be less than significant.
XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCSE:
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), or
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
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.
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Discussion
a.i) 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 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)?
No Impact. The Project Site is currently developed with a restaurant building constructed in 1976
along with a paved surface parking and vehicle driveways. As discussed in Section V, Cultural
Resources, the current restaurant building does not meet the age requirement for evaluation for
eligibility for listing in the California Register or in a local register. Further, a records search at the
South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) determined that there are no documented historic
or prehistoric cultural resources on or within a quarter-mile radius of the Project Site. Therefore, the
Project would not cause an adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in
PRC Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 86 April 2020
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 listed or eligible for listing in the California Register or in a local
register of historical resources.
a.ii) 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 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 Impact. Approved by Governor Brown on September 25, 2014, AB 52
established a formal consultation process for California Native American tribes to identify potential
significant impacts to tribal cultural resources as defined in PRC Section 21074, as part of CEQA. As
specified in AB 52, lead agencies must provide notice to tribes that are traditionally and culturally
affiliated with the geographic area of a project site if the tribe has submitted a written request to be
notified. The tribe must respond to the lead agency within 30 days of receipt of the notification if it
wishes to engage in consultation on the project, and the lead agency must begin consultation within
30 days of receiving the request for consultation.
In compliance with AB 52, on January 10, 2020, the City of Arcadia sent a notice to the Gabrieleño
Band of Mission Indians–Kizh Nation (Gabrieleño) and the Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe. On January
23, 2020, Andrew Salas, of the Gabrieleño submitted a formal request to consult with the City. The
City did not receive a consultation request from the Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe within the 30 day
consultation request period.
The tribal consultation process commenced on April 1, 2020 via a conference call attended by Andrew
Salas and Matt Teutimez of the Gabrieleño, Lisa Flores and Vanessa Quiroz of the City of Arcadia,
and John Bellas and Madonna Marcelo of Michael Baker International (the City’s environmental
consultant). During the phone consultation, City staff discussed the receipt of the Gabrieleño’s request
for consultation, described the scope of the Project, and provided general information, including
proposed excavation activities. In response, the Gabrieleño provided their knowledge of Arcadia and
the Project area, including Rancho Santa Anita (within the boundaries of which the Project Site is
located), the former Gabrieleño Native American village, the sacred village of Sheshiikwanonga/
Sisitcanongna, and trade routes in the vicinity of the Project Area, indicating that these trade routes
were considered cultural landscapes that are protected under AB 52 as a tribal cultural resources.
On April 2, 2020, City staff requested, via e-mail, the documents that were referenced by the
Gabrieleño representatives during the phone consultation. On April 2, 2020, the Gabrieleño provided
the articles, maps, and explanatory text that were verbally explained during the phone consultation.
Review of the maps and articles provided by the Gabrieleño included information about trade routes
and identified structures within the greater Arcadia area; however, these resources did not demonstrate
that there is an existing tribal cultural resource within the Project Site. As such, no evidence has been
submitted which identifies the specific location of the Project Site as sensitive or containing tribal
cultural resources, and no criteria have been provided to indicate why the Project area should be
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 87 April 2020
considered sensitive enough such that monitoring for tribal cultural resources would be required to
avoid adverse impacts. CEQA only requires mitigation measures if substantial evidence exists of
potentially significant impacts. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(4)(A) states “there must be an
essential nexus (i.e., connection) between the mitigation measure and a legitimate government
interest.” Therefore, based upon the record, the City has determined that no substantial evidence
exists to support a conclusion that the Proposed Project may cause a significant impact on tribal
cultural resources. As such, the City has no basis under CEQA to impose any related mitigation
measures.
Nevertheless, while no tribal cultural resources are anticipated to be affected by the Project, the City
will voluntarily impose mitigation measures as an additional protection to address the inadvertent
discovery of tribal cultural resources. These voluntarily-imposed mitigation measures, Mitigation
Measure TCR-1 through Mitigation Measure TCR-4, are described in further detail below.
TCR-1 Retail a Native American Monitor/Consultant. The Project Applicant shall be
required to retain and compensate for the services of a tribal monitor/consultant, who
is both approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation Tribal
Government and listed under the Native American Heritage Commission’s (NAHC)
Tribal Contact list for the area of the project location. This list is provided by the
NAHC. The monitor/consultant shall only be present on-site during the construction
phases that involve ground disturbing activities. Ground disturbing activities are
defined by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation as activities that may
include, but are not limited to, pavement removal, pot-holing or auguring, grubbing,
tree removals, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching, within the Project
area. The tribal Monitor/consultant shall complete daily monitoring logs that will
provide descriptions of the day’s activities, including construction activities, locations,
soil, and any cultural materials identified. The on-site monitoring shall end when the
Project Site grading and excavation activities are completed or when the tribal
representatives and monitor/consultant have indicated that the site has a low potential
for impacting tribal cultural resources.
TCR-2 Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural and Archaeological Resources.
Upon discovery of any tribal cultural or archaeological resources, construction
activities shall cease in the immediate vicinity of the find until the find can be assessed.
All tribal cultural and archaeological resources unearthed by Project construction
activities shall be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist and tribal
monitor/consultant approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh
Nation. If the resources are Native American in origin, the Gabrieleño Band of
Mission Indians-Kizh Nation shall coordinate with the landowner regarding treatment
and curation of these resources. Typically, the tribe will request preservation in place
or recovery for educational purposes. Work may continue on other parts of the Project
Site while evaluation and, if necessary, additional protective mitigation takes place
(CEQA Guidelines Section15064.5 [f]). If a resource is determined by the qualified
archaeologist to constitute a “historical resource” or “unique archaeological resource,”
time allotment and funding sufficient to allow for implementation of avoidance
measures, or appropriate mitigation, must be available. The treatment plan established
for the resources shall be in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f) for
historical resources. For unique archaeological resources, preservation in place is the
preferred manner of treatment in accordance with PRC Section 21083.2(b). If
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 88 April 2020
preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may include implementation of
archaeological data recovery excavations to remove the resource along with
subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. All tribal cultural resources shall be
returned to the tribe. Any historic archaeological material that is not Native American
in origin shall be curated at a public, nonprofit institution with a research interest in
the materials, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County or the
Fowler Museum, if such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution
accepts the archaeological material, they shall be offered to the tribe or a local school
or historical society in the area for educational purposes.
TCR-3 Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and Associated Funerary
Objects. Native American human remains are defined in PRC 5097.98 (d)(1) as an
inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness.
Funerary objects, called associated grave goods in PRC 5097.98, are also to be treated
according to this statute. Health and Safety Code 7050.5 dictates that any discoveries
of human skeletal material shall be immediately reported to the County Coroner and
excavation halted until the coroner has determined the nature of the remains. If the
coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason
to believe that they are those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by
telephone within 24 hours, the NAHC and PRC 5097.98 shall be followed.
Upon discovery of human remains, the tribal and/or archaeological monitor/
consultant/consultant shall immediately divert work at minimum of 150 feet and place
an exclusion zone around the discovery location. The monitor/consultant(s) shall then
notify the tribe, the qualified lead archaeologist, and the construction manager who
will call the coroner. Work shall continue to be diverted while the coroner determines
whether the remains are human and subsequently Native American. The discovery is
to be kept confidential and secure to prevent any further disturbance. If the finds are
determined to be Native American, the coroner shall notify the NAHC as mandated
by State law, who will then appoint a Most Likely Descendent (MLD). If the
Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation is designated MLD, the Koo-nas-
gna Burial Policy shall be implemented. To the tribe, the term “human remains”
encompasses more than human bones. In ancient, as well as, historic times, tribal
traditions included, but were not limited to, the preparation of the soil for burial, the
burial of funerary objects with the deceased, and the ceremonial burning of human
remains. The prepared soil and cremation soils are to be treated in the same manner
as bone fragments that remain intact. Associated funerary objects are objects that, as
part of the death rite or ceremony of a culture, are reasonably believed to have been
placed with individual human remains either at the time of death or later; other items
made exclusively for burial purposes or to contain human remains can also be
considered as associated funerary objects.
Prior to the continuation of ground disturbing activities, the land owner shall arrange
a designated site location within the footprint of the Project for the respectful reburial
of the human remains and/or ceremonial objects. In the case where discovered human
remains cannot be fully documented and recovered on the same day, the remains shall
be covered with muslin cloth and a steel plate that can be moved by heavy equipment
placed over the excavation opening to protect the remains. If this type of steel plate is
not available, a 24-hour guard should be posted outside of working hours. The tribe
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 89 April 2020
shall make every effort to recommend diverting the Project and keeping the remains
in situ and protected. If the Project cannot be diverted, it may be determined that
burials shall be removed. The tribe shall work closely with the qualified archaeologist
to ensure that the excavation is treated carefully, ethically and respectfully. If data
recovery are approved by the tribe, documentation shall be taken which includes at a
minimum detailed descriptive notes and sketches. Additional types of documentation
shall be approved by the tribe for data recovery purposes. Cremations shall either be
removed in bulk or by means as necessary to ensure completely recovery of all material.
If the discovery of human remains includes four or more burials, the location is
considered a cemetery and a separate treatment plan shall be created. Once complete,
a final report of all activities is to be submitted to the tribe and the NAHC. The tribe
does not authorize any scientific study or the utilization of any invasive and/or
destructive diagnostics on human remains. Each occurrence of human remains and
associated funerary objects shall be stored using opaque cloth bags. All human
remains, funerary objects, sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony shall be
removed to a secure container on site if possible. These items shall be retained and
reburied within six months of recovery. The site of reburial/repatriation shall be on
the Project Site but at a location agreed upon between the tribe and the landowner at
a site to be protected in perpetuity. There shall be no publicity regarding any cultural
materials recovered.
TCR-4 Professional Standards. Archaeological and Native American monitoring and
excavation during construction projects shall be consistent with current professional
standards. All feasible care to avoid any unnecessary disturbance, physical
modification, or separation of human remains and associated funerary objects shall be
taken. Principal personnel must meet the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for
archaeology and have a minimum of 10 years of experience as a principal investigator
working with Native American archaeological sites in Southern California. The
qualified archaeologist shall ensure that all other personnel are appropriately trained
and qualified.
XIX. Utilities and Service Systems
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS:
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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 90 April 2020
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing 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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Discussion
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 facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
Less Than Significant Impact.
Water
The City of Arcadia provides water service to a majority of the City and currently derives its water
supply from groundwater wells that produce water from two groundwater basins, the Main San
Gabriel Basin and the Raymond Basin, with the Main San Gabriel Basin as the City’s primary
groundwater source.91 According to the City’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the
City has not experienced water supply deficiencies as a result of current management practices in the
Main San Gabriel Basin and the Raymond Basin. As determined in the 2015 UWMP, the minimum
water supplies available at the end of an average water year, single dry year, and multiple dry years
would be at least equal to, if not greater than, the City’s water demand. In addition, as concluded in
the 2015 UWMP, based on current management practices and reduced pumping in the Raymond
Basin, the City will be able to rely on the Main San Gabriel Basin, the Raymond Basin, and imported
water for adequate supply through year 2035 under single year and multiple year droughts.
As shown in Table XIX-1, the Proposed Project does not meet the criteria to prepare a project-
specific Water Supply Assessment under Senate Bill (SB) 610.92 In addition, as presented in Table
XIX-1, the Proposed Project would result in a net reduction in water consumption due to the change
in land use from a high turnover restaurant to an assisted living facility. Accordingly, the Project would
91 City of Arcadia, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, June 2016.
92 SB 610 requires urban water suppliers to prepare a WSA for projects that include, but not limited to, the following:
more than 500 dwelling units; shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or
having more than 500,000 square feet of floor space; commercial office buildings employing more than 1,000
persons or having more than 250,000 square feet of floor space; or hotels, motels, or both, having more than 500
rooms.
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 91 April 2020
not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water treatment facility, the
construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. Therefore, impacts
related to water consumption and water supply would be less than significant.
Table XIX-1
Water Consumption and Wastewater Generation Estimatesa
Land Use Unit Rateb Quantity (gpd)
Existing Coco’s Restaurant
Restaurant 13,088 sf 1,000 gpd/1,000 sf 13,088 gpd
Proposed Project
Assisted Living Facility 80 beds 125 gpd/bedc 10,000 gpd
Net Consumption/Generation
(Proposed – Existing)
-3,088 gpd
Notes: gpd = gallons per day; sf = square feet
a Based on a review of other projects and water supply assessment reports prepared for projects in the Los
Angeles Metropolitan area, the amount of wastewater generated by a project has been estimated to be
approximately the same as the amount of water consumed by such project. It is noted that some amount is lost
due to evapotranspiration and landscaping irrigation; however, these quantities are minimal compared to the
consumption and generation by the actual uses.
b Rates from the Sanitation Districts of County of Los Angeles.
c Rate for convalescent homes was utilized.
Wastewater
Wastewater generated by the City is treated by the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County
(Sanitation Districts). Wastewater is collected within the City’s local sewer collection system, which tie
into one of the Sanitation Districts’ regional truck sewer lines traversing the City.93 The regional truck
sewer lines deliver wastewater to one or more water reclamation plants owned by the Sanitation
Districts for treatment, including the Whittier Narrows Water Reclamation Plant (WNWRP) and the
Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP).
As presented above in Table XIX-1, the Proposed Project would result in a net reduction in
wastewater generation due to the change in land use from a high turnover restaurant to an assisted
living facility. Accordingly, the Project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of
new or expanded wastewater treatment facility, the construction or relocation of which could cause
significant environmental effects. Therefore, impacts related to wastewater generation, specifically to
the WNWRP and the JWPCP, would be less than significant.
Storm Drains
The Project Site currently drains to an existing private storm drain located at the southeastern corner
of the Project Site. As discussed above in Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Initial
Study, the Project would slightly reduce the amount of impervious surfaces on the Project Site due to
the increase in the amount of pervious landscape areas proposed by the Project as compared to
existing conditions. Further, the Project’s LID Plan would be reviewed and approved by the City
during the plan-check process, ensuring that the Project’s drainage plan would conform to local and
regional regulations governing Project Site discharge to storm drains. Specifically, the LID Plan would
result in stormwater runoff retention on-site for the runoff from the 85 th percentile 24-hour runoff
93 City of Arcadia, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, June 2016.
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 92 April 2020
event. Only stormwater overflow from the Project Site would drain to the existing private storm drain
at the southeastern corner of the Project Site. Therefore, the Project would not contribute to additional
runoff as compared to existing conditions. Accordingly, the Project would not require or result in the
relocation or construction of new or expanded storm drain facilities, the construction or relocation of
which could cause significant environmental effects. Therefore, impacts related to storm drains would
be less than significant.
Electricity and Natural Gas
Southern California Edison (SCE) and Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) provide
electricity and natural gas services to the Project Site, respectively. As presented in Table VI-1 in
Section VI, Energy, of this Initial Study, the Proposed Project would result in a net reduction in
electricity and natural gas consumption due to the change in land use from a high turnover restaurant
to an assisted living facility. Accordingly, the Project would not require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded power or natural gas lines, the construction or relocation of which
could cause significant environmental effects. Therefore, impacts related to electricity and natural gas
would be less than significant.
Telecommunications
Telecommunication services are provided by private companies, the selection of which is at the
discretion of the Applicant. Upgrades to existing telecommunication facilities and construction of new
facilities to meet the demand of users are determined by telecommunication providers and is subject
to its own environmental review. Accordingly, Project impacts to telecommunication facilities would
be less than significant.
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 discussed above, the 2015 UWMP concluded that the City will
be able to rely on the Main San Gabriel Basin, the Raymond Basin, and imported water for adequate
supply through year 2035 under single year and multiple year droughts. In addition, as shown in Table
XIX-1, the Proposed Project would result in a net reduction in water consumption due to the change
in land use from a high turnover restaurant to an assisted living facility. Accordingly, there would be
sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development
during normal, dry and multiple dry years. Therefore, impacts to water supplies would be less than
significant.
c) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s
projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Less Than Significant Impact. As presented above, the Proposed Project would result in a net
reduction in wastewater generation due to the change in land use from a high turnover restaurant to
an assisted living facility. Accordingly, the Project would not affect the capacity of the WNWRP or
the JWPCP for treatment of wastewater. Therefore, impacts related to wastewater treatment would
be less than significant.
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 93 April 2020
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?
e) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction
statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project Site is currently served by a commercial hauler, which
collects and transports waste generated by the existing restaurant to multiple local landfills. The City’s
General Plan Update Program Environmental Impact Report determined that there would be no
significant adverse impact on landfill capacity and that continuation of existing City and County
programs and implementation of pertinent goals, policies, and implementation actions in the General
Plan Update would provide for future developments’ compliance with solid waste regulations.94 In
addition, the Project would be required to comply with federal, State, and local management and
reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste to ensure that the solid waste stream diverted
to landfills and recycling facilities is reduced in accordance with existing regulations. Furthermore, as
shown in Table XIX-2, the Proposed Project would result in a net reduction in solid waste generation
due to the change in land use from a high turnover restaurant to an assisted living facility. Accordingly,
the Project would not 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.
Therefore, impacts related to solid waste generation would be less than significant.
Table XIX-2
Solid Waste Generation Estimates
Land Use Unit Ratea Quantity (lbs per
day)
Existing Coco’s Restaurant
Restaurant 409 seatsb 1 lb/seat/day 409
Proposed Project
Assisted Living Facility 80 personsc 5
lbs/person/day
400
Net Solid Waste Generation
(Proposed – Existing)
-9
Notes: lb = pound; sf = square feet
a California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), Estimated Solid Waste Generation
Rates, https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates, accessed January 27, 2020.
b CalRecycle rate that assumes 50% of restaurant is seating and 15 sf per seat.
c Based on an 80-bed facility, resulting in 80 full-time residents.
94 City of Arcadia, General Plan Update Draft Program EIR, September 2010, p. 4.16-33.
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 94 April 2020
XX. Wildfire
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
WILDFIRE:
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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Discussion
a) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard
severity zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact. As stated in Section IX.g, above, the Project Site is not located within or adjacent to a
Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ), as designated by the California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection.95 VHFHSZs in the City of Arcadia are concentrated on the northeastern
side of the City, in the foothills near the Cities of Monrovia and Sierra Madre, approximately 2.1 miles
northeast of the Project Site. The Project Site is in a fully urbanized area with an urban street network,
a fully pressurized water system, and managed landscaping limited to decorative trees and shrubs. As
such, wildland fires would not occur on or near the Project Site. Regardless, in any disaster warranting
evacuation, the exact emergency routes used would depend on a number of variables, including the
type, scope, and location of the incident. It is the responsibility of emergency service and/or
appropriate public officials to adequately assess the situation so that safe and efficient evacuation
routes are selected. As the Project Site is in a fully urbanized area with multiple major arterial streets
and a major highway within close proximity, the Proposed Project would not substantially impair an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, and no impact would occur.
95 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone in Local Responsibility
Area, September 2011.
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 95 April 2020
b) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard
severity zones, would the project, 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?
No Impact. The Project Site is not within or near a VHFHSZ. Therefore, the Proposed Project
would not have the potential to expose Project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire
or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, or exacerbate
wildfire risks. As such, no impact would occur.
c) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard
severity zones, 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?
No Impact. The Project Site is not within or near a VHFHSZ. Therefore, the Proposed Project
would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure that may exacerbate fire
risk or result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. As such, no impact would occur.
d) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard
severity zones, 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 Project Site is not within or near a VHFHSZ. The Project Site is within a flat,
urbanized area that is adjacent to existing commercial and residential structures. Therefore, the 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. As such,
no impact would occur.
XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
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?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 96 April 2020
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects)?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Discussion
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 Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Based on the analysis in Section
IV, Biological Resources, of this Initial Study, the Proposed Project would not have substantial
impacts to special-status species, stream habitat, and wildlife dispersal. A mitigation measure is
proposed (i.e., Mitigation Measure BIO-1) to ensure that tree removal would not pose a significant
impact on migratory wildlife species. Furthermore, the Proposed Project would not affect the local,
regional, or national populations or ranges of any plant or animal species and would not threaten any
plant communities. Similarly, as discussed in Section V, Cultural Resources, and Section VII, Geology
and Soils, of this Initial Study, with the incorporation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and GEO-1,
the Proposed Project would not have substantial impacts to historical, archaeological, or
paleontological resources and, thus, would not eliminate any important examples of California history
or prehistory. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in a Mandatory Finding of
Significance due to impacts to biological, cultural, or paleontological resources.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
Less Than Significant Impact. A significant cumulative impact may occur if the Project, in
conjunction with related projects in the region, would result in impacts that are less than significant
when viewed separately but would be significant when viewed together. When considering the
Proposed Project in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects
in the vicinity of the Project Site, the Proposed Project does not have the potential to cause impacts
that are cumulatively considerable. As detailed in the above discussions, the Proposed Project would
not result in any significant and unmitigable impacts in any environmental categories. In all cases, the
impacts associated with the Project are limited to the Project Site and are of such a negligible degree
that they would not result in a significant contribution to any cumulative impacts. In some cases, the
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 97 April 2020
Project would result in a net reduction when compared to existing conditions (i.e., related to emissions,
water consumption, and wastewater and solid waste generation). Therefore, the Proposed Project
would not result in a Mandatory Finding of Significance due to cumulative impacts.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated . As detailed above, the Proposed
Project does not have the potential to result in direct or indirect substantial adverse effects on human
beings. Although construction noise is allowed during the City’s allowable construction hours and is
not considered to be a significant impact during those hours, the Project could expose adjoining
residential uses to temporary high noise levels (91 to 104 dBA) during construction activities.
However, Mitigation Measure NOI-1 is recommended to reduce short-term construction noise
impacts through noise reduction methods to a less-than-significant level. In all other environmental
issue areas, the Proposed Project does not approach or exceed any significance thresholds typically
associated with direct or indirect effects on people, such as air, water, or land pollution, natural
environmental hazards, transportation-related hazards, or adverse effects to emergency service
response. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in a Mandatory Finding of Significance
due to direct or indirect effects on human beings.
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 98 April 2020
SECTION E. LIST OF MITIGATION MEASURES
Biological Resources
BIO-1 Tree removal shall not occur during the local nesting season (February 1 to
September 15 for nesting birds and February 1 to June 30 for nesting raptors), to the
extent practicable. If any construction or tree removal occurs during the nesting
season, a nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to
commencement of grading or removal of any trees on the property. If the biologist
determines that nesting birds are present, restrictions may be placed on construction
activities in the vicinity of the nest observed until the nest is no longer active, as
determined by the biologist based on the location of the nest, type of the construction
activities, the existing human activity in the vicinity of the nest, and the sensitivity of
the nesting species. Grading and/or construction may resume in this area when a
qualified biologist has determined that the nest is no longer occupied, and all juveniles
have fledged. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City of the
Planning & Community Development Administrator or Designee.
BIO-2 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall demonstrate that the Project
landscaping plan and planned construction are consistent with the City’s Tree
Protection Ordinance and the Protected Tree Study. The tree protection activities shall
include the following:
1. Prior to demolition, the contractor and consulting arborist shall meet on-site to
make sure tree protection zones are established around all protected trees to be
preserved and to review the goals for the tree protection plan.
2. Tree protection zone fences shall be placed around each protected tree. Fences
shall be at least 4 feet tall and constructed of chain-link fencing secured on metal
posts. Where fences are not feasible (e.g., in haul routes or areas where workers
will need frequent access), soil and root protection material can be installed.
3. The contractor shall maintain the fences and/or soil protection material
throughout the completion of the Project. No staging of materials or equipment
or washing out shall occur within the fenced protected zones.
4. Trees should be irrigated throughout the year. A deep watering that provides
good soil moisture to a depth of 16 inches is optimal. The trees shall be deeply
water once every 21 to 28 days during the summer and fall seasons when rain is
unlikely.
5. For Tree No. 49, a protected deodar cedar located on the Project Site’s Colorado
Boulevard frontage, the deadwood shall be removed to prevent the dead
branches from falling. However, no reduction pruning in the live crown of the
tree is required. The tree shall be monitored for its health during the life of the
Project, and irrigation shall occur at the same frequency of the other trees.
6. The arborist shall monitor a few critical phases of the Project, including pre-
demolition, to direct the installation of protective fences and soil protection
measures; grading and excavation; any utility or drainage trenching that is
required within a tree protection zone; and a final evaluation during the landscape
installation phase.
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 99 April 2020
7. Additional construction best practices described in the Protected Tree Report
shall be implemented.
Cultural Resources
CUL-1 Treatment of previously unidentified archaeological deposits: If suspected prehistoric
or historical archaeological deposits are discovered during construction, all work
within 25 feet of the discovery shall be redirected and a Secretary of the Interior
Professional Qualified archaeologist and/or Registered Professional Archaeologist
shall assess the situation and make recommendations regarding the treatment of the
discovery. Impacts to significant archaeological deposits shall be avoided if feasible,
but if such impacts cannot be avoided, the deposits shall be evaluated for their
eligibility for the California Register of Historical Resources. If the deposits are not
eligible, no further protection of the find is necessary. If the deposits are eligible,
impacts shall be avoided or mitigated. Acceptable mitigation may consist of, but is not
necessarily limited to, systematic recovery and analysis of archaeological deposits,
recording the resource, preparation of a report of findings, and accessioning recovered
archaeological materials at an appropriate curation facility.
Geology and Soils
GEO-1 Paleontological Resource Monitor: If paleontological resources (fossils) are discovered
during Project grading, work shall be halted in that area until a qualified paleontologist
can be retained to assess the significance of the find. The Project paleontologist shall
monitor remaining earth-moving activities at the Project Site and shall be equipped to
record and salvage fossil resources that may be unearthed during grading activities.
The paleontologist shall be empowered to temporarily halt or divert grading
equipment to allow recording and removal of the unearthed resources. Any fossils
found shall be evaluated in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines and offered for
curation at an accredited facility approved by the City of Arcadia. Once grading
activities have ceased or the paleontologist determines that monitoring is no longer
necessary, monitoring activities shall be discontinued.
Noise
NOI-1 Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, the Project applicant shall demonstrate, to the
satisfaction of the City of Arcadia Planning Division, that the Project complies with
the following:
1. Construction contracts specify that all construction equipment, fixed or mobile,
shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers and other
State-required noise attenuation devices.
2. The contractor shall provide evidence that a construction staff member will be
designated as a noise disturbance coordinator and will be present on-site during
construction activities. The noise disturbance coordinator shall be responsible
for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. When a
complaint is received, the noise disturbance coordinator shall notify the City
within 24 hours of the complaint and determine the cause of the noise
complaint (e.g., starting too early or bad muffler) and shall implement
reasonable measures to resolve the complaint, as deemed acceptable by the
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 100 April 2020
Planning & Community Development Administrator (or designee). All notices
that are sent to residential units immediately surrounding the construction site
and all signs posted at the construction site shall include the contact name and
the telephone number for the noise disturbance coordinator. All necessary
signage and notices shall be posted on or sent to residential units immediately
surrounding the construction site no less than two weeks prior to the start of
noise-generating construction activities on the Project Site.
3. During construction, stationary construction equipment shall be placed such
that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers.
4. Prior to issuance of any Grading or Building Permit, the Project applicant shall
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director (or
designee) that construction noise reduction methods shall be used where
feasible. These reduction methods may include shutting off idling equipment,
installing temporary acoustic barriers around stationary construction noise
sources, maximizing the distance between construction equipment staging
areas and occupied residential areas, and utilizing electric air compressors and
similar power tools.
5. Construction haul routes shall be designed to avoid noise-sensitive uses (e.g.,
residences and convalescent homes) to the extent feasible.
Tribal Cultural Resources
TCR-1 Retail a Native American Monitor/Consultant. The Project Applicant shall be
required to retain and compensate for the services of a tribal monitor/consultant, who
is both approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation Tribal
Government and listed under the Native American Heritage Commission’s (NAHC)
Tribal Contact list for the area of the project location. This list is provided by the
NAHC. The monitor/consultant shall only be present on-site during the construction
phases that involve ground disturbing activities. Ground disturbing activities are
defined by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation as activities that may
include, but are not limited to, pavement removal, pot-holing or auguring, grubbing,
tree removals, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching, within the Project
area. The tribal Monitor/consultant shall complete daily monitoring logs that will
provide descriptions of the day’s activities, including construction activities, locations,
soil, and any cultural materials identified. The on-site monitoring shall end when the
Project Site grading and excavation activities are completed or when the tribal
representatives and monitor/consultant have indicated that the site has a low potential
for impacting tribal cultural resources.
TCR-2 Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural and Archaeological Resources.
Upon discovery of any tribal cultural or archaeological resources, construction
activities shall cease in the immediate vicinity of the find until the find can be assessed.
All tribal cultural and archaeological resources unearthed by Project construction
activities shall be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist and tribal
monitor/consultant approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh
Nation. If the resources are Native American in origin, the Gabrieleño Band of
Mission Indians-Kizh Nation shall coordinate with the landowner regarding treatment
and curation of these resources. Typically, the tribe will request preservation in place
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 101 April 2020
or recovery for educational purposes. Work may continue on other parts of the Project
Site while evaluation and, if necessary, additional protective mitigation takes place
(CEQA Guidelines Section15064.5 [f]). If a resource is determined by the qualified
archaeologist to constitute a “historical resource” or “unique archaeological resource,”
time allotment and funding sufficient to allow for implementation of avoidance
measures, or appropriate mitigation, must be available. The treatment plan established
for the resources shall be in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f) for
historical resources. For unique archaeological resources, preservation in place is the
preferred manner of treatment in accordance with PRC Section 21083.2(b). If
preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may include implementation of
archaeological data recovery excavations to remove the resource along with
subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. All tribal cultural resources shall be
returned to the tribe. Any historic archaeological material that is not Native American
in origin shall be curated at a public, nonprofit institution with a research interest in
the materials, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County or the
Fowler Museum, if such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution
accepts the archaeological material, they shall be offered to the tribe or a local school
or historical society in the area for educational purposes.
TCR-3 Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and Associated Funerary
Objects. Native American human remains are defined in PRC 5097.98 (d)(1) as an
inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness.
Funerary objects, called associated grave goods in PRC 5097.98, are also to be treated
according to this statute. Health and Safety Code 7050.5 dictates that any discoveries
of human skeletal material shall be immediately reported to the County Coroner and
excavation halted until the coroner has determined the nature of the remains. If the
coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason
to believe that they are those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by
telephone within 24 hours, the NAHC and PRC 5097.98 shall be followed.
Upon discovery of human remains, the tribal and/or archaeological monitor/
consultant/consultant shall immediately divert work at minimum of 150 feet and place
an exclusion zone around the discovery location. The monitor/consultant(s) shall then
notify the tribe, the qualified lead archaeologist, and the construction manager who
will call the coroner. Work shall continue to be diverted while the coroner determines
whether the remains are human and subsequently Native American. The discovery is
to be kept confidential and secure to prevent any further disturbance. If the finds are
determined to be Native American, the coroner shall notify the NAHC as mandated
by State law, who will then appoint a Most Likely Descendent (MLD). If the
Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation is designated MLD, the Koo-nas-
gna Burial Policy shall be implemented. To the tribe, the term “human remains”
encompasses more than human bones. In ancient, as well as, historic times, tribal
traditions included, but were not limited to, the preparation of the soil for burial, the
burial of funerary objects with the deceased, and the ceremonial burning of human
remains. The prepared soil and cremation soils are to be treated in the same manner
as bone fragments that remain intact. Associated funerary objects are objects that, as
part of the death rite or ceremony of a culture, are reasonably believed to have been
placed with individual human remains either at the time of death or later; other items
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 102 April 2020
made exclusively for burial purposes or to contain human remains can also be
considered as associated funerary objects.
Prior to the continuation of ground disturbing activities, the land owner shall arrange
a designated site location within the footprint of the Project for the respectful reburial
of the human remains and/or ceremonial objects. In the case where discovered human
remains cannot be fully documented and recovered on the same day, the remains shall
be covered with muslin cloth and a steel plate that can be moved by heavy equipment
placed over the excavation opening to protect the remains. If this type of steel plate is
not available, a 24-hour guard should be posted outside of working hours. The tribe
shall make every effort to recommend diverting the Project and keeping the remains
in situ and protected. If the Project cannot be diverted, it may be determined that
burials shall be removed. The tribe shall work closely with the qualified archaeologist
to ensure that the excavation is treated carefully, ethically and respectfully. If data
recovery are approved by the tribe, documentation shall be taken which includes at a
minimum detailed descriptive notes and sketches. Additional types of documentation
shall be approved by the tribe for data recovery purposes. Cremations shall either be
removed in bulk or by means as necessary to ensure completely recovery of all material.
If the discovery of human remains includes four or more burials, the location is
considered a cemetery and a separate treatment plan shall be created. Once complete,
a final report of all activities is to be submitted to the tribe and the NAHC. The tribe
does not authorize any scientific study or the utilization of any invasive and/or
destructive diagnostics on human remains. Each occurrence of human remains and
associated funerary objects shall be stored using opaque cloth bags. All human
remains, funerary objects, sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony shall be
removed to a secure container on site if possible. These items shall be retained and
reburied within six months of recovery. The site of reburial/repatriation shall be on
the Project Site but at a location agreed upon between the tribe and the landowner at
a site to be protected in perpetuity. There shall be no publicity regarding any cultural
materials recovered.
TCR-4 Professional Standards. Archaeological and Native American monitoring and
excavation during construction projects shall be consistent with current professional
standards. All feasible care to avoid any unnecessary disturbance, physical
modification, or separation of human remains and associated funerary objects shall be
taken. Principal personnel must meet the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for
archaeology and have a minimum of 10 years of experience as a principal investigator
working with Native American archaeological sites in Southern California. The
qualified archaeologist shall ensure that all other personnel are appropriately trained
and qualified.
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 103 April 2020
SECTION F. REFERENCES
Arbor Care, Inc., Protected Tree Report: Tree Survey, Encroachment, Protection and Mitigation 1150 West
Colorado Boulevard, Arcadia, CA 91106, revised March 2020.
California Air Resources board, California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, November 2017.
California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6, California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and
Nonresidential Buildings, 2019.
California Department of Conservation, California Important Farmland Finder, accessed November 8,
2019, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/.
California Department of Conservation, Department of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources, Well
Finder online mapping application, map generated December 3, 2019.
California Department of Conservation, Fault Activity Map of California, 2010.
California Department of Conservation, The California Land Conservation Act of 1965 2016 Status Report,
December 2016.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), Special Plant and Animal Lists,
https://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/list.html, accessed November 8, 2019.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone in Local
Responsibility Area, September 2011.
California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), Cortese List: Section 65962.5(a),
https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/section-65962-5a/, accessed October 21, 2019.
California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), EnviroStor Database search, accessed
October 21, 2019.
California Department of Transportation, Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual,
Table 20, September 2013.
California DTSC, EnviroStor Hazardous Waste and Substance Site List, 2019.
California Energy Commission, California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2017,
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/2000_2016/ghg_inventory_trends_00
-16.pdf, accessed December 27, 2019.
California Geological Survey, Special Publication 117A: Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic
Hazards in California, 2008.
CDFW, Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS),
https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/bios/, accessed November 8, 2019.
CDFW, CDFW Lands, https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/lands/, accessed November 8, 2019.
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 104 April 2020
City of Arcadia Municipal Code Article IX, Division 3, Section 9103.13, Performance Standards,
exempts vibration generated from construction activities.
City of Arcadia Ordinance No. 1510, signed and approved July 16, 1974.
City of Arcadia Resolution No. 4440, signed and approved July 2, 1974.
City of Arcadia, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, prepared by Stetson Engineers, Inc., June 2016.
City of Arcadia, Arcadia General Plan Land Use and Community Design Element, November 2010.
City of Arcadia, Arcadia General Plan Parks, Recreation, and Community Resources Element , November 2010.
City of Arcadia, Arcadia Municipal Code Article IX, Division 3, Section 9103.11, Signs.
City of Arcadia, Arcadia Municipal Code Section 9102.03.020.
City of Arcadia, Code of Ordinances, Article IX, Chapter 7, Tree Preservation, and Chapter 8,
Comprehensive Tree Management Program.
City of Arcadia, Code of Ordinances, Article VII, Chapter 8, Part 2, Section 7828, Low Impact
Development – Control of Runoff Required for Planning Priority Projects.
City of Arcadia, Code of Ordinances, Article VIII, Chapter 1, Building Code.
City of Arcadia, General Plan Safety Element, November 2010.
City of Arcadia, General Plan Update Draft Program EIR, 2010.
City of Arcadia, Municipal Code Article IV, Chapter 2, Part 6, Nighttime Construction.
City of Arcadia, Municipal Code Section 9102.03.020.
County of Los Angeles, Airports and Airport Influence Areas Map, August 2018.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Flood Insurance Rate Map 06037C1400F,
September 26, 2008.
Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018.
Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning, GIS-NET Public, Planning & Zoning
Information,
http://rpgis.isd.lacounty.gov/Html5Viewer/index.html?viewer=GISNET_Public.GIS-
NET_Public, accessed November 8, 2019.
Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster, Five-Year Water Quality and Supply Plan, November 2019.
Michael Baker International, Artis Senior Assisted Living Facility Trip Generation Analysis , December 17,
2019.
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 105 April 2020
South Coast Air Quality Management District, California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod),
version 2016.3.2.
South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, November 1993.
South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan , March 2017.
South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, July
2008.
South Coast Air Quality Management District, SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds, March
2015.
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), Employment Density Study Summary
Report, Table B-1, Employment Densities (employees per acre) by Anderson Code, All
Counties, 2001.
Southern California Association of Governments, 2016–2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable
Communities Strategy, April 2016.
Southern California Association of Governments, Appendix, Demographics and Growth Forecast,
Table 11, April 2016.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), NEPAssist, National Land Cover Database 2016
Project Site and Area land cover, map generated December 10, 2019.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Environmental Conservation Online System: Information
for Planning and Consultation, resource list generated November 22, 2019.
USEPA, NEPAssist, , accessed November 8, 2019.
USFWS, Environmental Conservation Online System: Information for Planning and Consultation,
map generated November 22, 2019.
USFWS, National Wetlands Inventory, accessed November 22, 2019.