Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 08b - Senior Assisted Living Care Facility at 1150 W. Colorado Blvd. DATE: August 18, 2020 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Jason Kruckeberg, Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director By: Lisa L. Flores, Planning & Community Development Administrator Prepared By: Vanessa Quiroz, Associate Planner SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 7330 AND ORDINANCE NO. 2372 RELATED TO A ZONE CHANGE, ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, ADMINISTRATIVE MODIFICATION, AND PROTECTED TREE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT WITH A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (“CEQA”) FOR A NEW SENIOR ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY WITH MEMORY CARE AT 1150 W. COLORADO BOULEVARD RESOLUTION NO. 7330 APPROVING ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. ADR 18-22, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CUP 19-03, ADMINISTRATIVE MODIFICATION NO. AM MINOR 19-22, AND PROTECTED TREE ENCROACHMENT NO. TRE 20-04 WITH A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A NEW SENIOR ASSISTED LIVING CARE FACILITY WITH MEMORY CARE AT 1150 W. COLORADO BOULEVARD Recommendation: Adopt ORDINANCE NO. 2372 APPROVING ZONE CHANGE NO. ZC 19-01 AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENT TO REMOVE THE TWO EXISTING ZONING OVERLAYS (ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN (D) OVERLAY ZONE AND AUTOMOBILE PARKING (P) OVERLAY ZONE) AT 1150 W. COLORADO BOULEVARD Recommendation: Introduce Artis Senior Living Care Facility 1150 W. Colorado Boulevard August 18, 2020 Page 2 of 26 SUMMARY The Applicant, Artis Senior Living, LLC, is requesting approval of Zone Change No. ZC 19-01, Architectural Design Review No. ADR 18-22, Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 19- 03, Administrative Modification No. AM Minor 19-22, and Protected Tree Encroachment Permit No. TRE 20-04 for a new two-story, 44,192 square foot senior assisted living care facility (known as Artis Senior Living) with 80 rooms at 1150 W. Colorado Boulevard. It is recommended that City Council adopt Resolution No. 7330 (Attachment No. 1) and introduce Ordinance No. 2372 (Attachment No. 2) approving the proposed project and the Mitigated Negative Declaration in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). BACKGROUND The subject site is located at the southeast corner of West Colorado Boulevard and Michillinda Avenue at 1150 W. Colorado Boulevard. The property has been developed with and occupied by a restaurant (Coco’s Bakery and Restaurant) since 1976. The site is surrounded by the 210 Freeway to the north, commercial uses to the west in the Los Angeles County area, and single- family residential properties to the east and south. The residential properties that directly abut this site along North Altura Road and Altura Terrance are not within the Lower Rancho Homeowners Association - refer to Figure No.1 for an aerial view of the area below and Attachment No. 3 for the Aerial Photo and Zoning Information and Photos of the Subject Property. The subject property is zoned General Commercial (“C-G”) and has a General Plan Land Use Designation of Commercial (.50 FAR). The project site is approximately 2.83 acres in size and has two existing zoning overlays. The first overlay is an Architectural Design (D) overlay zone that was placed over the building area in 1972 that limits the building height to 30 feet and to a maximum floor area of 19,500 square feet, as well as other limitations on the exterior materials, roof pitch, window size, signage, and landscaping. The second overlay is the Automobile Parking Overlay (P) that was placed over the parking lot area to restrict that area to parking only. A commercial building cannot expand beyond the area of the Architectural Design Overlay. These types of overlays were common practice during that time to W. Colorado Boulevard Figure No.1 (D): Architectural Design overlay zone (P): Automobile Parking overlay zone N Los Angeles County D P N. Altura Road Artis Senior Living Care Facility 1150 W. Colorado Boulevard August 18, 2020 Page 3 of 26 ensure compatibility with the adjacent resident properties and to provide a significant buffer between the commercial building and the adjoining residential properties to minimize any potential impacts. DISCUSSION The Applicant is requesting a Zone Change to eliminate the existing zoning overlays – the Architectural Design (D) overlay zone and the Automobile Parking (P) overlay zone – in order to accommodate the new senior assisted living facility. The senior living facility will be operated by Artis Senior Living, and will consist of a new two-story, 44,192 square foot, Traditional/Cape Cod Architectural-style facility that will be entirely dedicated to patients with Alzheimer’s and related memory delays - refer to Attachment No. 4 for the Architectural Plans and Renderings. Artis Senior Living is a national senior living care facility company established in 2012. The company has over 18 facilities within the Midwest and East Coast of the United States. Currently, there are 20 additional facilities under construction throughout the country, including this facility. A total of 80 rooms are proposed with 40 rooms on each floor. The rooms will range between 216 square feet and 302 square feet in size. Each room will include a bed, a closet, and a bathroom. Each floor will include a dining room, a family room, employee Figure No. 2 Rendering from the corner of W. Colorado Blvd. and Michillinda Avenue Artis Senior Living Care Facility 1150 W. Colorado Boulevard August 18, 2020 Page 4 of 26 offices and areas, and a kitchen. The facility will also provide onsite amenities for the residents such as a community center, a gallery, a café, and a barber/beauty shop. A small health center will also be able to provide medical services for the residents. The project will also include a trellis with seating in the front yard area of the building and a private outdoor area along the west and south side of the building, which includes walkways and an outdoor gazebo for residents and visitors. The Applicant will be limiting the delivery hours from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. With the removal of the overlays, the proposed senior living facility will comply with the General Commercial (“C-G”) development standards. As part of the new development, a 4-foot dedication along W. Colorado Boulevard will be granted to the City for future sidewalk purposes. As a result, the size of the lot will be reduced from 2.83 to 2.79 acres. With the reduction to the overall size of the lot, the proposed project will still comply with the maximum Floor Area Ratio (“FAR”) of .50 or 60,766 square feet; the proposed project at 44,192 square feet is 16,574 square feet below the maximum. The proposed development will have a side yard setback of 76’-7”, where 10’-0” is required, and a rear yard setback of 94’-0”, where 20’-0” is required. The Development Code allows for a maximum height of 40 feet within the General Commercial (“C-G”) Zone. The majority of the building will extend up to approximately 30’-0” in height, with a tower element in the middle portion of the building extending to approximately 37’-5” in height. Vehicular entry to the site will be off West Colorado Boulevard, which leads into the parking lot along the east side of the site. Additionally, a roundabout driveway in front of the building’s entrance is provided to accommodate passenger loading and unloading for the residents. In terms of parking, the project site will provide a total of 58 surface parking spaces, of which 50 will be standard parking stalls seven (7) handicap parking spaces, and one (1) loading space – refer to the site plan (Figure No. 3) and Attachment No. 4 for the Architectural Plans. The Development Code requires one (1) parking space for every three (3) licensed beds for a residential care facility. With a total of 80 beds proposed, the project requires a total of 27 parking spaces for the residents and visitors. Although the Code does not require additional parking for the employees, the Applicant is proposing 32 more parking spaces to ensure there is sufficient parking for the entire staff (up to 24 employees) at any given time. As part of the facility’s operation, transportation shall be provided for the residents for doctor visits and supervised outings. The Applicant is also proposing an 8-foot-tall wooden fence around the perimeter of the building to enclose outdoor garden area – refer to the blue line on the site plan above for the location of the fence. The fence exceeds the maximum permitted height of 6’-0” by two additional feet. The purpose for the taller fence is to secure the site properly and Artis Senior Living Care Facility 1150 W. Colorado Boulevard August 18, 2020 Page 5 of 26 ensure protection of the residents, who have memory care needs and require extra security. With the exception of the fence height, the proposed project complies with all of the regulations set forth by the Development Code. The west and east sides of the fencing will be significantly distanced from the property lines, which will reduce the overall appearance of its height. Along the southern property line, the tall fence will provide a sufficient buffer for the nearby residences. The Development Code allows a large-residential care facility within the General Commercial (“C-G”) Zone subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. In order to accommodate the proposed facility, the Applicant is requesting removal of two existing overlays on the project site - Architectural Design (D) overlay zone and the Automobile Parking (P) overlay zone. The purpose of the overlays when they were established was to ensure that any development would be in scale and compatible with the adjacent residential properties and for the parking lot to act as a buffer between the commercial use and the adjacent residential properties. Under the current Architectural Design (D) overlay zone, the maximum permitted building size is 19,500 square feet, which calculates to 16% of the lot area. The underlying General Commercial (“C-G”) zone allows a maximum Floor Area Ratio of .50 which calculates to 60,766 square feet. The proposed senior assisted living care facility is proposed at 44,192 square feet which is 16,574 square feet below the maximum and calculates to 36% of the lot size. Although the proposed facility is larger than the existing building as well as what is currently allowed with the overlay, the Applicant proposes a design that will maintain the overall intent of the existing overlays. The proposed development will be placed at a minimum of 76’-7” away from the adjoining residential properties to the south, and 94’-0” from the residential properties to the east. Between the facility and the residential properties, a parking and landscape buffer is proposed. Additionally, the Applicant is proposing to maintain all of the mature trees along the property lines to screen the project from the adjacent residential properties. Therefore, the proposed removal of the existing overlays will not have a significant impact to the adjacent properties as the applicant has put a lot of consideration into the design and layout of the project. The Artis senior facility is a well thought out design that will allow for a financially feasible project while minimizing building height and providing significant setbacks in order to be sensitive to the adjacent residential properties. The project will provide housing options to the aging population of the region, and assistance for those with memory care needs. With all of the recent retraction in commercial uses throughout the region, changes in use from “typical” retail and commercial uses are becoming common. The City has been supportive of these “marginal” commercial sites transitioning to residential or pseudo- commercial uses such as this over time. Artis Senior Living Care Facility 1150 W. Colorado Boulevard August 18, 2020 Page 6 of 26 As proposed, the proposed senior living care facility is consistent with the following goals and policies of the Land Use Element of the Arcadia General Plan: • Goal LU-1: A balance of land uses that preserves Arcadia’s status as a Community of Homes and a community of opportunity. • Policy LU-1.1: Promote new infill and redevelopment projects that are consistent with the City’s land use and compatible with surrounding existing uses. • Policy LU-1.2: Promote new uses of land that provide diverse economic, social, and cultural opportunities, and that reinforce the characteristics that make Arcadia a desirable place to live. • Policy LU-1.5: Require that effective buffer areas be created between land uses that are of significantly different character or that have operating characteristics which could create nuisances along common boundary. Architectural Style The Artis Senior Living Facility has been designed to complement the adjoining residential properties and will enhance the overall streetscape – refer to the rendering below and Attachment No. 4 for the Architectural Plans and Renderings. The proposed Traditional/Cape Cod Architectural style helps blend the senior living care facility with the adjoining residential properties. The design includes a large and prominent front entry porch. The building is designed in a W-shaped layout with a tower element in the center to provide variation to the building height and visual appeal. The design contains architectural features such as white colored vertical and horizontal cement fiber board siding, black wooden shutters, black walnut-colored asphalt shingles, and brick stonework at the base of the building that are commonly found within the Traditional and Cape Cod architectural styles and are present features in nearby residential uses. The design also includes decorative features, such as white colored trellises along the sides, white- wooden corbels under the eaves of the screen porches along the sides of the building, Artis Senior Living Care Facility 1150 W. Colorado Boulevard August 18, 2020 Page 7 of 26 and a small, decorative cupola at the top of the building. The windows will be recessed from the exterior walls by 2 inches to provide depth to the exterior façade – refer to Condition # 31. The use of varied massing and materials with articulation on each of the building façades increases the visual interest of the development. The overall design has a balanced and aesthetically pleasing design that will complement the surrounding residential properties and the general vicinity. Lastly, the location provides a focal westerly entry point to the City. Although commercial buildings are encouraged to be placed closer to the street, the proposed senior living care facility acts more like a residential building, and will provide a comparable streetscape with the surrounding residential properties that have large front or street side yard setbacks along Colorado Boulevard. Protected Tree Encroachment Permit The project requires a protected tree encroachment application to allow site improvements such as new hardscape, fencing, and a minor grade change to encroach underneath the dripline of nine (9) protected trees that consist of five (5) Fern Pine trees, two (2) Carrotwood trees, one (1) South Magnolia tree, and one (1) Japanese Pear tree. Per the Arcadia Tree Protection Ordinance, these trees are considered protected as they are located within the required setbacks and meet the minimum trunk diameters. The Certified Arborist determined that the proposed encroachments will not adversely affect the long-term health of the protected trees as long as the mitigations and recommendations listed in the Arborist Report are followed. Additionally, prior to demolition of the existing structure, the contractor will be required to meet and consult with the Certified Arborist onsite to ensure all measures are applied and to review the goals for the tree protection plan. A tree protection zone fence shall be required around Figure No. 4 Rendering from W. Colorado Blvd. Artis Senior Living Care Facility 1150 W. Colorado Boulevard August 18, 2020 Page 8 of 26 all protected trees throughout the construction of the project. Therefore, it has been determined that the proposed encroachments of the protected trees will not adversely affect the long-term health of the trees. FINDINGS Pursuant to Section 9108.03.060(B) of the Development Code, an amendment to the Arcadia Zoning Map may be approved only if the following finding is satisfied: 1. The proposed Zoning Map Amendment is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan(s). Facts to Support the Finding: The proposed Zone Change and Zoning Map Amendment to remove the two existing overlays (Architectural Design (D) Overlay Zone and Automobile Parking (P) Overlay Zone) are consistent with the General Plan in that the underlying land use of Commercial will remain the same, and the change will allow the property owner to redevelop the site to its full potential without negatively impacting adjacent properties. The proposed Zone Change and Zoning Map Amendment will not have any detrimental effect upon the health, safety and general welfare of the City, nor will it have an effect on the conditions of the built environment since the amendments only consist of removing two overlays while maintaining the existing zoning classification and General Plan Land Use designation. The proposed Zone Change and Zoning Map Amendment are consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Arcadia General Plan. The proposed Zone Change will be consistent with the following General Plan goals and policies: Land Use and Community Development Element • Policy LU-1.6: Establish consistency between the Land Use Plan and the Zoning Code. • Policy LU-1.1: Promote new infill and redevelopment projects that are consistent with the City’s land use and compatible with surrounding existing uses. Conditional Use Permit Section 9107.09.050(B) of the Development Code requires that for a Conditional Use Permit to be granted, it must be found that all of the following prerequisite findings can be satisfied: Artis Senior Living Care Facility 1150 W. Colorado Boulevard August 18, 2020 Page 9 of 26 1. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. Facts to Support This Finding: Approval of the proposed senior assisted living care facility will be consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation of Commercial. The underlying zone allows a broad array of commercial uses that serve both the neighborhood and citywide. The proposed senior assisted living care facility will allow a business that can serve the aging population of the City, specifically those with Alzheimer’s disease and related memory delays. The residential care facility is a use permitted in the General Commercial (“C-G”) Zone subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. It will not adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan, and is consistent with the following General Plan goals and policies: • Goal LU-1: A balance of land uses that preserves Arcadia’s status as a Community of Homes and a community of opportunity. • Policy LU-1.1: Promote new infill and redevelopment projects that are consistent with the City’s land use and compatible with surrounding existing uses. • Policy LU-1.2: Promote new uses of land that provide diverse economic, social, and cultural opportunities, and that reinforce the characteristics that make Arcadia a desirable place to live. • Policy LU-1.5: Require that effective buffer areas be created between land uses that are of significantly different character or that have operating characteristics which could create nuisances along common boundary. 2. The proposed use is allowed within the applicable zone, subject to the granting of a Conditional Use Permit, and complies with all other applicable provisions of the Development Code and the Municipal Code. Facts to Support This Finding: The site is zoned General Commercial (“C-G”) and pursuant to the Arcadia Development Code Section 9102.03.020, Table 2-8, allows a Large-Residential Care Facility in the General Commercial C-G zone subject to the review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit. With the removal of the two existing overlays, the proposed project complies will all the development standards of the General Commercial C-G Zone. In addition, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), the Development Services Department prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) for the proposed project, which determined that the project, with mitigation measures, will have less-than- significant impacts. Lastly, the proposed residential care facility complies with all other applicable provisions of the Development Code. Artis Senior Living Care Facility 1150 W. Colorado Boulevard August 18, 2020 Page 10 of 26 3. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed activity will be compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity. Facts to Support This Finding: The Artis senior living facility is a well thought out design that is not only compatible in scale and design with the adjacent residential properties to the east and south, but will also compliment the other commercial properties along the commercial corner intersection of West Colorado Boulevard and Michillinda Avenue. The proposed development will be placed over 75 feet from the adjacent residential properties with a parking and landscape buffer between the facility and the residential uses. The project will redevelop the site with a senior assisted living care facility with an appropriate use and development that will not impact adjacent properties. With the exception of the perimeter fence that exceeds the maximum height limit, the project complies with all related zoning requirements as set forth in the Development Code and all applicable regulations and requirements set forth by various City Departments. The site will be adequately served by all the required utilities and public services. Therefore, the project site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed development. Parking for the project is above the minimum Code requirement and, thus, no parking impacts are expected. Additionally, the proposed project will result in an overall reduction of vehicular traffic as compared to the existing use and nearly any other use that could be considered for the property. Thus, the proposed senior assisted living care facility will be compatible with the existing and future uses in the vicinity. 4. The site is physically suitable in terms of: a. Its design, location, shape, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed use in order to accommodate the use, and all fences, landscaping, loading, parking, spaces, walls, yards, and other features required to adjust the use with the land and uses in the neighborhood; Facts to Support This Finding: The site measures approximately 2.79 acres. The subject site can physically support the proposed senior living care facility. At 44,192 square feet the building is 16,574 square feet below the maximum permitted Floor Area Ratio for the site. The project will provide more than the required amount of parking, which will be dedicated to employees and visitors in order to prevent any parking issues. Lastly, the new building has been placed over 75 feet away from the side and rear setbacks in order to be sensitive to the adjacent residential properties to the east and south and to provide an adequate buffer. Therefore, the site is adequate in size to accommodate the new senior assisted living care facility. b. Streets and highways adequate in width and pavement type to accommodate public and emergency vehicle (e.g., fire and medical) access. Artis Senior Living Care Facility 1150 W. Colorado Boulevard August 18, 2020 Page 11 of 26 Facts to Support This Finding: The project will be located at the southeast corner of West Colorado Boulevard and Michillinda Avenue. Although the project will only have an access point off of West Colorado Boulevard, both streets have been designated and designed with the capacity to accommodate both normal public vehicular travel and emergency vehicles. These streets are adequate in width and pavement type to carry the traffic that would be generated by the proposed senior facility, and to support emergency vehicle access. The streets will be able to handle the demand from this new use since the proposed project would generate less traffic than the previous use. c. Public protection services (e.g., fire protection, police protection, etc.). Facts to Support This Finding: The construction of a senior assisted care facility will comply with all Building and Fire Codes, and all other applicable regulations to ensure the safety of the residents as well as help reduce the creation of fire hazards and facilitate emergency response. As part of the environmental review process, the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) determined that Fire and Police protection services can handle the demand for the proposed senior assisted living care facility. d. The provision of utilities (e.g., potable water, schools, solid waste collection and disposal, storm drainage, wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal, etc.). Facts to Support This Finding: It has been determined that the existing infrastructure and public utilities can handle the demand for the proposed senior assisted living care facility, and that no upgrades are necessary. The proposed project is required to comply with the Low Impact Development (“LID”) requirements for stormwater discharge. 5. The measure of site suitability shall be required to ensure that the type, density, and intensity of use being proposed will not adversely affect the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare, constitute a nuisance, or be materially injurious to the improvements, persons, property, or uses in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located. Facts to Support This Finding: The proposed senior facility is not expected to be detrimental to the public health or welfare, or the surrounding residential and commercial properties. The project will be compatible in terms of scale and design with the adjoining residential properties to the east and south. The project includes setbacks that far exceed the minimum requirements and provide a large landscape and parking buffer. The project proposes to maintain all existing mature trees along the perimeter to minimize any potential impacts to the adjacent residents. The delivery Artis Senior Living Care Facility 1150 W. Colorado Boulevard August 18, 2020 Page 12 of 26 hours will be limited to certain hours to in order to be considerate of the adjacent neighbors. The project will provide more than the required amount of parking, which will be dedicated to employees and visitors in order to prevent any parking issue. The construction of the project will meet all Building and Fire Codes, and all other applicable regulations. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) prepared for the senior assisted living care facility analyzed all the potential impacts, and all the project impacts are less than significant or can be reduced to less than significant level with the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. Therefore, the proposed project will not adversely affect the public in general nor will it impact to the uses in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located. Administrative Modification The project requires a modification to allow a fence to exceed the permitted height. Pursuant to Section 9107.05.050(B) of the Development Code, it is required that the City Council make at least one of the following findings in order to approve the subject modification request: 1. Promote uniformity of development; 2. Prevent an unreasonable hardship; or 3. Secure an appropriate improvement of a parcel The proposed 8’-0” tall fence along the perimeter of the building and outdoor open space will secure an appropriate improvement of the lot because the additional height of 2’-0” will properly secure the site that is necessary to protect the residents. The residents are expected to be individuals with memory issues, and this requires additional security measures. To help soften the appearance of the fence from the street, a condition has been placed on the project that some hedges and/or trees shall be spread out in front of the fence (refer to Condition no. 6). In addition, because the fence will be substantially set back from the street frontage, its overall appearance will be diminished. All City requirements regarding disabled access and facilities, occupancy limits, building safety, health code compliance, emergency equipment, environmental regulation compliance, and parking and site design shall be complied with by the property owner/applicant to the satisfaction of the Building Official, City Engineer, Planning & Community Development Administrator, Fire Marshal, and Public Works Services Director, or their respective designees. Artis Senior Living Care Facility 1150 W. Colorado Boulevard August 18, 2020 Page 13 of 26 PLANNING COMMISSION This project was presented to the Planning Commission at their regular meeting on July 14, 2020, for their consideration and recommendation to the City Council - refer to Attachment No. 5 for the Planning Commission Minutes, dated July 14, 2020, and Attachment No. 6 for Planning Commission Staff Report, dated July 14, 2020, which includes public comments. After discussion, the Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the project to the City Council with the following additional conditions and recommendations: 1. All windows shall be recessed at least two inches from the exterior wall; and 2. All the parking lot lighting shall be shielded downward and/or have cutoff inserts in the fixture to minimize any potential light and glare to the adjacent residential properties. 3. The Applicant should distribute a bilingual, Chinese-translated notice to neighboring residents to alleviate any potential confusion over the proposed height and project characteristics; 4. Require additional disabled, ADA compliant parking spaces in excess of the four currently proposed; and 5. Restrict the hours for deliveries from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. In an effort to address the recommendations provided by the Planning Commission, the Applicant revised the parking layout and provided three more ADA parking spaces for a total of seven spaces in the front parking lot near the building entry – refer to Attachment No. 4. This reduced the overall parking count from 59 to 58 parking spaces, which still exceeds the Code requirements. Lastly, the Applicant had all the public outreach materials and website translated into Chinese (www.ArtisArcadia.com). ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), the Development Services Department prepared the attached Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) for the proposed project - refer to Attachment No. 7. The project with mitigation measures will have less-than-significant impacts in the following areas: Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Noise, and Tribal Cultural Resources. A detailed review is included in the IS/MND. The mitigation measures have been added as conditions of approval (Condition of Approval Nos. 33-41) for the project. The City has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”). Artis Senior Living Care Facility 1150 W. Colorado Boulevard August 18, 2020 Page 14 of 26 In accordance with Section 21091 of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and Section 15073 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) for the senior living care facility was circulated for public review and comments for 30 days from April 23, 2020, to May 22, 2020. Due to Covid-19, the IS/MND circulation period was extended from 20 to 29 days to give additional time for comments. During this time period, public agencies, organizations, the residents within a 300-foot radius, and the public in general were afforded the opportunity to review the Draft IS/MND and submit written comments regarding the documents and the proposed project. During the comment period, two comment letters were received from the following agencies: • South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAMD”), dated May 5, 2020. SCAQMD recommended that the City perform a mobile source health risk assessment (“HRA”) to disclose the potential health risks in the Final MND and incorporate strategies to reduce exposures by senior residents to toxic air contaminants from vehicles and trucks traveling on I-210. • California Department of Fish and Wildlife, dated May 21, 2020. The agency determined that the project is deemed to have a potential impact on fish and wildlife, and, a CEQA filing fee is required to be paid to the Los Angeles County Clerk’s Office upon submittal of Notice of Determination for the environmental document. The City Council is required to consider the IS/MND together with any comments received during the public review process (attached). Following receipt of the comment submitted by SCAQMD, Staff consulted with the CEQA consultant and City Attorney and it was determined that the analysis was not necessary for this type of project nor did the determination of the Initial Study require any changes. With regard to the Fish and Wildlife comment, upon the fling of the Notice of Determination with the Los Angeles County of Clerk’s Office, the CEQA filing fee shall be paid to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. PUBLIC NOTICE/COMMENTS The public hearing notices for this City Council meeting were mailed to the owners of those properties that were located within 300 feet of the subject property and published in the Arcadia Weekly on July 30, 2020. As of August 13, 2020, the City has not received any additional comments from the public. FISCAL IMPACT The proposed project will increase the assessed value of the subject property, which will result in some additional property taxes to the City. The project will not have a significant impact on City services. Artis Senior Living Care Facility 1150 W. Colorado Boulevard August 18, 2020 Page 15 of 26 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The following Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures are recommended and are included as part of Resolution No. 7330: 1. The project shall be developed and maintained by the Property Owner/Applicant in a manner that is consistent with the plans submitted and conditionally approved for ZC 19-01, ADR 18-22, CUP 19-03, AM Minor 19-22, and TRE 20-04, subject to the satisfaction of the Planning & Community Development Administrator or designee. 2. The Property Owner/Applicant shall submit an official ALTA survey of the property to the City prior to submitting plans into Building Services for plan check. The City shall retain all access and other rights over the sanitary sewer easement and storm drain easement that are located on and under the subject property, and the Property Owner/Applicant shall make any adjustment, modifications, and/or abandon the sewer line in its development of the property, or amendments to current easement of record, deemed by the City to reasonably necessary for the City to maintain such infrastructure and access. All new or existing manholes to remain on the site as part of the new development shall be within a paved area. Final placement of the manholes shall be subject to review and approval of the Public Works Department. Any agreement that is required by the City to allow the development to occur over the easements shall be prepared by the Property Owner/Applicant and shall be subject to approval by the City Attorney prior to recordation in the Los Angeles County Recorder’s Office. For purposes of the City Attorney review of any such document, the Property Owner/Applicant shall submit to the City a deposit of $5,000, of which any funds remaining after review and approval by the City shall be returned to the Property Owner/Applicant. 3. Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, the Property Owner/ Applicant shall submit to Planning Services a copy of the form of lease or occupancy agreement that will be utilized for the proposed senior living facility. The form of such agreement must require all future residents to acknowledge the potential health risk associated with living within 500 feet of a freeway. Such acknowledgment shall be placed in all such future agreements for the senior living facility. 4. The Property Owner/Applicant shall submit a haul route map and construction staging plan to Planning Services prior to issuance of a Demolition permit. 5. The Property Owner/Applicant shall be responsible for the repair of all damage to public improvements in the public right-of-way resulting from construction related activities, including, but not limited to, the movement and/or delivery of equipment, materials, and soils to and/or from the site. The need for such repair shall be determined by the Planning & Community Development Administrator and the Public Artis Senior Living Care Facility 1150 W. Colorado Boulevard August 18, 2020 Page 16 of 26 Works Director, or designees, during construction and up until issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 6. The final landscape plan that is submitted to Building Services for plan check shall be revised to include hedges and/or trees placed in front of the 8-foot wooden fence along Michillinda Avenue to the satisfaction of the Planning & Community Development Administrator. 7. The plans that are submitted to Building Services for plan check shall comply with the latest adopted edition of the following codes as applicable: a. California Building Code b. California Electrical Code c. California Mechanical Code d. California Plumbing Code e. California Energy Code f. California Fire Code g. California Green Building Standards Code h. California Existing Building Code 8. The grading plans shall indicate all site improvements and shall indicate complete drainage paths of all drainage water run-off. 9. Prior to the issuance of a building permit from Building Services, the Property Owner/Applicant shall irrevocably dedicate to the City 4 feet along the frontage of West Colorado Boulevard for a total parkway width of 12 feet, as measured from curb to property line. A corner cutback at Michillinda Avenue/Colorado Boulevard is also required to accommodate an ADA curb per Caltrans standard A88A. Both dedications shall be subject to review and approval by the Deputy Development Services Director/Engineer. 10. The Property Owner/Applicant shall be required to remove and replace existing sidewalk, curb and gutter along the property frontage of Michillinda Avenue and West Colorado Boulevard. 11. Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy by Building Services, the Property Owner/Applicant shall modify the median island left turn pocket to accommodate the driveway approach on West Colorado Boulevard in accordance with plans which shall be subject to approval by the Deputy Development Services Director/Engineer, or designee. Artis Senior Living Care Facility 1150 W. Colorado Boulevard August 18, 2020 Page 17 of 26 12. The Property Owner/Applicant shall be required to remove the existing driveway approaches and construct a new driveway approach along West Colorado Boulevard per City Standard with ADA access around the approach. 13. A Low Impact Development (“LID”) plan is required for this development. It shall comply with the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works 2014 LID standard manual, and the measurements must be shown on the grading plan. These measurements shall include using infiltration trenches, bioretention planter boxes, roof drains connected to a landscaped area, pervious concrete/paver, etc. 14. The Property Owner/Applicant shall coordinate with the Public Works Services Department on the replacement and/or protection of street trees prior to issuance of a grading permit from Building Services. 15. The building shall be fully fire sprinklered per the City of Arcadia Fire Department Commercial Sprinklers Standards. 16. The Property Owner/Applicant shall install three (3) new fire hydrants, two along the City’s right-away and one on the site as part of the project. The location shall be depicted on the site plan and shall be subject to review and approval by the Fire Marshal prior to issuance of a building permit for the project. 17. Knox boxes shall be provided at the front entry and exterior doors at the southeast and southwest stairwells. Stairwell doors shall be keyed to provide for exterior emergency access. 18. In order to verify the required water service size for the project, the Property Owner/Applicant shall submit to the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of a building permit calculations for the maximum commercial use demand and maximum fire demand. 19. The Property Owner/Applicant shall provide separate water services and meters for the Residential Care Facility and outdoor irrigation system. A reduced pressure backflow device shall be installed for each water service. 20. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Property Owner/Applicant shall submit a Water Meter Permit Application to the Public Works Services Department. 21. The Property Owner/Applicant shall provide a new water service installation. Installation shall be according to the specifications of the Public Works Services Department, Engineering Division. Abandonment of existing water services, if necessary, shall be completed by the Property Owner/Applicant, according to Public Works Services Department, Engineering Section specifications. 22. Prior to the issuance of a Building permit, the Property Owner/Applicant shall provide a Sewer Area Study to determine whether or not the existing 8-inch Vitrified Clay Artis Senior Living Care Facility 1150 W. Colorado Boulevard August 18, 2020 Page 18 of 26 Pipe (“VCP”) City sewer line on the site is capable of meeting all anticipated demands of the proposed project. 23. The Property Owner/Applicant shall utilize existing sewer lateral(s) if possible. 24. If any drainage fixture elevation is lower than the elevation of the next upstream manhole cover, the Property Owner/Applicant shall be required to use an approved type of backwater valve. 25. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Property Owner/Applicant shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (“SWPPP”) and shall obtain a Waste Discharge Identification (“WDID”) number from the State. 26. The project shall be subject to Industrial Waste management requirements and a grease interceptor is required for the kitchen facility. This shall be subject to the review and approval by the Public Works Services Department. 27. The trash enclosure area shall be installed the Property Owner/Applicant and shall comply with the following: a. A minimum interior width of 9’-7” in order to accommodate a three 3-yard bin. b. Shall include trash, recycling and organics recycling bins. c. Provide a minimum of one (1) foot clearance around the trash bin/recycling bin/organics bin. 28. The Property Owner/Applicant shall comply with all City requirements regarding building safety, fire prevention, detection, suppression, emergency access, public right-of-way improvements, parking, water supply and water facilities, sewer facilities, trash reduction and recycling requirements, and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) measures, all to the satisfaction of the Building Official, Fire Marshal, Public Works Services Director, and Planning & Community Development Administrator. Compliance with these requirements is to be determined by having fully detailed construction plans submitted for plan check review and approval by the foregoing City officials and employees. 29. The Owner/Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Arcadia and its officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Arcadia, its officials, officers, employees or agents to attack, set aside, void, or annul any approval or conditional approval of the City of Arcadia concerning this project and/or land use decision, including but not limited to any approval or conditional approval of the City Council, Planning Commission, or City Staff, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37 or other provision of law applicable to this project or Artis Senior Living Care Facility 1150 W. Colorado Boulevard August 18, 2020 Page 19 of 26 decision. The City shall promptly notify the Applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding concerning the project and/or land use decision and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. The City reserves the right, at its own option, to choose its own attorney to represent the City, its officials, officers, employees, and agents in the defense of the matter. 30. Approval of ZC 19-01, ADR 18-22, CUP 19-03, AM MINOR 19-22, and TRE 20-04 shall not be in effect unless the Property Owner and Applicant have executed and filed the Acceptance Form with the City on or before 30 calendar days after the City Council has adopted the Resolution. The Acceptance Form to the Development Services Department is to indicate awareness and acceptance of the conditions of approval. 31. All the windows shall be recessed at least 2 inches from the exterior walls. 32. All the parking lot lighting shall be shielded downward and/or have a cutoff insert in the fixture to minimize any potential light and glare to the adjacent residential properties. Mitigation Measures as Conditions of Approval The following conditions are found in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”). They are recorded here to facilitate review and implementation. More information on the timing and responsible parties for these mitigation measures are detailed in the MMRP. Biological Resources 33. 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. Artis Senior Living Care Facility 1150 W. Colorado Boulevard August 18, 2020 Page 20 of 26 34. 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: a. 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. b. 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. c. 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. d. 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. e. 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. f. 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. g. Additional construction best practices described in the Protected Tree Report shall be implemented. Cultural Resources 35. 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 Artis Senior Living Care Facility 1150 W. Colorado Boulevard August 18, 2020 Page 21 of 26 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 36. 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. Artis Senior Living Care Facility 1150 W. Colorado Boulevard August 18, 2020 Page 22 of 26 Noise 37. 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: a. 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. b. 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. c. During construction, stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers. d. Prior to issuance of any Grading or Building Permit, the Project applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning & Community Development Administrator (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. e. Construction haul routes shall be designed to avoid noise-sensitive uses (e.g., residences and convalescent homes) to the extent feasible. Tribal Cultural Resources 38. TCR-1: Retain 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 Artis Senior Living Care Facility 1150 W. Colorado Boulevard August 18, 2020 Page 23 of 26 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. 39. TCR-2: 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 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. Artis Senior Living Care Facility 1150 W. Colorado Boulevard August 18, 2020 Page 24 of 26 40. TCR-3: 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. 41. TCR-4: Prior to the continuation of ground disturbing activities, the landowner 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 Artis Senior Living Care Facility 1150 W. Colorado Boulevard August 18, 2020 Page 25 of 26 shall work closely with the qualified archaeologist to ensure that the excavation is treated carefully, ethically and respectfully. If data recovery is approved by the tribe, documentation shall be taken which includes at a minimum detailed descriptive notes and sketches. Additional types of documentation shall be approved by the tribe for data recovery purposes. Cremations 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. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council take the following actions to approve the project. a. Adopt Resolution No. 7330 approving Architectural Design Review No. ADR 18- 22, Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 19-03, Administrative Modification No. AM Minor 19-22, and Protected Tree Encroachment No. TRE 20-04 with a Mitigated Negative Declaration under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) for a new senior assisted living care facility with memory care at 1150 W. Colorado Boulevard; and b. Introduce Ordinance No. 2372 approving Zone Change No. ZC 19-01 and Zoning Map Amendment to remove the two existing overlays (Architectural Design (D) Overlay Zone and Automobile Parking (P) Overlay Zone) at 1150 W. Colorado Boulevard. Artis Senior Living Care Facility 1150 W. Colorado Boulevard August 18, 2020 Page 26 of 26 Attachment No. 1: Resolution No. 7330 Attachment No. 2: Ordinance No. 2372 Attachment No. 3: Aerial Photo and Zoning Information and Photos of the Subject Property Attachment No. 4: Architectural Plans and Renderings Attachment No. 5: Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes, dated July 14, 2020 Attachment No. 6: Planning Commission Resolution No. 2058 and Planning Commission Staff Report dated July 14, 2020 including all attachments and public comments Attachment No. 7: Draft IS/MND, Response to Comments, and MMRP – Technical Studies (Appendix A –E) can be found at www.Arcadica.gov/projects Attachment No. 1 Resolution No. 7330 Attachment No. 1 $WWDFKPHQW1R 2UGLQDQFH1R $WWDFKPHQW1R Attachment No. 3 Aerial Photo with Zoning Information and Photos of the Subject Property and the Surrounding Properties Attachment No. 3 Overlays Selected parcel highlighted Parcel location within City of Arcadia N/A Property Owner(s): Lot Area (sq ft): Year Built: Main Structure / Unit (sq. ft.): C-G Number of Units: C Property Characteristics 1976 13,088 0 ARTIS SENIOR LIVING OF ARCADIA LLC Site Address:1150 W COLORADO BLVD Parcel Number: 5776-001-012 N/A Zoning: General Plan: N/A Downtown Overlay: Downtown Parking Overlay: Architectural Design Overlay:Yes N/A N/A Yes, N/A Residential Flex Overlay: N/A N/A Yes, N/A Yes Special Height Overlay: N/A Parking Overlay: Racetrack Event Overlay: This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. Report generated 22-Jun-2020 Page 1 of 1 Subject site Subject site: West view Subject site: East view Subject site: East view Subject site: West view Subject site: East parking lot area Subject site: South parking lot area Subject site: South parking lot area I-210 Freeway located north of the site Commercial building located across the street Gas station located across the street Residential properties to the south west of the site Residential properties that abut to the east of the site along N. Altura Rd. Residential properties that abut to the east of the site along N. Altura Rd. Residential properties that abut to the south of the site along Altura Terrace . Residential properties that abut to the east of the site along N. Altura Rd. Residential properties that abut to the south of the site along Altura Terrace . Residential properties that abut to the south of the site along Altura Terrace . Residential properties that abut to the south of the site along Altura Terrace . Attachment No. 4 Architectural Plans and Renderings CIVIL ENGINEERS I LAND SURVEYORS P. 559-320-0344 I F. 559-320-0345 I WWW.GATEWAYENG.COM 405 PARK CREEK DRIVE, CLOVIS, CA 93611-443507/22/202012N LEGENDSITE INFORMATIONCONSTRUCTION LEGENDPROPOSEDBUILDINGCOLORADO STREETMICHILLINDA STREETLEGAL DESCRIPTIONEXCEPTIONS (EASEMENTS):ADDITIONAL EASEMENTS20'26'20'1.5'18.5' Know what'sbelow.Callbefore you dig.RCIVIL ENGINEERS I LAND SURVEYORS P. 559-320-0344 I F. 559-320-0345 I WWW.GATEWAYENG.COM 405 PARK CREEK DRIVE, CLOVIS, CA 93611-443508/04/202022N NOTESGRADING LEGENDCONSTRUCTION SYMBOLSCOLORADO STREETMICHILLINDA STREETPROPOSED BUILDINGFINISHED FLOOR = 646.75 CIVIL ENGINEERS I LAND SURVEYORS P. 559-320-0344 I F. 559-320-0345 I WWW.GATEWAYENG.COM 405 PARK CREEK DRIVE, CLOVIS, CA 93611-443503/05/202012N LEGENDSITE INFORMATIONCONSTRUCTION LEGENDPROPOSEDBUILDINGCOLORADO STREETMICHILLINDA STREETLEGAL DESCRIPTIONEXCEPTIONS (EASEMENTS):ADDITIONAL EASEMENTS R1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1DUMPSTERMICHILLINDA STREETW COLORADO BLVD4HCHCHCHCGATE WITH KNOX BOX22' - 11"33' - 7"GENERATORFIRE DEPT. TURN AROUND150' FIRE HOSE117' FIRE HOSE150' FIRE HOSE150' FIRE HOSEGATE WITH KNOX BOXGATE WITH KNOX BOXKNOX BOXGATE WITH KNOX BOX133' FIRE HOSE75' FIRE HOSE150' FIRE HOSEKNOX BOXKNOX BOXFIRE TRUCK STAGGING AREAFIRE TRUCK STAGGING AREAFIRE TRUCK STAGGING AREAFIRE TRUCK STAGGING AREAFIRE TRUCK STAGGING AREAGATE WITH KNOX BOXDrawn:Checked:Scale:1902 campus commons drivesuite 101reston, virginia 20191Tel: 703.476.3900Fax: 703.264.0733www.archinc.comIssuedAll reproduction + intellectual property rights reserved by Architecture Incorporated © 2015 1" = 20'-0"C:\Users\MalachyM\Documents\17005-17 Artis SL_Acadia CENTRAL-CURRENT_MalachyM.rvt9/4/2019 6:45:18 PMAS5.0FIRE PLANProject: 17005.17AuthorChecker08/30/191150 W. COLORADO BLVD.ARCADIA, CA 91007Artis Senior Living of ArcadiaARTIS SENIOR LIVINGENTITLEMENTENTITLEMENTREVISIONS 1" = 20'-0"1FIRE PLAN DWREF.DWREF.REF.REF.REF.W237' - 6 3/4"12' - 0 1/4"47' - 4 5/8"28' - 10 3/4"60' - 11 5/8"28' - 10 3/4"47' - 4 5/8"12' - 0 1/4"2' - 8 1/4"22' - 8 1/2"22' - 0"28' - 10 3/4"28' - 10 3/4"22' - 0"22' - 8 1/2"2' - 8 1/4"1' - 4 3/4"41' - 11 1/2"92' - 9 1/8"26' - 11 1/8"18' - 6 1/2"28' - 10 3/4"28' - 10 3/4"18' - 6 1/2"26' - 11 1/8"98' - 4 3/4"1' - 4 3/4"41' - 11 1/2"111' - 10 1/8"155' - 2 1/4"6' - 9 1/4"16' - 10 3/4" 0" 12' - 6"16' - 10 3/4" 0" 12' - 6"12' - 6" 0" 16' - 10 3/4"12' - 6" 0" 16' - 10 3/4"1044 SFCORR.118 SFMECH90 SFLAUNDRY48 SFST.SCREENPORCH646 SFDINING ROOM504 SFFAMILY ROOM68 SFST.113 SFSTAIR 3503 SFFAMILY ROOM645 SFDINNING ROOM120 SFPANTRY90 SFLAUNDRY48 SFST.118 SFMECHSCREENPORCH216 SFUNIT-1222 SFUNIT-1216 SFUNIT-1216 SFUNIT-1216 SFUNIT-2216 SFUNIT-3234 SFUNIT-2234 SFUNIT-3216 SFUNIT-2294 SFUNIT-4-HC221 SFUNIT-2302 SFUNIT-3-HC294 SFUNIT-4-HC221 SFUNIT-2302 SFUNIT-3-HC13' - 6 1/4" 12' - 6 1/2" 12' - 5 1/2" 12' - 6 1/2" 12' - 5 1/2" 12' - 6 1/2" 12' - 5 1/2" 12' - 6 3/4"12' - 6 5/8"12' - 5 1/2"12' - 6 1/2"12' - 5 1/2"12' - 6 1/2"12' - 5 1/2"12' - 6 1/2"13' - 6"68 SFST.113 SFSTAIR 3222 SFUNIT-1216 SFUNIT-1216 SFUNIT-1216 SFUNIT-2216 SFUNIT-3234 SFUNIT-2234 SFUNIT-313' - 6 1/4" 12' - 6 1/4" 12' - 5 1/2" 12' - 6 1/2" 12' - 5 1/2" 12' - 6 1/2" 12' - 5 1/2" 12' - 6 3/4"13' - 6"12' - 6 1/2" 12' - 5 1/2" 12' - 6 1/2" 12' - 5 1/2" 12' - 6 1/2" 12' - 5 1/2" 12' - 6 5/8"45' - 5 5/8"28' - 10 3/4"60' - 11 5/8"28' - 10 3/4"45' - 5 5/8"ROOF OVERHANGPORCH ROOF OVERHANGROOF OVERHANGCANOPY OVERHANGROOF OVERHANGPORCH ROOF OVERHANGROOF OVERHANGCANOPY OVERHANGROOF OVERHANGROOF OVERHANG18' - 6 1/2"6' - 7 3/8"18' - 6 1/2"18' - 6 1/2"6' - 7 3/8"18' - 6 1/2"233 SFUNIT 1233 SFUNIT -1216 SFUNIT-1216 SFUNIT-113' - 0 5/8"13' - 0 5/8"216 SFUNIT-1216 SFUNIT-1233 SFUNIT-1233 SFUNIT-1216 SFUNIT-1216 SFUNIT-1216 SFUNIT-1216 SFUNIT-1216 SFUNIT-1216 SFUNIT-1216 SFUNIT-1216 SFUNIT-1216 SFUNIT-11043 SFCORR.119 SFPANTRY19' - 1"98 SFCORR98 SFCORR742 SFCOMMUNITY CENTER76 SFPROGRAM SERVICES82 SFPROGRAM SERVICESSTORAGE51 SFJC502 SFACTIVITIES42 SFST.48 SFVISITOR TLT292 SFGEN. STORAGECOMMONSCOMMONS50 SFSTAFF TLT66 SFDES72 SFPORCH68 SFPORCH209 SFLOUNGECOMMONS505 SFKITCHEN128 SFELEC52 SFVISITORS TLT262 SFLOBBY71 SFWORK RM.124 SFMARKETING100 SFDIRECTOR154 SFCONF.44 SFVEST133 SFFOOD STORAGE78 SFREC.42 SFJC79 SFCORR.45' - 2 1/8"13' - 0 1/4"CANOPY OVERHANGCANOPY OVERHANGCOMMONS74 SFELEV.Drawn:Checked:Scale:1902 campus commons drivesuite 101reston, virginia 20191Tel: 703.476.3900Fax: 703.264.0733www.archinc.comIssuedAll reproduction + intellectual property rights reserved by Architecture Incorporated © 2015 3/32" = 1'-0"C:\Users\MalachyM\Documents\17005-17 Artis SL_Acadia CENTRAL-CURRENT_MalachyM.rvt9/4/2019 7:25:29 PMA1.1FIRST FLOORPLANProject: 17005.17MMWBO08/30/191150 W. COLORADO BLVD.ARCADIA, CA 91007Artis Senior Living of ArcadiaARTIS SENIOR LIVINGENTITLEMENTENTITLEMENT 3/32" = 1'-0"FIRST FLOOR PLANREVISIONSFIRST FLOOR AREA = 23,806 GSFSECOND FLOOR AREA= 20,465 GSFTOTAL FLOOR AREA = 44,271 GSF FIRST FLOOR UNIT COUNT = 40 UNITSSECOND FLOOR UNIT COUNT= 40 UNITSTOTAL BUILDING UNIT COUNT = 80 UNITS REF.REF.DWDWREF.REF.N503 SFASSEMBLYFAMILYROOM16233.5642 SFASSEMBLYDININGROOM16342.8121 SFEDUCATIONALPANTRY1646200 SFASSEMBLYSCREENPORCH16513.417 SFACCESSORYST.1670.148 SFACCESSORYST.1690.290 SFACCESSORYLAUNDRY1700.3118 SFACCESSORYMECH1710.4505 SFASSEMBLYFAMILYROOM17333.6120 SFEDUCATIONALPANTRY175690 SFACCESSORYLAUNDRY1760.348 SFACCESSORYST.1770.2118 SFACCESSORYMECH1780.4222 SFINSTITUTIONALUNIT-13711.8216 SFINSTITUTIONALUNIT-13721.8216 SFINSTITUTIONALUNIT-33731.8235 SFINSTITUTIONALUNIT-33741.8234 SFINSTITUTIONALUNIT-23751.8216 SFINSTITUTIONALUNIT-23761.8216 SFINSTITUTIONALUNIT-13771.8216 SFINSTITUTIONALUNIT-13781.8216 SFINSTITUTIONALUNIT-23791.8294 SFINSTITUTIONALUNIT-4-HC3822.4221 SFINSTITUTIONALUNIT-23831.8302 SFINSTITUTIONALUNIT-3-HC3862.4294 SFINSTITUTIONALUNIT-4-HC3872.4302 SFINSTITUTIONALUNIT-3-HC3882.417 SFACCESSORYST.4500.1STAIR 3222 SFINSTITUTIONALUNIT-14521.8216 SFINSTITUTIONALUNIT-14531.8216 SFINSTITUTIONALUNIT-34541.8235 SFINSTITUTIONALUNIT-34551.8216 SFINSTITUTIONALUNIT-24561.8216 SFINSTITUTIONALUNIT-14571.8216 SFINSTITUTIONALUNIT-14581.8234 SFINSTITUTIONALUNIT-24591.8194 SFASSEMBLYSCREENPORCH46012.9234 SFINSTITUTIONALUNIT-14721.8216 SFINSTITUTIONALUNIT-14741.8216 SFINSTITUTIONALUNIT-14751.8216 SFINSTITUTIONALUNIT-14881.8216 SFINSTITUTIONALUNIT-14891.8216 SFINSTITUTIONALUNIT-14901.8216 SFINSTITUTIONALUNIT-14911.8216 SFINSTITUTIONALUNIT-14921.8216 SFINSTITUTIONALUNIT-14931.8233 SFINSTITUTIONALUNIT-14941.8233 SFINSTITUTIONALUNIT-14951.8216 SFINSTITUTIONALUNIT-14961.8216 SFINSTITUTIONALUNIT-14971.8216 SFINSTITUTIONALUNIT-14981.8216 SFINSTITUTIONALUNIT-14991.81025 SFCORRIDOR216 SFINSTITUTIONALUNIT-23891.81025 SFCORRIDOR641 SFASSEMBLYDININGROOM50642.7221 SFINSTITUTIONALUNIT-23921.8ACCESSORY STORAGE/MECHANICAL/EQUIP (1:300)KITCHEN (1:200)BUSINESS (1:100)ASSEMBLY (1:15)INSTITUTIONAL (SLEEPING AREAS)(1:120)EDUCATIONAL (1:20)33"33"33"33"FECFECSC2-ASC2-BSC-2BSC2-CDRY TYPE FIRE SPRINKLER AT PORCH, PER CA FIRE CODEDRY TYPE FIRE SPRINKLER AT PORCH, PER CA FIRE CODEDOOR CLOSERS INTO RES ROOM NOT REQUIRED PER SECTION 435.8.4.1 TYP.LAUNDRY ROOMS IS UNDER 100 SF, FIRE RATING NOT REQUIRED PER TABLE 509FR EXT BEARING WALLS STRUCTURE PROTECTION PROVIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH UL ASSEMBLY V454- SEE WALL SECTIONS FOR EXTERIOR FINISHTRAVEL TO SMOKE BARRIER DOOR = 165'-10"MAX ALLOWABLE IS 200' -OKTRAVEL TO SMOKE BARRIER DOOR = 165'-10"MAX ALLOWABLE IS 200' -OKFECFEC33"FECELEVATOR HOISTWAY DOOR OPENING PROTECTION NOT REQUIRED PER SECTION 3006.2ELEVATOR HOISTWAY DOOR OPENING PROTECTION NOT REQUIRED PER SECTION 3006.233"240 SFBUSINESSHEALTHCENTER6462.4201 SFBUSINESSBARBERBEAUTYSHOP650269 SFBUSINESSSPA6510.749 SFBUSINESSVISITORSTLT6490.581 SFBUSINESSOFFICE6470.846 SFACCESSORYST.6480.278 SFACCESSORYJC6450.3298 SFASSEMBLYGALLERY64419.9767 SFASSEMBLYCAFE64351.2159 SFACCESSORYSTORAGE6520.5188 SFKITCHENCAFEPANTRY6531448 SFCORRIDOR69 SFPORCHELEV.ELEV.72 SFPORCH98 SFCORRIDOR98 SFCORRIDOR233 SFUNIT-1661INSITUTIONAL1.8EXIT SIGN WITH LIGHTS AND CHEVRONSEGRESS PATH WITH TRAVEL DISTANCEEXIT DOOR LOAD AND WIDTH EGRESS UNITS PROVIDED34"170FIRE EXTINGUISHERFIRE EXTINGUISHER CABINETELECTRIC WATER COOLERFEFEC1 HOUR RATED SMOKE BARRIER PER 2016 CBC SECTION 435.5.1 ROOM TAG ROOM NUMBER ROOM AREA FUNCTION TYPE OCCUPANT LOADRoom name###AREAOccupancyOccupancy Load Tag ValueLIFE SAFETY LEGEND:EWC1 HOUR FIRE RATING PARTITION CONSTRUCTED PER 2016 CBC SECTION 708 • FOR SEPERATION OF SPACE PER 2016 CBC SECTION 708• FOR DWELLING UNIT SEPARATION PER 2016 CBC SECTION 420.8• FOR CORRIDOR WALLS PER 2016 CBC TABLE 1020.11 HOUR RATED BEARING WALLS, RATED FOR PROTECTION OF STRUCTURE ONLY PER 2016 CBC TABLE 601, NOT AS SEPERATIONDELAYED EGRESS DOORSDENURSE CALL SMOKE COMPARTMENTSC2 HOUR FIRE BARRIER CONSTRUCTED PER 2016 CBC SECTION 707SECOND FLOOR SMOKECOMPARTMENT DIAGRAMSC-1B4,971 SQFTSC-1C7,478 SQFTSC-1C7,478 SQFTDrawn:Checked:Scale:Construction Documents for:1902 campus commons drivesuite 101reston, virginia 20191Tel: 703.476.3900Fax: 703.264.0733www.archinc.comIssuedAll reproduction + intellectual property rights reserved by Architecture Incorporated © 2016A Memory and Assisted Living ResidenceP:\17005-16 Artis Senior Living - Morgan Hill\17005-17 Artis Senior Living - Arcadia\Revit\17005-17 Artis SL_Acadia CENTRAL-CURRENT.rvt2/20/2020 10:52:17 AMAs indicatedLS2.1LIFE SFETY 2NDFLOOR PLANProject: 17005.17AuthorCheckerArtis Senior Living of ArcadiaARTIS SENIOR LIVING1150 W. COLORADO BLVD.ARCADIA, CA 91007ENTITLEMENTENTITLEMENTENTITLEMENT08/30/19Revisions 3/32" = 1'-0"1SECOND FLOOR PLANBUILDING DATA - SPRINKLEREDPROJECT ADDRESS1150 WEST COLORADO BLVD. ARCADIA, CA 91007GENERAL DESCRIPTION2 STORY - 80 BED MEMORY CARE / ASSISTED LIVING FACILITYAPPLICABLE CODES2016 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODEYES2016 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODEYES2016 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODEYES2016 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODEYES2016 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODEYESSTATE OF CALIFORNIA TITLE 22 DIVISON 6 CHAPTER 8RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES FOR THE ELDERLY (RCFE)YESUSE GROUP (SECTION 310.4.1)RESIDENTIALR-2.1CONSTRUCTION TYPE (SECTION 602)NONCOMBUSTIBLEII-APROJECT AREAFIRST FLOOR (GROSS BUILDING AREA):23,767 sfSECOND FLOOR (GROSS BUILDING AREA):20,425 sfTOTAL AREA:44,193 sfALLOWABLE AREA (PER TABLE 506.2)AREA PER TABLE 506.2 (At) (WITHOUT HEIGHT INCREASE) 57,000 SFAREA MODIFICATION: Aa={At+(NS x If} x 2NAMODIFIED ALLOWABLE AREA PER STORYNAFRONTAGE INCREASE (PER 506.3)If={F/P-0.25}W/30NABUILDING HEIGHT / NUMBER OF STORIES (PER TABLE 504.3)NUMBER OF STORIES (ALLOWABLE / PROVIDED)3 STORIES / 2 STORIESBUILDING HEIGHT (ALLOWABLE/ PROVIDED)40'-0" / 35'- 6"FIRE ALARMPER SECTION 907.2.9 OF THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE YESFULLY SPRINKLEDCALIFORNIA FIRE CODE 903.3.1.1 (NFPA13)YESFIRE RESISTANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR BUILDING ELEMENTS (RATING) TABLE 601 (RATING /DESIGN)PRIMARY STRUCTURAL FRAME1 HREXTERIOR BEARING WALLS1 HREXTERIOR NON-LOAD BEARING WALLS0 / NAINTERIOR BEARING WALLS1 HRINTERIOR NON-BEARING WALLS0 / NAFLOOR CONSTRUCTION + SECONDARY MEMBERS1 HRROOF CONSTRUCTION + SECONDARY MEMBERS1 HRMISCELANEOUS FIRE RESISTANCE REQUIREMENTSSHAFT ENCLOSURES (713.4) FIRE BARRIER1 HRSHAFT ENCLOSURES ELEVATOR/MECHANICAL (713.4) 1 HR FIRE BARRIEROCCUPANCY SEPERATION (508.2.4)NOT REQUIREDSLEEPING UNIT SEPERATION EXCEPTION (420.8)1 HR FIRE PARTITIONCO2 DETECTION (915.1.4)YESEMERGENCY RESPONDER RADIO COVERAGE (916)TBD BY FIRE OFFICIALSMOKE COMPARTMENT (435,709) (MIN 2 AREAS0 MAX AREA 22,500 SFSMOKE COMPARTMENT (435, 709) (MIN 2 AREAS) MAX TRAVEL 200'-0"SMOKE COMPARTMENT (435, 709) (MIN 2 AREAS) MIN RATING 1 HRFIRE BLOCKING (718.2)REQUIREDDRAFTSTOPPING (718.4.2) BLG SPRINKLED PER 903.3.1.1 NRINCIDENTAL USE (509)LAUNDRY ROOMS OVER 100 SFNA- SPRINKLEDWASTE AND LINEN COLLECTION ROOMS OVER 100 SF NA- SPRINKLEDSTORAGE ROOMS OVER 100 SFNA- SPRINKLEDINTERIOR WALL & CEILING FINISHES (TABLE 803.11 AND SECTION 803.1)WALLS / CEILINGS - EXIT ENCLOSURE / PASSAGEWAY CLASS BWALLS / CEILINGS - CORRIDORSCLASS CWALLS / CEILINGS - ROOMS + SPACESCLASS CINTERIOR FLOOR FINISHES (804.4.2)INTERIOR FLOOR FINISHES (804.4.2)CLASS 1>OR= 0.45 WATTS/ CM²) PERNFPA 253EGRESS REQUIREMENTSEGRESS STAIR WIDTH REQUIRED (SECTION 1005.3.1; .2" PEROCCUPANT)1ST FLOOR, EXIT AT LEVEL OFDISCHARGEEGRESS STAIR WIDTH REQUIRED (SECTION 1005.3.1; .2" PEROCCUPANT)2ND FLOOR: 63" PROVIDED 156"EGRESS DOOR WIDTH REQUIRED (SECTION 1005.3.2; .15" PEROCCUPANT)1ST FLOOR, REQ: 62" PROVIDED:198"EGRESS DOOR WIDTH REQUIRED (SECTION 1005.3.2; .15" PEROCCUPANT)2ND FLOOR, REQ: 54" PROVIDED: 99"MAXIMUM TRAVEL DISTANCE (TABLE 1017.2)250'-0" MAXIMUMMAXIMUM DEAD END CORRIDOR (1020.4)50'-0"REQUIRED NUMBER OF EXITS (TABLE 1006.3.1)2EXIT DOORWAY SEPARATION (1007.1.1, EXCEPTION 2) 1/3 THE DIAGONAL; DIAGONALDISTANCEMAXIMUM COMMON PATH OF TRAVEL (TABLE 1006.2.1) 75'-0"PLUMBING FIXTURE REQUIREMENTS - CPC 2016Classification OccupancyDescriptionSex WC Occupancy FactorRequiredWCProvidedWCLav OccupancyFactorRequiredLavProvidedLav Bathtubs/ShowersOccupancyFactorRequiredBathtubs/ShowersProvidedBathtub/ShowersRequiredDFProvidedDFService SinkRESIDENTIAL R2-1ASSISTED LIVING FACILITYMALE &FEMALE1 per Room80801 per Room80801 per 1565/761 per 100 21 required perfloor................StaffMALE &FEMALE1 per Facility11-11......Visitors (Including Common Areas)MALE &FEMALE..3..19......................Total PlumbingFixtures....8184.81100 .6814 ProvidedOCCUPANCY SUMMARY - 2ND...NET ROOMAREAAREA PEROCCUPANTOccupancy CLASSIFICATIONOccupantLoad0 SF(none)1.8829 SF300 SF ACCESSORY ACCESSORY - STORAGE AREAS,MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT ROOM32915 SF15 SF ASSEMBLY ASSEMBLY - W/O FIXED SEATS -UNCONCENTRATED250640 SF100 SF BUSINESS BUSINESS - AREAS6.4241 SF20 SF EDUCATIONAL EDUCATIONAL - CLASSROOM128902 SF120 SF INSTITUTIONAL INSTITUTIONAL - SLEEPING AREA72.6188 SF200 SF KITCHEN KITCHEN - COMMERCIAL113716 SF346.8 REF.REF.DWDWREF.REF.503 SFFAMILY ROOM642 SFDINING ROOM121 SFPANTRYSCREENPORCH17 SFST.48 SFST.90 SFLAUNDRY118 SFMECH505 SFFAMILY ROOM120 SFPANTRY90 SFLAUNDRY48 SFST.118 SFMECH2' - 8 1/4" 22' - 8 1/2"22' - 0"28' - 10 3/4"15' - 7 1/8"29' - 9 1/2"15' - 7 1/8"28' - 10 3/4"22' - 0"22' - 8 1/2" 2' - 8 1/4"12' - 1 1/4"47' - 4 5/8"28' - 10 3/4"60' - 11 5/8"28' - 10 3/4"47' - 4 5/8"12' - 1 1/4"1' - 4 3/4"41' - 11 1/2"111' - 10 1/8"28' - 10 3/4"18' - 6 1/2"26' - 11 1/8"45' - 5 5/8"28' - 10 3/4"60' - 11 5/8"28' - 10 3/4"45' - 5 5/8"26' - 11 1/8"18' - 6 1/2"28' - 10 3/4"111' - 10 1/8"41' - 11 1/2"1' - 4 3/4"155' - 2 1/4"12' - 6 5/8"12' - 5 1/2"12' - 6 1/2"12' - 5 1/2"12' - 6 1/2"12' - 5 1/2"12' - 6 1/2"13' - 6"13' - 6 1/4" 12' - 6 1/2" 12' - 5 1/2" 12' - 6 1/2" 12' - 5 1/2" 12' - 6 1/2" 12' - 5 1/2" 12' - 6 3/4"12' - 6"0" 16' - 10 3/4"12' - 6" 0"16' - 10 3/4"16' - 10 3/4" 0" 12' - 6"16' - 10 3/4" 0" 12' - 6"222 SFUNIT-1216 SFUNIT-1216 SFUNIT-3235 SFUNIT-3234 SFUNIT-2216 SFUNIT-2216 SFUNIT-1216 SFUNIT-1216 SFUNIT-2294 SFUNIT-4-HC221 SFUNIT-2302 SFUNIT-3-HC294 SFUNIT-4-HC302 SFUNIT-3-HC98' - 4 3/4"17 SFST.191 SFSTAIR 3222 SFUNIT-1216 SFUNIT-1216 SFUNIT-3235 SFUNIT-3216 SFUNIT-2216 SFUNIT-1216 SFUNIT-112' - 6 3/4"12' - 5 1/2"12' - 6 1/2"12' - 5 1/2"12' - 6 1/2"12' - 5 1/2"12' - 6 1/2"13' - 6 1/4"98' - 4 1/2"155' - 2 1/4"13' - 6"12' - 6 1/2" 12' - 5 1/2" 12' - 6 1/2" 12' - 5 1/2" 12' - 6 1/2" 12' - 5 1/2" 12' - 6 5/8"234 SFUNIT-2SCREENPORCH237' - 8 3/4"18' - 6 1/2"6' - 7 3/8"18' - 6 1/2"18' - 6 1/2"6' - 7 3/8"18' - 6 1/2"18' - 6 1/2"6' - 7 3/8"18' - 6 1/2"234 SFUNIT-1216 SFUNIT-1216 SFUNIT-1216 SFUNIT-1216 SFUNIT-1216 SFUNIT-1216 SFUNIT-1216 SFUNIT-1216 SFUNIT-1233 SFUNIT-1233 SFUNIT-1216 SFUNIT-1216 SFUNIT-1216 SFUNIT-1216 SFUNIT-11025 SFCORRIDOR221 SFUNIT-2216 SFUNIT-269 SFPORCH72 SFPORCH201 SFBARBER BEAUTY SHOP69 SFSPA240 SFHEALTH CENTER81 SFOFFICE46 SFST.78 SFJC159 SFSTORAGE188 SFCAFE PANTRY767 SFCAFE298 SFGALLERYCORRIDOR76 SFELEV.74 SFELEV.233 SFUNIT-1Drawn:Checked:Scale:1902 campus commons drivesuite 101reston, virginia 20191Tel: 703.476.3900Fax: 703.264.0733www.archinc.comIssuedAll reproduction + intellectual property rights reserved by Architecture Incorporated © 2015 3/32" = 1'-0"P:\17005-16 Artis Senior Living - Morgan Hill\17005-17 Artis Senior Living - Arcadia\Revit\17005-17 Artis SL_Acadia CENTRAL-CURRENT.rvt2/20/2020 10:54:47 AMA1.2SECONDFLOOR PLANProject: 17005.17AuthorChecker08/30/191150 W. COLORADO BLVD.ARCADIA, CA 91007Artis Senior Living of ArcadiaARTIS SENIOR LIVINGENTITLEMENTENTITLEMENT 3/32" = 1'-0"SECOND FLOOR PLANREVISIONSFIRST FLOOR AREA = 23,806 GSFSECOND FLOOR AREA= 20,465 GSFTOTAL FLOOR AREA = 44,271 GSF FIRST FLOOR UNIT COUNT = 40 UNITSSECOND FLOOR UNIT COUNT= 40 UNITSTOTAL BUILDING UNIT COUNT = 80 UNITS 1X8 FIBERCEMENT FASCIAPREFINISHEDALUM GUTTER &DOWN SPOUTFIBER CEMENTVENTED SOFFITBOARDCONT. 1" BAFFLE VENT.PROVIDE ENTIRE WIDTHOF TRUSS SPACINGSS FLASHINGWITH DRIP EDGE#30 LB FELTUNDERLAYMENTVARIES SEESECT.122X BLOCKING BETWEENTRUSSESVARIES2A4.0Sim2A4.0Sim2A4.0Sim2A4.0Sim2A4.0Sim2A4.0Sim2A4.0Sim2A4.0Sim3A4.0Sim4A4.0Sim5:125:125:125:125:125:125:124:124:125:125:125:125:125:125:125:125:125:125:125:125:125:125:125:124:124:124:124:124:124:124:124:12EXHAUST FANEXHAUST FANSINGLE PLY ROOF FLASHINGTO TOP OF CURB,FURNISHED & INSTALLED BYROOFING CONTRACTORLEVELMIN. 1'-0"VARIESSINGLE-PLY ROOFING MEMBRANEFULLY ADHERED TO INSULATIONBD. OVER 5/8" GYP SHEATHING &11/2" METAL DECKINGJOIST BEYOND5x3x1/4" L.L.V. ANGLE FRAMING REQ'D @ ALL OPNG EDGES W/O OTHER STRUCT (BEAMS)NOTE: 1.) THIS CURB TO BE USED FOR ALL RTU'S AND EXHAUST FANS2.) ROOF TOP EQUIPMENT CURBS MUST BEAR ON STRUCT'L STEEL FRAMINGPRE-ENGINEERED CURB W/RIGID INSUL FURN &INSTALLED BY MECH.CONTR(EQUIP MUST SIT LEVEL)MTL. DUCT W/ INSUL.BY MECH CONTRACTORROOF DECK & INSULATION TO BEINSTALLED INSIDE PERIMETEROF CURB. ONLY DUCTWORKPENETRATION TO REMAIN OPENDECK BEARING5 1/4" CEMENT FIBER CROWNMOLDING 8 1/4" (7" EXPOSURE) CEMENT FIBER SIDING ON WEATHER BARRIER OVER 5/8" EXTERIOR GYP SHEATHINGSINGLE-PLY MEMBRANE FLASHINGFULLY ADHERED TO HIGH PERFORMANCE 5/8" COVER BOARD PER MFR. RECOMMENDATIONSON METAL STUDS LAP OVER TOP OFPARAPET. (DENSDECK PRIME OR APPROVED EQUAL)CONT. CLEATCONT 2X FRT BLOCKING4 5/8"23'-4"CONT. SEALANT1 X 4 CEMENT FIBER TRIM BOARD1 X 4 CEMENT FIBER TRIM BOARDPRE-FINISHED METAL COPING10 1/2"TS 4 x 4 AT 48" OC - SEE STRUCTURAL DWGS6" MTL STUD INFILL TERMINATION BAR ,TYPT.O. STEELREF. SECTT.O. BLOCKINGREF. SECTR-30 SPRAY FOAM INSULATION (TYP) AT PERIMETER WALL5/8" TYPE "X" GYP BD ON 6" MTL STUDS @ 16" OC8"STEEL LOAD DISTRIBUTION ANGLE, SEE STRUCTURALR-20 BATT INSULATION CEILING - ROOF ASSYUL DESIGN P510SINGLE-PLY MEMBRANE FULLY ADHERED TO 1/4" GYP COVERBOARD MECHANICALLY FASTENED THROUGH TAPERED RIGID INSULATION OVER 5/8" TYPE "X" GYPSUM BD AND ATTACHED TO METAL DECK HOT AIR WELD, 1 1/2" MIN1/8" CUT-EDGE SEALANTDrawn:Checked:Scale:1902 campus commons drivesuite 101reston, virginia 20191Tel: 703.476.3900Fax: 703.264.0733www.archinc.comIssuedAll reproduction + intellectual property rights reserved by Architecture Incorporated © 2015As indicated9/4/2019 9:11:01 PMA4.0ROOF PLANProject: 17005.17MMWJO08/30/191150 W. COLORADO BLVD.ARCADIA, CA 910071150 W. COLORADO BLVD.ARCADIA, CA 91007Artis Senior Living of ArcadiaARTIS SENIOR LIVINGENTITLEMENTENTITLEMENTREVISIONS1/16" = 1'-0"1ROOF PLAN1 1/2" = 1'-0"2SOFFIT DETAIL1 1/2" = 1'-0"3ROOF CURB PRE ENGINEERED1 1/2" = 1'-0"4PARAPET DETAIL 01010101 238' - 7" 01010101 01010101 01010101 010101010202020202020202020202020202020202020202020202020202020203030303030303030404040404040404 0404040404040404020202020404040405050505060606060606060606060606060606060808080808080808080808080808080808080808101010101010101010101010 ROOF RIDGE 29' -8 1/2"7' - 2"A3.5 1 A3.5 1 W3 W3 W1 W1 W2 W2 W5W5 W4 W2 W2 W5 W5 W7 W10 W10 W10 W6W6W6 W1 W1 W5 W5 W4 W2 W2 W5 W5 W2W2 W3 W3 W1W1D1 1ST FLOOR 0' -0" 2ND FLOOR 12' -5" DECK BRG. 24' -0" ROOF RIDGE 37' -5"3' - 2 5/8"01010101 238' - 7" 010101010101010101010101010101010202020202020202020202020202020202020202 02020202 02020202 0303030303030303030303030404040404040404 04040404050505050606060606060606060606060606060607070707080808080808080808080808080808081010101010101010 A3.5 1 01010101 01010101 W3 W1 W2 W5 W4 W2 W2 W2W2 W5 W5 W5 W5 W5 W5 W2W2 W2 W4 W2 W2 W5 W2 W1 W3 D2D4D6D5D5 D8 D6D4D2 ROOF RIDGE 29' -8 1/2" 1ST FLOOR 0' -0" 2ND FLOOR 12' -5" DECK BRG. 24' -0" ROOF RIDGE 37' -5"3' - 2 5/8"155' - 6" 01010101 01010101 010101010101010102020202 02020202030303030404040404040404 04040404 04040404 03030303040404040505050506060606060606060606060606060606060606060808080808080808080808081010101010101010 2 1/16" EQEQEQEQ A3.5 1 01010101 W5 W2 W9 W9 W5 W2 W2 W2 W5W5 W4 W1W1 W2 W2 W5W5 W3 W3 W1W1 ROOF RIDGE 29' -8 1/2" 1ST FLOOR 0' -0" 2ND FLOOR 12' -5" DECK BRG. 24' -0" ROOF RIDGE 37' -5"3' - 2 5/8"0101010101010101 01010101 01010101010101010202020202020202 02020202 02020202030303030303030304040404040404040404040404040404 040404040505050506060606060606060606060606060606080808080808080808080808101010101010101010101010 155' - 6" EQ EQ EQ EQ A3.5 1 01010101 W3 W3 W1W1 W5 W5 W2W2 W4 W1W1 W5 W5 W2W2 W2 W5 W9 W9 W5 W2 W1 ROOF RIDGE 29' -8 1/2" 1ST FLOOR 0' -0" 2ND FLOOR 12' -5" DECK BRG. 24' -0" ROOF RIDGE 37' -5"3' - 2 5/8"MATERIAL LEGEND 01 ASPHALT SHINGLES MANUFACTURER: TAMKO SERIES: HERITAGE COLOR: BLACK WALNUT 02 CEMENT FIBER SIDING -10" EXPOSURE MANUFACTURER: JAMES HARDIE MODEL: HARDIPLANK LAP SIDING -SMOOTH COLOR: ARCTIC WHITE 03 CEMENT FIBER TRIM @ WINDOWS & DOORS MANUFACTURER: JAMES HARDIE COLOR: IRON GREY 04 BRICK MANUFACTURER: MCNEAR MODEL: OLD CALIFORNIA COLOR: WHITE HALL 05 TRELLIS COLOR: MATCH CEMENT SIDING COLOR 06 CEMENT FIBER TRIM @ WALLS MANUFACTURER: JAMES HARDIE COLOR: ARCTIC WHITE 07 PREFINISHED METAL COPING 08 CEMENT FIBER VERTICAL SIDING -BOARD & BATTEN -12" WIDE MANUFACTURER: JAMES HARDIE MODEL: HARDIE PANEL VERTICAL SIDING -SMOOTH COLOR: ARCTIC WHITE 09 NOT USED 10 CAST STONE SILL MANUFACTURER: BORAL MODEL: CAST FIT WATER TABLE / SILL COLOR: CARBON Drawn: Checked: Scale: 1902 campus commons drive suite 101 reston, virginia 20191 Tel: 703.476.3900 Fax: 703.264.0733 www.archinc.com IssuedAll reproduction + intellectual property rights reserved by Architecture Incorporated © 20153/32" = 1'-0"12/20/2019 3:51:36 PMA3.1 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS Project: 17005.17 Author Checker 08.20.20191150 W. COLORADO BLVD.ARCADIA, CA 910071150 W. COLORADO BLVD.ARCADIA, CA 91007Artis Senior Living of ArcadiaARTIS SENIOR LIVINGENTITLEMENT ENTITLEMENT3/32" = 1'-0"1 FRONT ELEVATION 3/32" = 1'-0"4 REAR ELEVATION 3/32" = 1'-0"3 SIDE ELEVATION 3/32" = 1'-0"2 SIDE ELEVATION REVISIONS 0101010102020202 02020202030303030404040408080808 06060606 A3.5 1 01010101 W5 W2 W2 W2 W5W5 W5 W5 W2W2 W2 W2 W2 W5W5W5 ROOF RIDGE 29' -8 1/2" 1ST FLOOR 0' -0" 2ND FLOOR 12' -5" DECK BRG. 24' -0" 01010101 02020202 03030303 010101010202020206060606 T.O.PARAPET 17' -2 1/2" W2W2 D7 1ST FLOOR 0' -0" 2ND FLOOR 12' -5" DECK BRG. 24' -0" 0101010102020202 0202020203030303 04040404 0808080806060606 A3.5 1 01010101 W5W5W5W5W5W5W5W5 W2 W2 W2 W2 W2 W2 W2 W2 ROOF RIDGE 29' -8 1/2" 1ST FLOOR 0' -0" 2ND FLOOR 12' -5" DECK BRG. 24' -0" T.O.PARAPET 17' -2 1/2" 0101010102020202010101010202020206060606 D7 1ST FLOOR 0' -0" 2ND FLOOR 12' -5" DECK BRG. 24' -0" MATERIAL LEGEND 01 ASPHALT SHINGLES MANUFACTURER: TAMKO SERIES: HERITAGE COLOR: BLACK WALNUT 02 CEMENT FIBER SIDING -10" EXPOSURE MANUFACTURER: JAMES HARDIE MODEL: HARDIPLANK LAP SIDING -SMOOTH COLOR: ARCTIC WHITE 03 CEMENT FIBER TRIM @ WINDOWS & DOORS MANUFACTURER: JAMES HARDIE COLOR: IRON GREY 04 BRICK MANUFACTURER: MCNEAR MODEL: OLD CALIFORNIA COLOR: WHITE HALL 05 TRELLIS COLOR: MATCH CEMENT SIDING COLOR 06 CEMENT FIBER TRIM @ WALLS MANUFACTURER: JAMES HARDIE COLOR: ARCTIC WHITE 07 PREFINISHED METAL COPING 08 CEMENT FIBER VERTICAL SIDING -BOARD & BATTEN -12" WIDE MANUFACTURER: JAMES HARDIE MODEL: HARDIE PANEL VERTICAL SIDING -SMOOTH COLOR: ARCTIC WHITE 09 NOT USED 10 CAST STONE SILL MANUFACTURER: BORAL MODEL: CAST FIT WATER TABLE / SILL COLOR: CARBON 4' - 0"1' - 6 1/2"2' - 0"6' - 0"9' - 6 1/2"4x4 4x8 4x8 6x6 4x8 04040404 10101010 4' - 0"1' - 6 1/2"2' - 0"6' - 0"9' - 6 1/2"4x4 4x8 4x8 6x6 4x8 04040404 10101010 3 0 .0 0 °30.00°30.00°15' - 0"15' - 0" 3' - 0"3' - 0"9"9"CAST STONE SILL @ 4' AFF SIGNAGER 16' - 10 1/8"R 15' - 11 1/8"8 A3.2 4' - 0"1' - 6 1/2"2' - 0"6' - 0"9' - 6 1/2"10" 3' - 11" 2"2"R 5 1/2"2"2"1"R 4 1 /2 "8" CMU WALL WITH BRICK VENEER ALL SIDES CAST STONE SILL 6x6 POST 4x8 6x6 POST 4x8 4x4 4x8 4x4 FRAME WITH 3x4 CROSS MEMBERS 4' - 6 1/2" 5' - 4 1/2"6"Drawn: Checked: Scale: 1902 campus commons drive suite 101 reston, virginia 20191 Tel: 703.476.3900 Fax: 703.264.0733 www.archinc.com IssuedAll reproduction + intellectual property rights reserved by Architecture Incorporated © 2015As indicated 12/20/2019 3:52:22 PMA3.2 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS Project: 17005.17 Author Checker 11/25/191150 W. COLORADO BLVD.ARCADIA, CA 910071150 W. COLORADO BLVD.ARCADIA, CA 91007Artis Senior Living of ArcadiaARTIS SENIOR LIVINGENTITLEMENT ENTITLEMENTREVISIONS 3/32" = 1'-0"1 REAR / COURT ELEVATION 1 3/32" = 1'-0"2 REAR / COURT ELEVATION 2 3/32" = 1'-0"3 REAR / COURT ELEVATION 3 3/32" = 1'-0"4 REAR / COURT ELEVATION 4 1/4" = 1'-0"5 SIGNAGE TRELLIS - BACK ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0"6 SIGNAGE TRELLIS - FRONT ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0"7 SIGNAGE TRELLIS FLOOR PLAN 1/2" = 1'-0"8 SIGNAGE TRELLIS - SECTION W5 W5 W10 W10 W10 W6W6W6 W5 W5 W1 D1 W1W7 ROOF RIDGE 29' -8 1/2" 1ST FLOOR 0' -0" 2ND FLOOR 12' -5" DECK BRG. 24' -0" ROOF RIDGE 37' -5"3' - 2 5/8"9"15' - 9"9"1' - 3"1' - 11 1/2"6"1' - 2" TYP. 9" O.C. 4x4 6x6 4x84x4 4x8 4x8 3x4 4x4 A3.5 2 W3 W3 W1W1 ROOF RIDGE 29' -8 1/2" 1ST FLOOR 0' -0" 2ND FLOOR 12' -5" DECK BRG. 24' -0" Drawn: Checked: Scale: 1902 campus commons drive suite 101 reston, virginia 20191 Tel: 703.476.3900 Fax: 703.264.0733 www.archinc.com IssuedAll reproduction + intellectual property rights reserved by Architecture Incorporated © 20151/4" = 1'-0"12/20/2019 3:52:54 PMA3.3 ENLARGED ELEVATIONS Project: 17005.17 Author Checker 08.09.20191150 W. COLORADO BLVD.ARCADIA, CA 910071150 W. COLORADO BLVD.ARCADIA, CA 91007Artis Senior Living of ArcadiaARTIS SENIOR LIVINGENTITLEMENT ENTITLEMENTREVISIONS W5 W2 W9 W9 ROOF RIDGE 29' -8 1/2" 1ST FLOOR 0' -0" 2ND FLOOR 12' -5" DECK BRG. 24' -0" ROOF RIDGE 37' -5"3' - 2 5/8"4x4 6x6 4x84x4 4x8 4x8 3x4 4x4 1' - 3"1' - 11 1/2"TYP. 9" O.C.1' - 2" 9"12' - 9"9"6"A3.5 2 W4 W1 W1 W2 W2 W5W5 W3 W3 W1W1 ROOF RIDGE 29' -8 1/2" 1ST FLOOR 0' -0" 2ND FLOOR 12' -5" DECK BRG. 24' -0" Drawn: Checked: Scale: 1902 campus commons drive suite 101 reston, virginia 20191 Tel: 703.476.3900 Fax: 703.264.0733 www.archinc.com IssuedAll reproduction + intellectual property rights reserved by Architecture Incorporated © 20151/4" = 1'-0"12/20/2019 3:53:26 PMA3.4 ENLARGED ELEVATIONS Project: 17005.17 Author Checker 08.09.20191150 W. COLORADO BLVD.ARCADIA, CA 910071150 W. COLORADO BLVD.ARCADIA, CA 91007Artis Senior Living of ArcadiaARTIS SENIOR LIVINGENTITLEMENT ENTITLEMENTREVISIONS 2341Drawn:Checked:Scale:1902 campus commons drivesuite 101reston, virginia 20191Tel: 703.476.3900Fax: 703.264.0733www.archinc.comIssuedAll reproduction + intellectual property rights reserved by Architecture Incorporated © 2015As indicatedC:\Users\MalachyM\Documents\17005-17 Artis SL_Acadia CENTRAL-CURRENT_MalachyM.rvt9/17/2019 11:18:17 AMA3.2RENDERINGSProject: 17005.17AuthorChecker08/30/191150 W. COLORADO BLVD.ARCADIA, CA 91007Artis Senior Living of ArcadiaARTIS SENIOR LIVINGENTITLEMENTENTITLEMENTREVISIONSN.T.S.1VIEW 1N.T.S.2VIEW 2N.T.S.3VIEW 3N.T.S.4VIEW 4N.T.S.View Key DW REF.DW REF.REF. REF.REF.W 12-5-2019L-12Know what'sbelow.Callbefore you dig.R1150 W. COLORADO BLVD. ARCADIA, CA 91007 Artis Senior Living of Acadia ARTIS SENIOR LIVING ARMSTRONG ANDWALKER280 Mel Canyon RoadDuarte, Ca. 91010Email: Phone: (626) 357-4599Landscape ArchitectureERNRTPRMExp. 03/31/20No. 2293STATEOFCALIFOSA.MA N NA ACSDNALDE R E TSIGER TARCHITECNGI A Oarmstrongwalker@gmail.comSchematic Landscape PlanNSCALE: 1" = 20' - 0"SEE SHEET L-2 FORPLANT LIST L-221150 W. COLORADO BLVD. ARCADIA, CA 91007 Artis Senior Living of Acadia ARTIS SENIOR LIVING ARMSTRONG ANDWALKER280 Mel Canyon RoadDuarte, Ca. 91010Email: Phone: (626) 357-4599Landscape ArchitectureERNRTPRMExp. 03/31/20No. 2293STATEOFCALIFOSA.MA N NA ACSDNALDE R E TSIGER TARCHITECNGI AOarmstrongwalker@gmail.comSchematic Landscape Plan Plant List and ImagesSCALE: 1" = 20' - 0"DECORATIVE COLOR CONCRETE PAVINGWOOD BENCHOUTDOOR PLAZA WITH 16" HIGH SEAT WALLGAZEBO AT OUTDOOR PLAZACANOPY SHADE TREECHINESE PISTACHEVERTICAL EVERGREEN TREEFLOWERING ACCENT TREEFIREWHEEL TREEHYMENOSPORUMCREPE MYRTLERAISED FLOWER AND FAGRANT PLANT GARDENDECOMPOSED GRANITE WALKWAYCANOPY SHADE TREERAYWOOD ASHFLOWERING ACCENT TREEPINK TABEBUIAFLOWERING ACCENT TREEARBUTUS MARINAVERTICAL EVERGREEN TREEBRISBANE BOXVERTICAL EVERGREEN TREEGROUND COVERSPREADING SUNSHINE LANTANAMID-LEVEL SCREENING FLOWERING SHRUBSLITTLE JOHN BOTTLEBRUSHMID-LEVEL SCREENING FLOWERING SHRUBSSUNSET ROCKROSEGROUND COVERHUNTINGTON CARPET ROSEMARYSMALL ACCENT PLANTRED YUCCASMALL ACCENT PLANTYELLOW AND ORANGE BULBINETRELLIS COVERED PATIO AREA12-5-2019 3' - 5 1/2"8' - 6"2' - 8 1/2"3' - 0"22' - 1"4' - 0"1/4" / 12"1/4" / 12"5' - 0 1/2"9' - 6 1/16"9' - 2 1/2"16' - 9 7/16"6' - 3"5' - 8 7/16"7 5/8"23' - 5"5' - 2 1/2"4' - 10 1/2"4' - 0"4' - 2"9' - 2"3" TYP1/4" / 12"1/4" / 12"1/4" / 12"1/4" / 12"1/4" / 12"SLAB EL = 0' - 4"SLAB EL = 0' - 4"EMERGENCY GENERATORMAIN SERVICE SWITCHELASTOMERIC PAINT APPLIED TO CALL EXPOSED CMU, TYPTHROUGH WALL SCUPPER, TYPAS2.02AS2.02SIM10AS2.0Sim10AS2.0SimSLOPE SLAB AWAY FROM ELEVATED CONC & EQUIP, TYP1AS2.01" ID GALV PIPE FOR CANE BOLT KEEPER, BOTH OPEN AND CLOSED POSITION, EA LEAFPIPE BOLLARD, TYPAS2.02PREMANUF PVC PRIVACY FENCE GATES, (COLOR: WHITE) W/ LOCKING SLIDE BOLT LATCHELASTOMERIC PAINT APPLIED TO ALL EXPOSED CMU, TYPCONCRETEAPRONPIPE BOLLARD, TYP96 GAL. ORGANIC WASTE CART3 YARD3 YARD7 5/8"3' - 6"6' - 0"6' - 0"3' - 6"7 5/8"1/4" / 12"CONCRETE PAD11 5/8"3"17' - 10"3"35' - 6"55' - 4 3/8"14' - 8"10' - 0"15'-0".1 1/2" x 1 1/2" x 1/4" GALV STL FRAME GATE - DIAGONAL, TYPFACE BRICKPREFIN ALUM COPING CAP W/ DRIP EA EDGEPREMANUF PVC FENCE GATES (COLOR:WHITE) W/ LOCKING SLIDE BOLT5/8" DIA x 15" GALV CANE BOLT, EA LEAFGRADE OF PAVING TO BE LEVEL ALONG GATESTHROUGH WALL SCUPPER, TYP1AS2.0PIPE BOLLARD, TYPSEE PREFIN ALUM COPING CAP W/ DRIP EA EDGEPREMANUF PVC FENCE GATES (COLOR WHITE) W/ LOCKING SLIDE BOLT5/8" DIA x 15" GALV CANE BOLT, EA LEAFGRADE OF PAVING TO BE LEVEL ALONG GATESCLEAR10' - 0"T.O. SLABT.O. CMU8'-0"0'-0"T.O. CMU6'-0"070204104" NYLON METAL GATE WHEEL HEAVY DUTY FLAT FREE SRPING LOADED SWIVEL CASTER MODEL NUMBER- WALFRONTDA3Q81UFXG4" NYLON METAL GATE WHEEL HEAVY DUTY FLAT FREE SRPING LOADED SWIVEL CASTER MODEL NUMBER- WALFRONTDA3Q81UFXGFACE BRICK, TYPPREFIN ALUM COPING CAP W/ DRIP EA EDGETHROUGH WALL SCUPPER, TYP1AS2.0T.O. SLAB0'-0"T.O. CMU8'-0"PREFIN ALUM COPING CAP W/ DRIP EA EDGET.O. CMU6'-0"07020410PREFIN ALUM COPING CAP W/ DRIP EA EDGETHROUGH WALL SCUPPER, TYP07020410T.O. SLAB0'-0"T.O. CMU8'-0"PREFIN ALUM COPING CAP W/ DRIP EA EDGE07020410T.O. SLAB0'-0"T.O. CMU6'-0"CLEAR10' - 0"3" WIDE x 3/16" GALV STL PL, TYP AT SLIDE BOLT AND CANE BOLT LOCATIONS5/8" DIA GALV STL SLIDE BOLT1" GALC PIPE W/ STANDOFF3/8" GALV BOLTS, TYPOF GATES3"1 1/2" x 1 1/2" GALV STL TUBE FRAME, PTD TO MATCH GATE SLATS AT GENERATOR GATE5"X 5" GALV STL TUBE PTD TO MATCH GATERETURN MASONRY AT ROUGH OPENING3" X 2" X 1/4" HSS AT DUMPSTER ENCLOSUREPTD GALV PLATE ABOVE AT DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE ONLYHEAVY DUTY ADJUSTABLE HINGE13/16"6" DIA STD STL PIPE BOLLARD, FILLED W/ CONC, PAINT TRAFFIC YELLOW (2 COATS)WRAP W/ (2) 1" BANDS OF REFLECTIVE TAPEPAVINGCOAT EMBEDDED PORTION OF PIPE W/ BITUMINUOUS EMULSIONCONC FOOTINGCTR BOLLARD @DUMPSTER ENCL = 6' - 8"3' - 6"3' - 6"6"6"DIAMETER1' - 6"CONC WASH, 1" ABOVE TOP OF PIPEFACE OF EQUIPMENT 4"ISOLATION STRIP. SEE STRUCTSITE CONC SLAB3"CUSTOM 1 1/2" X 1 1/2" GALV STL TUBE FRAME WITH CROSS BRACING, PAINT TO MATCH PVC SLATSSEE PLANVARIESSEE ELEVATIONSVARIES4" CMU BELOW GRADE8" BOND BEAM GALV CORRUGATED MTL WALL TIES AT 16" EA WAY8" SMOOTH FACED CMU WITH CELLS FULLY GROUTED REF STRUCT DWGS ELASTOMERIC PAINT ON EXPOSED CMU SURFACESFACE BRICK WITH BRICKTIES @ 16"1/2" EXP JT W/ FIBER FILLER AND SEALANTCONC SLAB ON GRAVELFOOTING, SEE STRUCTGROUT FILL ALL CMU CORES BELOW GRADEFINISH GRADEPREFIN ALUM COPINGNOTE:PROVIDE SPECIAL INSPECTION ON MASONRY PER COUNTY REQSTOP OF CMU VARIEST.O. SLABSS FLASHING WITHDRIP EDGESEE STRUCT. FOR REINFORCEMENTGENERATOR SLAB SEE STRUCTEXPOSED CEMENT FIBER OVER CMUAS2.010SimSS FLASHING WITHDRIP EDGEDrawn:Checked:Scale:Construction Documents for:1902 campus commons drivesuite 101reston, virginia 20191Tel: 703.476.3900Fax: 703.264.0733www.archinc.comIssuedAll reproduction + intellectual property rights reserved by Architecture Incorporated © 2016A Memory and Assisted Living ResidenceC:\Users\MalachyM\Documents\17005-00 Artis SL_EmGen&Dumpster CENTRAL-R17_Arcadia_MalachyM.rvt9/4/2019 7:23:35 PMAs indicatedAS2.0SITE DETAILSProject: 17005.17AuthorCheckerArtis Senior Living of ArcadiaARTIS SENIOR LIVING1150 W. COLORADO BLVD.ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 9207808/30/19 3/8" = 1'-0"AEM GEN ENCLOSURE 3/8" = 1'-0"4GENERATOR FRONT ELEV 3/8" = 1'-0"5GENERATOR REAR ELEV 3/8" = 1'-0"6GENERATOR SIDE WALL 3/8" = 1'-0"9DUMPSTER SIDE WALL 1 1/2" = 1'-0"2DUMPSTER/GEN ENCLOSURE GATES 1/2" = 1'-0"3BOLLARD 1 1/2" = 1'-0"10SLAB DETAIL 3/8" = 1'-0"12TYP GATE FRAMERevisions 3/4" = 1'-0"1DUMPSTER - EGEN WALL 3" GAP1"4"1/2"10"1"2" CONTINUOUS 1" BAFFLE VENT BETWEEN ROOF TRUSSES / FRAMING ASPHALT ROOF SHINGLES OVER #30 LB FELT UNDERLAYMENT PLYWOOD SHEATHING PER STRUCTURAL SS FLASHING WITH DRIP EDGE PREFINISHED ALUM GUTTER AND DOWNSPOUTS 1x8 FIBER CEMENT FASCIA FIBER CEMENT VENTED SOFFIT BOARD TONGE AND GROOVE AT SOFFIT FIBER CEMENT TRIM WALL ASSEMBLY TYPICAL EXT. FIBER CEMENT TRIM 1' - 8" BOARD AND BATTEN OR SIDING WHERE OCCURS DENS GLASS SHEATING PLYWOOD SHEATHING PER STRUCTURAL INSULATION PER TITLE 24 5/8" GYP BD. FRAMING PER STRUCTURAL CEILING JOISTS PER STRUCTURAL PROVIDE GUTTER GUARD FILTER SCREEN 3/4" PLASTER PLYWOOD SHEATHING PER STRUCTURAL INSULATION PER TITLE 24 5/8" GYP BD. FRAMING PER STRUCTURAL 4x4 @ 9" O.C. 4x8 3 1/2"7 1/2"7 1/2"3 1/2"1' - 4 1/2"3 1/2"7 1/2"5 1/2"2"2"1"R 4 1/2" 4x4 4x4 6x6 POST 2' - 1 1/4" 4x8 6x6 POST 3x4 CROSS MEMBERS - SEE ELEVATIONS 2"R 5 1/2"7 1/2"5 1/2" 1' - 4" BRICK VENEER 4x8 1' - 4" 4" 5 1/2" 6 1/2"5' - 6" MIN.CLR.3"2' - 0" DIA.6" M IN.TYP.3" CLR.PLAN ELEVATION ALTERNATE HOOKS 135° HOOK AROUND VERT BAR (OVERLAP HOOKS FULL VERT. BAR SPACING) DO NOT HOOK AROUND SAME BAR CONC. PILE W/ (6) #6 VERT. BARS & #3 TIES @ 10" O.C. F'c = 3000 PSI MIN. (3) #3 TIES @ 3" O.C. FINISH GRADE SLOPE TOP OF FOOTING TO DRAIN LIGHT POLE, BASE PLATE AND ANCHOR BOLTS BY OTHERS (20 FT MAX. POLE HT.) Drawn: Checked: Scale: 1902 campus commons drive suite 101 reston, virginia 20191 Tel: 703.476.3900 Fax: 703.264.0733 www.archinc.com IssuedAll reproduction + intellectual property rights reserved by Architecture Incorporated © 2015As indicated 12/9/2019 1:59:09 PMA3.5 DETAILS AND SCHEDULES Project: 17005.17 Author Checker 11/25/191150 W. COLORADO BLVD.ARCADIA, CA 910071150 W. COLORADO BLVD.ARCADIA, CA 91007Artis Senior Living of ArcadiaARTIS SENIOR LIVINGENTITLEMENT ENTITLEMENTREVISIONS 1 1/2" = 1'-0"1 TYPICAL EAVE SOFFIT 1 1/2" = 1'-0"2 TYPICAL TRELLIS SECTION DETAIL WINDOW SCHEDULE Type Mark Type W1 SINGLE HUNG 48(w) x 54(h) W2 SINGLE HUNG 48(w) x 54(h) W3 SINGLE HUNG 48(w) x 48(h) W4 SINGLE HUNG 48(w) x 48(h) W5 SINGLE HUNG 48(w) x 48(h) W6 SINGLE HUNG 54(w) x 72(h) W7 SINGLE HUNG 60(w) x 54(h) W8 SLIDING 48(w) x 72(h) W9 SLIDING 48(w) x 32(h) W10 SLIDING 54(w) x 36(h) DOOR SCHEDULE Type Mark Type Width Height D1 ENTRY DOOR WITH SIDELIGHTS 3' - 0" 7' - 0" D2 STOREFRONT DOOR 3' - 0" 7' - 0" D3 ONE PANEL WOOD AND GLASS FRENCH DOOR 3' - 7" 7' - 0" D4 FLUSH DOOR W/ VISION LITE 3' - 0" 7' - 0" D5 GLASS DOUBLE DOOR 7' - 0" 7' - 0" D6 GLASS DOOR 3' - 7" 7' - 0" D7 GLASS DOOR WITH SITE LIGHT 3' - 0" 7' - 0" D8 FLUSH DOOR 3' - 0" 6' - 2" 1" = 1'-0"3 SITE POLE LIGHT FOOTING 2341Drawn:Checked:Scale:1902 campus commons drivesuite 101reston, virginia 20191Tel: 703.476.3900Fax: 703.264.0733www.archinc.comIssuedAll reproduction + intellectual property rights reserved by Architecture Incorporated © 2015As indicated\\fileserve8\p-drive\17005-17 Artis Senior Living - Arcadia\Revit\17005-17 Artis SL_Acadia CENTRAL-CURRENT.rvt8/30/2019 3:32:48 PMA5.0SITE VIEWSProject: 17005.17AuthorChecker08/30/191150 W. COLORADO BLVD.ARCADIA, CA 91007Artis Senior Living of ArcadiaARTIS SENIOR LIVINGENTITLEMENTENTITLEMENTREVISIONSN.T.S.1Site View 1N.T.S.2Site View 2N.T.S.3Site View 3N.T.S.4Site View 4N.T.S.View Key 8765Drawn:Checked:Scale:1902 campus commons drivesuite 101reston, virginia 20191Tel: 703.476.3900Fax: 703.264.0733www.archinc.comIssuedAll reproduction + intellectual property rights reserved by Architecture Incorporated © 2015As indicated\\fileserve8\p-drive\17005-17 Artis Senior Living - Arcadia\Revit\17005-17 Artis SL_Acadia CENTRAL-CURRENT.rvt8/30/2019 3:32:50 PMA5.1SITE VIEWSProject: 17005.17AuthorChecker08/30/191150 W. COLORADO BLVD.ARCADIA, CA 91007Artis Senior Living of ArcadiaARTIS SENIOR LIVINGENTITLEMENTENTITLEMENTREVISIONSN.T.S.1Site View 5N.T.S.2Site View 6N.T.S.3Site View 7N.T.S.4Site View 8N.T.S.View Key Attachment No. 5 Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, dated July 14, 2020 Attachment No. 5 ARCADIA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES TUESDAY, JULY 14, 2020 - E X C E R P T - 1. Resolution No. 2058 – Recommending approval of a Zone Change No. ZC 19-01, Architectural Design Review No. ADR 18-22, Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 19-03, Administrative Modification No. AM Minor 19-22, and Protected Tree Encroachment No. TRE 20-04 with a Mitigated Negative Declaration for a new senior assisted living care facility with memory care at 1150 W. Colorado Boulevard Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2058 and Recommend Approval to the City Council Appellant and Property Owner: Artis Senior Living, LLC. Chair Lewis introduced the item and turned it over to Associate Planner Vanessa Quiroz to present the staff report. Ms. Flores clarified that Staff’s recommendation is to forward a recommendation to the City Council, and not take action. Chair Lewis opened the public hearing and asked if the Applicant would like to speak on the item. Richard McDonald introduced the Applicant team, and Rick Bell of Artis Senior Living provided a presentation of the project. Anna Armstrong of Armstrong and Walker Landscape Architects provided an overview of the landscape plan. Chair Lewis asked if there was anyone who would like to speak in favor of the item. There were no callers in support of the item. Chair Lewis asked if there was anyone who would like to speak in opposition of the item. There were no calls received in opposition to the item; however, Ms. Flores read two letters of opposition that were received prior to the meeting from Lin Zeng and Eve Tang, neighboring property owners. Ms. Flores informed the Commission that both residents were informed prior to the meeting that the height of the building was actually two stories, and not four, as stated in their letters. Commissioner Chan inquired about the Applicant’s public outreach efforts, including if there was any specific outreach to help inform the local Asian community given that there were some confusion over the height of the project. He also inquired as to how COVID-19 has impacted their other facilities. Mr. McDonald explained that the initial stage of outreach included contact with the Homeowners’ Association and several nearby neighbors, the establishment of an informational website with a link to the City’s website for more detailed information, and a mailer. Due to COVID-19, outreach efforts were modified to avoid direct contact (i.e. door-to-door contact) with the public. Mr. Bell further elaborated on the impacts of COVID-19 on senior care facilities and the protocols, which Excerpt of July 14, 2020 Meeting Minutes Arcadia City Planning Commission Page 2 were established in response to COVID-19. Mr. Brown stated that the website was in English but directed the public to the City’s website for detailed information on the proposal. The feasibility of having a community meeting was affected by COVID-19. They would provide a translated notice prior to the City Council meeting. Ms. Flores discussed the outreach efforts to date and added that the Applicant has complied with noticing requirements per State law. She noted that the City offers translation services for all residents, which is stated on the City’s public hearing notices. Commissioner Thompson inquired as to whether there were any restrictions on delivery hours to mitigate any potential disruptions to nearby residents. Mr. Bell stated that deliveries typically occur 2-3 times per week, and during business hours. Vice Chair Wilander asked the Applicant if they would be willing to provide additional Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant parking spaces to accommodate visitors. Mr. Bell stated that they are open to providing additional stalls. MOTION- PUBLIC HEARING It was moved by Vice Chair Wilander, seconded by Chair Lewis to close the public hearing. Without objection, the motion was approved. DISCUSSION Commissioner Chan had no issues with the project; however, he recommended that the Applicant distribute a Chinese translated mailer with a project description to the residents within the 300 feet noticing radius to alleviate any protentional confusion over the proposed height. Commissioner Lin stated that the project is a good use of the site, and the design is consistent with the neighboring residential properties in the neighborhood. He was inclined to recommend approval to the City Council. Commissioner Thompson stated that the proposal was a good transitional use of the site. T he intensity of the development is reasonable, and he complimented the quality and quantity of the proposed landscaping which will provide an excellent buffer to nearby residential properties. In addition, the facts to support the findings as listed in the staff report are sufficient and well written. He recommended that all exterior parking lot lighting be faced downward and away from neighboring residences and that the delivery hours be limited. Vice Chair Wilander stated that the project is well thought out and addresses a need in the community for senior housing and those with memory challenges. She was glad that the project was proposed below the Code-allowed maximums, and she is pleased that there will be additional disabled parking spaces to compliment the drive through drop off area. Chair Lewis noted the attractive design of the project and the landscaping which will blend well with the residential area and she was pleased that the mature trees on the site will be preserved. The proposal was a good use of the property and represents an overall quiet use compared to what the site could accommodate or has in the past. Excerpt of July 14, 2020 Meeting Minutes Arcadia City Planning Commission Page 2 The Planning Commission provided the following recommendations: 1. The Applicant should examine the site plan and add additional Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant parking stall places in addition to the 4 currently proposed; 2. The Applicant should distribute a Chinese translated mailer with the proposed project information prior to the City Council hearing; 3. Deliveries shall be limited to no earlier than 7:00 a.m. and no later than 10:00 p.m. In addition, two new Conditions of Approval were added to Resolution No. 2058, per Staff’s recommendation: Condition No. 31: All the windows shall be recessed at least 2-inches from the exterior walls. Condition No. 32: All exterior parking lot lighting shall be shielded downward and/or have cutoff insert in the fixture to minimize any potential light and glare to the adjacent residential properties. MOTION It was moved by Vice Chair Wilander, seconded by Commissioner Lin to adopt Resolution No. 2058, recommending approval to the City Council of a Zone Change No. ZC 19-01, Architectural Design Review No. ADR 18-22, Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 19-03, Administrative Modification No. AM Minor 19-22, and Protected Tree Encroachment No. TRE 20-04 with a Mitigated Negative Declaration for a new senior assisted living care facility with memory care at 1150 W. Colorado Boulevard, subject to the amended conditions of approval as read into the record by Ms. Flores. ROLL CALL AYES: Chair Lewis, Vice Chair Wilander, Chan, Lin, and Thompson NOES: None ABSENT: None Chair Lewis announced that this item is tentatively scheduled for the August 18, 2020 City Council meeting and that a notice of public hearing would be sent prior to this meeting. - - - - - - Attachment No. 6 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2058 and the Planning Commission Staff Report dated July 14, 2020, including the all attachments and public comments. Attachment No. 6 DATE: July 14, 2020 TO: Honorable Chair and Planning Commission FROM: Lisa L. Flores, Planning & Community Development Administrator By: Vanessa Quiroz, Associate Planner SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 2058 – A ZONE CHANGE NO. ZC 19-01, ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. ADR 18-22, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CUP 19-03, ADMINISTRATIVE MODIFICATION NO. AM MINOR 19-22, AND PROTECTED TREE ENCROACHMENT NO. TRE 20-04 WITH A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A NEW SENIOR ASSISTED LIVING CARE FACILITY WITH MEMORY CARE AT 1150 W. COLORADO BOULEVARD Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2058 and Recommend Approval to the City Council SUMMARY The Applicant, Artis Senior Living, LLC, is requesting approval of Zone Change No. ZC 19-01, Architectural Design Review No. ADR 18-22, Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 19- 03, Administrative Modification No. AM Minor 19-22, and Protected Tree Encroachment Permit No. TRE 20-04 for a new two-story, 44,192 square foot senior assisted living care facility (dba: Artis Senior Living) with 80 rooms at 1150 W. Colorado Boulevard. It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2058 (Attachment No. 1) recommending approval of the proposed project to the City Council, along with a Mitigated Negative Declaration in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and direct staff to convey the Planning Commission’s comments to the City Council. BACKGROUND The subject site is located at the southeast corner of W. Colorado Boulevard and Michillinda Avenue at 1150 W. Colorado Boulevard. The property has been developed with and occupied by a restaurant (dba: Coco’s Bakery and Restaurant) since 1976. The site is surrounded by the 210 freeway to the north, commercial uses to the west in the Los Angeles County area, and single-family residential properties to the east and south. The residential properties that directly abuts this site along N. Altura Road and Altura Terrance are not within the Lower Rancho Homeowners Association - refer to Figure No.1 W. Colorado Boulevard Artis Senior Living Care Facility 1150 W. Colorado Boulevard July 14, 2020 Page 2 of 23 for an aerial view of the area, and Attachment No. 2 for an Aerial Photo with Zoning Information. The subject property is zoned General Commercial (C-G), and has a General Plan Land Use Designation of Commercial (.50 FAR). The project site is approximately 2.83 acres and has two existing zoning overlays. The first overlay is an Architectural Design (D) overlay zone that was placed over the building area in 1972 that limits the building height to 30 feet and to a maximum floor area of 19,500 square feet, as well as other limitations on the exterior materials, roof pitch, window size, signage and landscaping. The second overlay is the Automobile Parking Overlay (P) that was placed over the parking lot area to restrict that area to parking only. A commercial building cannot expand beyond the area of the Architectural Design Overlay – refer to Attachment No. 4 to review the regulations under this Overlay. These types of overlays were common practice during this time to ensure compatibility with the adjacent resident properties, and that the development would include a significant buffer between the commercial building and the adjoining residential properties to minimize any potential impacts. PROPOSAL The Applicant is requesting a zone change to eliminate the existing zoning overlays, the Architectural Design (D) overlay zone and the Automobile Parking (P) overlay zone, in order to accommodate the new senior assisted living facility. The senior living facility will be operated by Artis Senior Living, and will consist of a new two-story, 44,192 square foot, Traditional/Cape Cod Architectural-style facility that will be entirely dedicated to patients with Alzheimer’s and related memory delays – refer to Attachment No. 3 for the Architectural Plans and Renderings, and Figure No. 2 below for a rendering of the project. Artis Senior Living is a national senior living care facility company established in 2012. The company has over 18 facilities within the mid-west and east coast of the United States. Currently, there are 20 additional facilities under construction throughout the country. This location is one of the newly proposed location on the west coast. Figure No.1 (D): Architectural Design overlay zone (P): Automobile Parking overlay zone N Los Angeles County D P N. Altura Road Artis Senior Living Care Facility 1150 W. Colorado Boulevard July 14, 2020 Page 3 of 23 A total of 80 housing rooms are proposed with 40 rooms on each floor. The rooms will range between 216 square feet to 302 square feet in size. Each room will include a bed, a closet, and a bathroom. Each floor will include a dining room, a family room, employee offices and areas, and a kitchen. The facility will also provide on-site amenities for the residents such as a community center, a gallery, a café, and a barber/beauty shop. A small health center will also be able to provide medical services for the residents. The project would also include a trellis with seating in the front yard area of the building and a private outdoor area along the west and south side of the building which includes walkways and an outdoor gazebo for residents and visitors. With the removal of the overlays, the proposed senior living facility will comply with the General Commercial (C-G) development standards. As part of the new development, a 4-foot dedication along W. Colorado Boulevard will be granted to the City for future sidewalk purposes. As a result, the size of the lot will be reduced from 2.83 to 2.79 acres. With the reduction to the overall size of the lot, the proposed project will still comply with the maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of .50 or 60,766 square feet, and the proposed project at 44,192 square feet is 16,574 square feet below the maximum. The proposed development will have a side yard setback of 76’-7”, where 10’-0” is required, and a rear yard setback of 94’-0”, where 20’-0” is required. The Development Code allows for a maximum height of 40 feet within the General Commercial (C-G) zone. The majority of the building will extend up to approximately 30 ’-0” in height, with a tower element in the middle portion of the building extending to approximately 37’-5” in height. Figure No. 2 Rendering from the corner of W. Colorado Blvd. and Michillinda Avenue Artis Senior Living Care Facility 1150 W. Colorado Boulevard July 14, 2020 Page 4 of 23 Vehicular entry to the site will be off of W. Colorado Boulevard which leads into the parking lot along the east side of the site. Additionally, a roundabout driveway in front of the building’s entrance is provided to accommodate passenger loading and unloading for the residents – refer to the site plan to the right. In terms of parking, the project site will provide a total of 60 surface parking spaces, of which 55 will be standard parking stalls, four (4) will be Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant spaces, and one (1) loading space. The Development Code requires one (1) parking space for every three (3) licensed beds for a Residential Care Facility. With a total of 80 beds proposed, the project requires a total of 27 parking spaces for the residents and visitors. Although the Code does not require additional parking for the employees, the Applicant is proposing 32 more parking spaces to ensure there is sufficient parking for the entire staff (up to 24 employees) at any given time. As part of the facility’s operation, transportation shall be provided for the residents for doctor visits and supervised outings. The Applicant is also proposing an 8 foot tall wooden fence around the perimeter of the building to enclose outdoor garden area – refer to the blue line on the site plan above for the location of the fence. The fence exceeds the maximum permitted height of 6’-0” by two additional feet. The purpose for the taller fence is to secure the site properly and ensure protection of the residents, who have memory care needs and require extra security. With the exception to the fence height, the proposed project complies with all of the regulations set forth by the Development Code. ANALYSIS The Development Code allows a Large-Residential Care Facility within the General Commercial (C-G) zone subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. In order to accommodate the proposed facility, the Applicant is requesting removal of two existing overlays on the project site (Architectural Design (D) overlay zone and the Automobile N Figure No. 3 Site Plan : 8-foot Fence Artis Senior Living Care Facility 1150 W. Colorado Boulevard July 14, 2020 Page 5 of 23 Parking (P) overlay zone) – refer to Attachment No. 3 for Resolution No. 4440 and Ordinance No. 1510. The purpose of the overlays when they were established was to ensure that any development would be in-scale and compatible with the adjacent residential properties and for the parking lot to act as a buffer between the commercial use and the adjacent residential properties. Under the current Architectural Design (D) overlay zone, the maximum permitted building size is 19,500 square feet, which calculates to 16% of the lot area. The underlying General Commercial (C-G) zone allows a maximum Floor Area Ratio of .50 which calculates to 60,766 square feet. The proposed senior assisted living care facility is proposed at 44,192 square feet which is 16,574 square feet below the maximum, and calculates to 36% of the lot size. Although the proposed facility is larger than the existing building as well as what is currently allowed, the Applicant proposes a design that will maintain the overall intent of the existing overlays. The proposed development will be placed at a minimum of 76’-7” away from the adjoining residential properties to the south, and 94’-0” from the residential properties to the east. Between the facility and the residential properties, a parking and landscape buffer is proposed. Additionally, the Applicant is proposing to maintain all of the mature trees that are placed along the property lines to screen the project from the adjacent residential properties. Therefore, the proposed removal of the existing overlays will not have a significant impact to the adjacent properties as the applicant has put a lot of consideration into the design and layout of the project. The Artis senior facility is a well thought out design that will allow for the a financially feasible project while at the same time minimizing development standards and building height in order to be sensitive to the adjacent residential properties. The project will provide housing options to the aging population of the region, and assistance for those with memory care needs. The redevelopment of the site with a senior assisted living care facility will allow for the appropriate use and development that will not impact adjacent properties. With all of the recent retraction in commercial uses throughout the region, changes in use from “typical” retail and commercial uses are becoming common. The City has been supportive of these “marginal” commercial sites transitioning to residential or pseudo-commercial uses such as this over time. As proposed, the proposed senior living care facility is consistent with the following goals and policies of the Land Use Element of the Arcadia General Plan: • Goal LU-1: A balanced of land uses that preserves Arcadia status as a Community of Homes and a community of opportunity. • Policy LU-1.1: Promote new infill and redevelopment projects that are consistent with the City’s land use and compatible with surrounding existing uses. • Policy LU-1.2: Promote new uses of land that provide diverse economic, social, and cultural opportunities, and that reinforce the characteristics that make Arcadia a desirable place to live. Artis Senior Living Care Facility 1150 W. Colorado Boulevard July 14, 2020 Page 6 of 23 • Policy LU-1.5: Require that effective buffer areas be created between land uses that are of significantly different character or that have operating characteristics which could create nuisances along common boundary. Architectural Style The Artis Senior Living Facility has been thoughtfully designed to complement the adjoining residential properties and will enhance the overall streetscape – refer to Attachment No. 3 for the architectural plans and to the rendering above. The proposed Traditional/Cape Cod Architectural-style helps blend the senior living care facility with the adjoining residential properties. The design includes a large and prominent front entry porch. The building is designed in a w-shaped layout with a tower element in the center to provide variation to the building height and visual appeal. The design contains architectural features such as white colored vertical and horizontal cement fiber board siding, black wooden shutters, black walnut-colored asphalt shingles, and brick stonework at the base of the building that are commonly found within the Traditional and Cape Cod architectural styles. The design also include decorative features, such as white colored trellises along the sides, white-wooden corbels under the eaves of the screen porches along the sides of the building, and a small, decorative cupola at the top of the building. The use of varied massing and materials with articulation on each of the building façades increase visual interest of the development. The overall design has a balanced and aesthetically pleasing design that will complement the surrounding residential properties and the general vicinity. Lastly, the location provides a focal westerly entry point to the City. Although commercial buildings are encouraged to be placed closer to the street, the proposed senior living care facility acts more like a residential building, and will provide a comparable streetscape with the surrounding residential properties that has large front or street side yard setbacks along Colorado Boulevard. Figure No. 4 Rendering from W. Colorado Blvd. Artis Senior Living Care Facility 1150 W. Colorado Boulevard July 14, 2020 Page 7 of 23 FINDINGS Pursuant to Section 9108.03.060(B) of the Development Code, an amendment to the Arcadia Zoning Map may be approved only if all of the following findings are satisfied: 1. The proposed Zoning Map Amendment is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan(s). Facts to Support the Finding: The proposed Zone Change and Zoning Map Amendment to remove the two existing overlays (Architectural Design (D) Overlay Zone and Automobile Parking (P) Overlay Zone) are consistent with the General Plan in that the underlying land use of Commercial will remain the same, and the change will allow the property owner to redevelop the site to its full potential. The proposed Zone Change and Zoning Map Amendment will not have any detrimental effect upon the health, safety and general welfare of the City, nor will it have an effect on the conditions of the built environment since the amendments only consist of removing two overlays while maintaining the existing zoning classification and General Plan Land Use designation. The proposed Zone Change and Zoning Map Amendment are consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Arcadia General Plan. The proposed Zone Change will be consistent with the following General Plan goals and policies: Land Use and Community Development Element x Policy LU-1.6: Establish consistency between the Land Use Plan and the Zoning Code. x Policy LU-1.1: Promote new infill and redevelopment projects that are consistent with the City’s land use and compatible with surrounding existing uses. Conditional Use Permit Pursuant to Section 9107.09.050(B) of the Development Code requires that for a Conditional Use Permit to be granted, it must be found that all of the following prerequisite findings can be satisfied: 1. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. Facts to Support This Finding: Approval of the proposed senior assisted living care facility will be consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation of Commercial. The underlying zone allows a broad array of commercial uses that serve both the neighborhood and citywide. The proposed senior assisted living care facility will allow a business that can serve the aging population of the City, specifically those with Alzheimer’s disease and related memory delays. The residential care facility is a use permitted in the General Commercial (C-G) Zone subject to the approval of a Artis Senior Living Care Facility 1150 W. Colorado Boulevard July 14, 2020 Page 8 of 23 Conditional Use Permit. It will not adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan, and is consistent with the following General Plan goals and policies: x Goal LU-1: A balance of land uses that preserves Arcadia status as a Community of Homes and a community of opportunity. x Policy LU-1.1: Promote new infill and redevelopment projects that are consistent with the City’s land use and compatible with surrounding existing uses. x Policy LU-1.2: Promote new uses of land that provide diverse economic, social, and cultural opportunities, and that reinforce the characteristics that make Arcadia a desirable place to live. x Policy LU-1.5: Require that effective buffer areas be created between land uses that are of significantly different character or that have operating characteristics which could create nuisances along common boundary. 2. The proposed use is allowed within the applicable zone, subject to the granting of a Conditional Use Permit, and complies with all other applicable provisions of the Development Code and the Municipal Code. Facts to Support This Finding: The site is zoned General Commercial (C-G) and pursuant to the Arcadia Development Code Section 9102.03.020, Table 2-8, allows a Large-Residential Care Facility in the General Commercial C-G zone subject to the review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit. With the removal of the two existing overlays, the proposed project complies will all the development standards of the General Commercial C-G zone. In addition, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Development Services Department prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the proposed project, which determined that the project, with mitigation measures, will have less-than- significant impacts. Lastly, the proposed residential care facility complies with all other applicable provisions of the Development Code. 3. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed activity will be compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity. Facts to Support This Finding: The Artis senior living facility is a well thought out design that is not only compatible in scale and design with the adjacent residential properties to the east and south, but will also compliment the other commercial properties along the commercial corner intersection of W. Colorado Boulevard and Michillinda Avenue. The proposed development will be placed over 75 feet from the adjacent residential properties with a parking and landscape buffer between the facility and the residential uses. The project will redevelop the site with a senior assisted living care facility with an appropriate use and development that will not impact adjacent properties. With the exception of the perimeter fence that exceeds the maximum height limit, the project complies with all related zoning requirements as set forth in the Development Code and all applicable regulations and requirements set forth by various City Departments. The site will be adequately served by all the Artis Senior Living Care Facility 1150 W. Colorado Boulevard July 14, 2020 Page 9 of 23 required utilities and public services. Therefore, the project site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed development . Parking for the project is above the minimum Code requirement and, thus, no parking impacts are expected. Additionally, the proposed project will result in an overall reduction of vehicular traffic as compared to the existing use and nearly any other use that could be considered for the property. Thus, the proposed senior assisted living care facility will be compatible with the existing and future uses in the vicinity. 4. The site is physically suitable in terms of: a. Its design, location, shape, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed use in order to accommodate the use, and all fences, landscaping, loading, parking, spaces, walls, yards, and other features required to adjust the use with the land and uses in the neighborhood; Facts to Support This Finding: The site measures approximately 2.79 acres. The subject site can physically support the proposed senior living care facility. At 44,192 square feet the building is 16,574 square feet below the maximum permitted Floor Area Ratio for the site. The project will provide more than the required amount of parking which will be dedicated to employees and visitors in order to prevent any parking issues. Lastly, the new building has been placed over 75 feet away from the side and rear setbacks in order to be sensitive to the adjacent residential properties to the east and south and to provide an adequate buffer. Therefore, the site is adequate in size to accommodate the new senior assisted living care facility. b. Streets and highways adequate in width and pavement type to accommodate public and emergency vehicle (e.g., fire and medical) access. Facts to Support This Finding: The project will be located at the southeast corner of W. Colorado Boulevard and Michillinda Avenue. Although the project will only have an access point off of W. Colorado Boulevard, both streets have been designated and designed with the capacity to accommodate both normal public vehicular travel and emergency vehicles. These street are adequate in width and pavement type to carry the traffic that would be generated by the proposed senior facility, and to support emergency vehicle access. The streets will be able to handle the demand from this new use since the proposed project would actually generate less traffic than the previous use. c. Public protection services (e.g., fire protection, police protection, etc.). Facts to Support This Finding: The construction of a senior assisted care facility will comply with the Building and Fire Codes, and all other applicable regulations to ensure the safety of the residents as well as help reduce the creation of fire hazards and facilitate emergency response. As part of the environmental review process, the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) determined that Artis Senior Living Care Facility 1150 W. Colorado Boulevard July 14, 2020 Page 10 of 23 Fire and Police protection services can handle the demand for the proposed senior assisted living care facility. d. The provision of utilities (e.g., potable water, schools, solid waste collection and disposal, storm drainage, wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal, etc.). Facts to Support This Finding: It has been determined that the existing infrastructure and public utilities can handle the demand for the proposed senior assisted living care facility, and that no upgrades were necessary. The proposed project is required to comply with the Low Impact Development (LID) requirements for stormwater discharge. 5. The measure of site suitability shall be required to ensure that the type, density, and intensity of use being proposed will not adversely affect the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare, constitute a nuisance, or be materially injurious to the improvements, persons, property, or uses in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located. Facts to Support This Finding: The proposed senior facility is not expected to be detrimental to the public health or welfare, or the surrounding residential and commercial properties. The project will be compatible in terms of scale and design with the adjoining residential properties to the east and south. The project includes setbacks that far exceed the minimum requirement, and a landscape and parking buffer. The Project proposes to maintain all existing mature trees along the perimeter to minimize any potential impacts to the adjacent residents. The project will provide more than the required amount of parking which will be dedicated to employees and visitors in order to prevent any parking issue. The construction of the project will meet all Building and Fire Codes, and all other applicable regulations. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) prepared for the senior assisted living care facility analyzed all the potential impacts, and all the project impacts are less than significant or can be reduced to less than significant level with the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. Therefore, the proposed project will not adversely affect the public in general nor will it impact to the uses in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located. Administrative Modification The project requires a modification to allow a fence to exceed the permitted height. Pursuant to Section 9107.05.050(B) of the Development Code, it is required that the Planning Commission makes at least one of the following findings in order to approve the subject modification request: 1. Promote uniformity of development; 2. Prevent an unreasonable hardship; or Artis Senior Living Care Facility 1150 W. Colorado Boulevard July 14, 2020 Page 11 of 23 3. Secure an appropriate improvement of a parcel The proposed 8’-0” tall fence along the perimeter of the building and outdoor open space will secure an appropriate improvement of the lot because the additional height of 2’-0” will properly secure the site that is necessary to protect the residents. The residents are expected to be individuals with memory issues and this requires additional security measures. To help soften the appearance of the fence from the street, a condition has been placed on the project that some hedges and/or trees shall be spread out in front of the fence (refer to condition no. 6). Architectural Design Review The Artis Senior Living Facility has been thoughtfully designed to complement the adjoining residential properties, and enhances commercial intersection along W. Colorado Boulevard and Michilinda Avenue. The selected Traditional/Cape Cod Architectural-style helps to blend the senior assisted living care facility with the adjoining residential properties. The design contains architectural features and materials that are commonly found within the Traditional and Cape Cod architectural styles as well as decorative features, such trellises, corbels under the eaves of the building, and a decorative cupola at the top of the building that increases visual interest of the development. The building was strategically placed away from residential properties to the east and south to minimize any potential impacts to the adjacent residential properties and was pushed back to from the street to maintain a comparable streetscape with the residential properties. The overall design has a balanced and aesthetically pleasing design that will complement the surrounding residential properties and the general vicinity. Protected Tree Encroachment Permit The project requires a protected tree encroachment application to allow site improvements such as new hardscape, fencing and minor grade change to encroach underneath the dripline of nine (9) protected trees that consist of five (5) Fern Pine trees, two (2) Carrotwood trees, one (1) South Magnolia tree, and one (1) Japanese Pear tree. Per the Arcadia Tree Protection Ordinance, these trees are considered protected as they are located within the required setbacks and meet the minimum trunk diameters. The Certified Arborist determined that the proposed encroachments will not adversely affect the long-term health of the protected trees as long as the mitigations and recommendations listed in the Arborist Report are followed. Additionally, prior to demolition of the existing structure, the contractor will be required to meet and consult with the Certified Arborist on-site to ensure all measures are applied and to review the goals for the tree protection plan. A tree protection zone fence shall be required around all protected trees throughout the construction of the project. Therefore, it has been determined that the proposed encroachments of the protected trees will not adversely affect the long-term health of the trees. All City requirements regarding disabled access and facilities, occupancy limits, building safety, health code compliance, emergency equipment, environmental regulation Artis Senior Living Care Facility 1150 W. Colorado Boulevard July 14, 2020 Page 12 of 23 compliance, and parking and site design shall be complied with by the property owner/applicant to the satisfaction of the Building Official, City Engineer, Planning & Community Development Administrator, Fire Marshal, and Public Works Services Director, or their respective designees. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Development Services Department prepared the attached Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the proposed project - refer to Attachment No. 5. The project with mitigation measures will have less-than-significant impacts for the following areas: Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Noise, and Tribal Cultural Resources. A detailed review is included in the IS/MND. The mitigation measures have been added as conditions of approval (Condition of Approval nos. 31-39) for the project. The City has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). In accordance with Section 21091 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Section 15073 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the senior living care facility was circulated for public review and comments for 30 days from April 23, 2020 to May 22, 2020. Due to Covid-19, the IS/MND circulation period was extended from 20 to 29 days to give additional time for comments because of the pandemic. During this time period, public agencies, organizations, and the public in general were afforded the opportunity to review the Draft IS/MND, and submit written comments regarding the documents and the proposed project. During the comment period, staff received two comment letters from the following agency/organization: x South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAMD), dated May 5, 2020. SCAQMD recommended that the City perform a mobile source health risk assessment (HRA) to disclose the potential health risks in the Final MND, and incorporate strategies to reduce exposures by senior residents to toxic air contaminants from vehicles and trucks traveling on I-210. x California Department of Fish and Wildlife, dated May 21, 2020. The agency determined that the project is deemed to have a potential impact on fish and wildlife, and, a CEQA filing fee is required to be paid to the Los Angeles County Clerk’s Office upon submittal of Notice of Determination for the environmental document. The Planning Commission is required to consider the IS/MND with any response to comments received during the public review process (attached), which did not change the analysis or any of the determination of the Initial Study. PUBLIC NOTICE/COMMENTS Public hearing notice for this item was originally mailed to all the property owners within the 300 foot radius of the subject property on April 23, 2020. However, due to a lack of Artis Senior Living Care Facility 1150 W. Colorado Boulevard July 14, 2020 Page 13 of 23 quorum for the June 23, 2020 Planning Commission meeting, the meeting was rescheduled to July 1, 2020. A revised noticed was mailed and published on June 18, 2020 for the July 1, 2020 meeting. The July 1, 2020 meeting was continued to the July 14, 2020 meeting because of an incorrect email that was on the public notice for public comments. As a result, a revised notice was mailed and published on July 2, 2020. Staff also had the phone line open on July 1, 2020 to inform the public of this change. During the comment period, staff received a comment (refer to Attachment No. 6). The property owners that abuts the subject property along Altura Road had concerns with the noise generated from the delivery trucks and trash pick-up. Many factors were taken into consideration on the layout of the project to minimize potential impacts to the adjacent properties. The new trash enclosure and loading space are placed roughly 170 feet away from the resident which is at a similar distance as the current locations. The area directly adjacent to the property owner will mainly consist of a turn-around area that will be rarely used and that will provide an additional buffer. Lastly, Applicant proposes to maintain the existing mature trees to screen the site from the adjacent properties. The Notice of Intent to Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration was published in the Arcadia Weekly and filed with the L.A. County Recorder’s Office on April 23, 2020. Extra review days were provided to ensure all the responsible agencies had the full 20 days to review the project during COVID-19. During the notification period, staff did not receive any comments or concerns regarding the proposed project from the public in addition to the two comments received from SCAMD and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. The Applicant released an informational webpage for the project and mailed notice all the property owners within the 300-foot radius inviting the residents to visit the project’s webpage which included an introduction to Artis Senior Living, project description, the architectural plans, and rendering of the project. All comments and questions were deferred to City Staff. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2058 recommending approval of Zone Change No. ZC 19-01, Architectural Design Review No. ADR 18-22, Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 19-03, Minor Administrative Modification No. AM Minor 19-22, and Protected Tree Encroachment No. TRE 20-04 for a new 80- room, assisted senior care facility and further recommends adoption of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Mitigated Monitoring and Reporting Program to the City Council, subject to the following conditions of approval: 1. The project shall be developed and maintained by the Property Owner/Applicant in a manner that is consistent with the plans submitted and conditionally approved for ZC 19-01, ADR 18-22, CUP 19-03, AM Minor 19-22, and TRE 20-04, subject to the satisfaction of the Planning & Community Development Administrator or designee. 2. The Property Owner/Applicant shall submit an official ALTA survey of the property to the City prior to submitting plans into Building Services for plan-check. The City Artis Senior Living Care Facility 1150 W. Colorado Boulevard July 14, 2020 Page 14 of 23 shall retain all access and other rights over the sanitary sewer easement and storm drain easement that are located on and under the subject property, and the Property Owner/Applicant shall make any adjustment, modifications, and/or abandon the sewer line in its development of the property, or amendments to current easement of record, deemed by the City to reasonably necessary for the City to maintain such infrastructure and access. All new or existing manholes to remain on the site as part of the new development shall be within a paved area. Final placement of the manholes shall be subject to review and approval of the Public Works Department. Any agreement that is required by the City to allow the development to occur over the easements shall be prepared by the Property Owner/Applicant and shall be subject to approval by the City Attorney prior to recordation in the Los Angeles County Recorder’s Office. For purposes of the City Attorney review of any such document, the Property Owner/Applicant shall submit to the City a deposit of $5,000, of which any funds remaining after review and approval by the City shall be returned to the Property Owner/Applicant. 3. Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, the Property Owner/ Applicant shall submit to Planning Services a copy of the form of lease or occupancy agreement that will be utilized for the proposed senior living facility. The form of such agreement must require all future residents to acknowledge the potential health risk associated with living within 500 feet of a freeway. Such acknowledgment shall be placed in all such future agreements for the senior living facility. 4. The Property Owner/Applicant shall submit a haul route map and construction staging plan to Planning Services prior to issuance of a Demolition permit. 5. The Property Owner/Applicant shall be responsible for the repair of all damage to public improvements in the public right-of-way resulting from construction related activities, including, but not limited to, the movement and/or delivery of equipment, materials, and soils to and/or from the site. The need for such repair shall be determined by the Planning & Community Development Administrator and the Public Works Director, or designees, during construction and up until issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 6. The final landscape plan that is submitted to Building Services for plan-check shall be revised to include hedges and/or trees spread out in front of the 8-foot wooden fence along Michillinda Avenue. 7. The plans that are submitted to Building Services for plan-check shall comply with the latest adopted edition of the following codes as applicable: a. California Building Code b. California Electrical Code c. California Mechanical Code d. California Plumbing Code e. California Energy Code f. California Fire Code Artis Senior Living Care Facility 1150 W. Colorado Boulevard July 14, 2020 Page 15 of 23 g. California Green Building Standards Code h. California Existing Building Code 8. The grading plans shall indicate all site improvements, and shall indicate complete drainage paths of all drainage water run-off. 9. Prior to the issuance of a building permit from Building Services, the Property Owner/Applicant shall irrevocably dedicate to the City 4 feet along the frontage of Colorado Boulevard for a total parkway width of 12- feet, as measured from curb to property line. A corner cutback at Michillinda Avenue/Colorado Boulevard is also required to accommodate an ADA curb per Caltrans standard A88A. Both dedications shall be subject to review and approval by the Deputy Development Services Director/Engineer. 10. The Property Owner/Applicant shall be required to remove and replace existing sidewalk, curb and gutter along the property frontage of Michillinda Avenue and W. Colorado Boulevard. 11. Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy by Building Services, the Property Owner/Applicant shall modify the median island left turn pocket to accommodate the driveway approach on W. Colorado Boulevard in accordance with plans which shall be subject to approval by the Deputy Development Services Director/Engineer, or designee. 12. The Property Owner/Applicant shall be required to remove the existing driveway approaches and construct a new driveway approach along W. Colorado Boulevard per City Standard with ADA access around the approach. 13. A Low Impact Development (LID) plan is required for this development. It shall comply with the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works 2014 LID standard manual, and the measurements must be shown on the grading plan. These measurements shall include using infiltration trenches, bioretention planter boxes, roof drains connected to a landscaped area, pervious concrete/paver, etc. 14. The Property Owner/Applicant shall coordinate with the Public Works Services Department on the replacement and/or protection of street trees prior to issuance of a grading permit from Building Services. 15. The building shall be fully fire sprinklered per the City of Arcadia Fire Department Commercial Sprinklers Standards. 16. The Property Owner/Applicant shall install three (3) new fire hydrants, two along the City’s right-away and one on the site as part of the project. The location shall be depicted on the site plan, and shall be subject to review and approval by the Fire Marshall prior to issuance of a building permit for the project. Artis Senior Living Care Facility 1150 W. Colorado Boulevard July 14, 2020 Page 16 of 23 17. Knox boxes shall be provided at the front entry and exterior doors at the southeast and southwest stairwells. Stairwell doors shall be keyed to provide for exterior emergency access. 18. In order to verify the required water service size for the project, the Property Owner/Applicant shall submit to the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of a building permit calculations for the maximum commercial use demand and maximum fire demand. 19. The Property Owner/Applicant shall provide separate water services and meters for the Residential Care Facility and outdoor irrigation system. A reduced pressure backflow device shall be installed for each water service. 20. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Property Owner/Applicant shall submit a Water Meter Permit Application to the Public Works Services Department. 21. The Property Owner/Applicant shall provide a new water service installation. Installation shall be according to the specifications of the Public Works Services Department, Engineering Division. Abandonment of existing water services, if necessary, shall be completed by the Property Owner/Applicant, according to Public Works Services Department, Engineering Section specifications. 22. Prior to the issuance of a Building permit, the Property Owner/Applicant shall provide a Sewer Area Study to determine whether or not the existing 8-inch Vitrified Clay Pipe (VCP) City sewer line on the site is capable of meeting all anticipated demands of the proposed project. 23. The Property Owner/Applicant shall utilize existing sewer lateral(s) if possible. 24. If any drainage fixture elevation is lower than the elevation of the next upstream manhole cover, the Property Owner/Applicant shall be required to use an approved type of backwater valve. 25. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Property Owner/Applicant shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and shall obtain a Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) number from the State. 26. The project shall be subject to Industrial Waste management requirements and a grease interceptor is required for the kitchen facility. This shall be subject to the review and approval by the Public Works Services Department. 27. The trash enclosure area shall be installed the Property Owner/Applicant and shall comply with the following: a. A minimum interior width of 9’-7” in order to accommodate three (3) 3-yard bin. b. A minimum roof clearance of 10-0” to allow the bin lids to open completely. c. Shall include a trash, recycling and organics recycling bins. d. Provide a minimum of one (1) foot clearance around the trash bin/recycling bin. Artis Senior Living Care Facility 1150 W. Colorado Boulevard July 14, 2020 Page 17 of 23 28. The Property Owner/Applicant shall comply with all City requirements regarding building safety, fire prevention, detection, suppression, emergency access, public right-of-way improvements, parking, water supply and water facilities, sewer facilities, trash reduction and recycling requirements, and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) measures, all to the satisfaction of the Building Official, Fire Marshal, Public Works Services Director, and Planning & Community Development Administrator. Compliance with these requirements is to be determined by having fully detailed construction plans submitted for plan check review and approval by the foregoing City officials and employees. 29. The Owner/Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Arcadia and its officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Arcadia, its officials, officers, employees or agents to attack, set aside, void, or annul any approval or conditional approval of the City of Arcadia concerning this project and/or land use decision, including but not limited to any approval or conditional approval of the City Council, Planning Commission, or City Staff, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37 or other provision of law applicable to this project or decision. The City shall promptly notify the Applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding concerning the project and/or land use decision and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. The City reserves the right, at its own option, to choose its own attorney to represent the City, its officials, officers, employees, and agents in the defense of the matter. 30. Approval of ZC 19-01, ADR 18-22, CUP 19-03, AM MINOR 19-22, and TRE 20-04 shall not be in effect unless the Property Owner and Applicant have executed and filed the Acceptance Form with the City on or before 30 calendar days after the Planning Commission has adopted the Resolution. The Acceptance Form to the Development Services Department is to indicate awareness and acceptance of the conditions of approval. Mitigation Measures as Conditions of Approval The following conditions are found in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). They are recorded here to facilitate review and implementation. More information on the timing and responsible parties for these mitigation measures are detailed in the MMRP. Biological Resources 31. 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 Artis Senior Living Care Facility 1150 W. Colorado Boulevard July 14, 2020 Page 18 of 23 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. 32. 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: a. 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. b. 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. c. 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. d. 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. e. 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. f. 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. g. Additional construction best practices described in the Protected Tree Report shall be implemented. Cultural Resources 33. 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 Artis Senior Living Care Facility 1150 W. Colorado Boulevard July 14, 2020 Page 19 of 23 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 34. 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 35. 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: a. 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. b. 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 Artis Senior Living Care Facility 1150 W. Colorado Boulevard July 14, 2020 Page 20 of 23 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. c. During construction, stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers. d. Prior to issuance of any Grading or Building Permit, the Project applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning & Community Development Administrator (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. e. Construction haul routes shall be designed to avoid noise-sensitive uses (e.g., residences and convalescent homes) to the extent feasible. Tribal Cultural Resources 36. TCR-1: Retain 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. 37. TCR-2: 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 Artis Senior Living Care Facility 1150 W. Colorado Boulevard July 14, 2020 Page 21 of 23 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. 38. TCR-3: 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. Artis Senior Living Care Facility 1150 W. Colorado Boulevard July 14, 2020 Page 22 of 23 39. TCR-4: 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. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Approval If the Planning Commission intends to approve this proposal, the Commission should approve a motion to recommend approval of Zone Change No. ZC 19-01, Architectural Design Review No. ADR 18-22, Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 19-03, Minor Administrative Modification No. AM Minor 19-22, and Protected Tree Encroachment No. TRE 20-04, and recommend adoption of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigated Monitoring and Reporting Program to the City Council, stating that the proposal satisfies the requisite findings, and adopting the attached Resolution No. 2058 and direct staff to convey the Planning Commission’s comments to the City Council. Denial If the Planning Commission intends to deny this proposal, the Commission should approve a motion to deny approval of Zone Change No. ZC 19-01, Architectural Design Review No. ADR 18-22, Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 19-03, Minor Administrative Artis Senior Living Care Facility 1150 W. Colorado Boulevard July 14, 2020 Page 23 of 23 Modification No. AM Minor 19-22, and Protected Tree Encroachment No. TRE 20-04, and adoption of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigated Monitoring and Reporting Program, stating that the finding(s) of the proposal do not satisfy with reasons based on the record, and direct staff to proceed with a Resolution and convey the Planning Commission’s comments to the City Council. If any Planning Commissioner or other interested party has any questions or comments regarding this matter prior to the July 14, 2020, hearing, please contact Associate Planner, Vanessa Quiroz, at (626) 574-5422, or by email at vquiroz@ArcadiaCA.gov. Approved: Lisa L. Flores Planning & Community Development Administrator Attachment No. 1: Resolution No. 2058 Attachment No. 2: Aerial Photo and Zoning Information and Photos of the Subject Property Attachment No. 3: Architectural Plans and Renderings Attachment No. 4 Resolution No. 4440 and Ordinance No. 1509 Attachment No. 5: Draft IS/MND, Response to Comments, and MMRP – Technical Studies (Appendix A –E) can be found at www.Arcadica.gov/projects Attachment No. 6: Public Comment $WWDFKPHQW1R 5HVROXWLRQ1R $WWDFKPHQW1R $WWDFKPHQW1R $HULDO3KRWRZLWK=RQLQJ,QIRUPDWLRQDQG 3KRWRVRIWKH6XEMHFW3URSHUW\DQGWKH 6XUURXQGLQJ3URSHUWLHV $WWDFKPHQW1R Overlays Selected parcel highlighted Parcel location within City of Arcadia N/A Property Owner(s): Lot Area (sq ft): Year Built: Main Structure / Unit (sq. ft.): C-G Number of Units: C Property Characteristics 1976 13,088 0 ARTIS SENIOR LIVING OF ARCADIA LLC Site Address:1150 W COLORADO BLVD Parcel Number: 5776-001-012 N/A Zoning: General Plan: N/A Downtown Overlay: Downtown Parking Overlay: Architectural Design Overlay:Yes N/A N/A Yes, N/A Residential Flex Overlay: N/A N/A Yes, N/A Yes Special Height Overlay: N/A Parking Overlay: Racetrack Event Overlay: This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. Report generated 22-Jun-2020 Page 1 of 1 Subject site Subject site: West view Subject site: East view Subject site: East view Subject site: West view Subject site: East parking lot area Subject site: South parking lot area Subject site: South parking lot area I-210 Freeway located north of the site Commercial building located across the street Gas station located across the street Residential properties to the south west of the site Residential properties that abut to the east of the site along N. Altura Rd. Residential properties that abut to the east of the site along N. Altura Rd. Residential properties that abut to the south of the site along Altura Terrace . Residential properties that abut to the east of the site along N. Altura Rd. Residential properties that abut to the south of the site along Altura Terrace . Residential properties that abut to the south of the site along Altura Terrace . Residential properties that abut to the south of the site along Altura Terrace . $WWDFKPHQW1R $UFKLWHFWXUDO3ODQVDQG5HQGHULQJV $WWDFKPHQW1R 03/05/202012LEGENDSITE INFORMATIONCONSTRUCTION LEGENDPROPOSEDBUILDINGCOLORA D O S T R E E T MICHILLINDA STREETLEGAL DESCRIPTIONEXCEPTIONS (EASEMENTS):ADDITIONAL EASEMENTS Know what'sbefore you dig.R03/05/202022NOTESGRADING LEGENDCONSTRUCTION SYMBOLSCOLORA D O S T R E E T MICHILLINDA STREETPROPOSED BUILDINGFINISHED FLOOR = 646.75 R1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1DUMPSTERMICHILLINDA STREETW COLORADO BLVD4HCHCHCHCGATE WITH KNOX BOX22' - 11"33' - 7"GENERATORFIRE DEPT. TURN AROUND150' FIRE HOSE117' FIRE HOSE150' FIRE HOSE150' FIRE HOSEGATE WITH KNOX BOXGATE WITHKNOX BOXKNOX BOXGATE WITHKNOX BOX133' FIRE HOSE75' FIRE HOSE150' FIRE HOSEKNOX BOXKNOX BOXFIRE TRUCK STAGGING AREAFIRE TRUCK STAGGING AREAFIRE TRUCK STAGGING AREAFIRE TRUCK STAGGING AREAFIRE TRUCK STAGGING AREAGATE WITHKNOX BOX'UDZQ&KHFNHG6FDOHFDPSXVFRPPRQVGULYHVXLWHUHVWRQYLUJLQLD7HO)D[ZZZDUFKLQFFRPIssuedAll reproduction + intellectual property rights reserved by Architecture Incorporated © 2015 1" = 20'-0"C:\Users\MalachyM\Documents\17005-17 Artis SL_Acadia CENTRAL-CURRENT_MalachyM.rvt9/4/2019 6:45:18 PMAS5.0FIRE PLAN3URMHFWAuthorChecker08/30/191150 W. COLORADO BLVD.ARCADIA, CA 91007Artis Senior Living of ArcadiaARTIS SENIOR LIVINGENTITLEMENTENTITLEMENTREVISIONS 1" = 20'-0"1FIRE PLAN DWREF.DWREF.REF.REF.REF.W237' - 6 3/4"12' - 0 1/4"47' - 4 5/8"28' - 10 3/4"60' - 11 5/8"28' - 10 3/4"47' - 4 5/8"12' - 0 1/4"2' - 8 1/4"22' - 8 1/2" 22' - 0" 28' - 10 3/4"28' - 10 3/4"22' - 0"22' - 8 1/2"2' - 8 1/4"1' - 4 3/4"41' - 11 1/2"92' - 9 1/8"26' - 11 1/8"18' - 6 1/2"28' - 10 3/4"28' - 10 3/4"18' - 6 1/2"26' - 11 1/8"98' - 4 3/4"1' - 4 3/4"41' - 11 1/2"111' - 10 1/8"155' - 2 1/4"6' - 9 1/4"16' - 10 3/4" 0" 12' - 6"16' - 10 3/4" 0" 12' - 6"12' - 6" 0" 16' - 10 3/4"12' - 6" 0" 16' - 10 3/4"1044 SFCORR.118 SFMECH90 SFLAUNDRY48 SFST.SCREENPORCH646 SFDINING ROOM504 SFFAMILY ROOM68 SFST.113 SFSTAIR 3503 SFFAMILY ROOM645 SFDINNING ROOM120 SFPANTRY90 SFLAUNDRY48 SFST.118 SFMECHSCREENPORCH216 SFUNIT-1222 SFUNIT-1216 SFUNIT-1216 SFUNIT-1216 SFUNIT-2216 SFUNIT-3234 SFUNIT-2234 SFUNIT-3216 SFUNIT-2294 SFUNIT-4-HC221 SFUNIT-2302 SFUNIT-3-HC294 SFUNIT-4-HC221 SFUNIT-2302 SFUNIT-3-HC13' - 6 1/4" 12' - 6 1/2" 12' - 5 1/2" 12' - 6 1/2" 12' - 5 1/2" 12' - 6 1/2" 12' - 5 1/2" 12' - 6 3/4"12' - 6 5/8"12' - 5 1/2"12' - 6 1/2"12' - 5 1/2"12' - 6 1/2"12' - 5 1/2"12' - 6 1/2"13' - 6"68 SFST.113 SFSTAIR 3222 SFUNIT-1216 SFUNIT-1216 SFUNIT-1216 SFUNIT-2216 SFUNIT-3234 SFUNIT-2234 SFUNIT-313' - 6 1/4" 12' - 6 1/4" 12' - 5 1/2" 12' - 6 1/2" 12' - 5 1/2" 12' - 6 1/2" 12' - 5 1/2" 12' - 6 3/4"13' - 6"12' - 6 1/2" 12' - 5 1/2" 12' - 6 1/2" 12' - 5 1/2" 12' - 6 1/2" 12' - 5 1/2" 12' - 6 5/8"45' - 5 5/8"28' - 10 3/4"60' - 11 5/8"28' - 10 3/4"45' - 5 5/8"ROOF OVERHANGPORCH ROOF OVERHANGROOF OVERHANGCANOPY OVERHANGROOF OVERHANGPORCH ROOFOVERHANGROOF OVERHANGCANOPYOVERHANGROOF OVERHANGROOF OVERHANG18' - 6 1/2"6' - 7 3/8"18' - 6 1/2"18' - 6 1/2"6' - 7 3/8"18' - 6 1/2"233 SFUNIT 1233 SFUNIT -1216 SFUNIT-1216 SFUNIT-113' - 0 5/8"13' - 0 5/8"216 SFUNIT-1216 SFUNIT-1233 SFUNIT-1233 SFUNIT-1216 SFUNIT-1216 SFUNIT-1216 SFUNIT-1216 SFUNIT-1216 SFUNIT-1216 SFUNIT-1216 SFUNIT-1216 SFUNIT-1216 SFUNIT-11043 SFCORR.119 SFPANTRY19' - 1"98 SFCORR98 SFCORR742 SFCOMMUNITY CENTER76 SFPROGRAM SERVICES82 SFPROGRAM SERVICESSTORAGE51 SFJC502 SFACTIVITIES42 SFST.48 SFVISITOR TLT292 SFGEN. STORAGECOMMONSCOMMONS50 SFSTAFF TLT66 SFDES72 SFPORCH68 SFPORCH209 SFLOUNGECOMMONS505 SFKITCHEN128 SFELEC52 SFVISITORS TLT262 SFLOBBY71 SFWORK RM.124 SFMARKETING100 SFDIRECTOR154 SFCONF.44 SFVEST133 SFFOOD STORAGE78 SFREC.42 SFJC79 SFCORR.45' - 2 1/8"13' - 0 1/4"CANOPYOVERHANGCANOPY OVERHANGCOMMONS74 SFELEV.'UDZQ&KHFNHG6FDOHFDPSXVFRPPRQVGULYHVXLWHUHVWRQYLUJLQLD7HO)D[ZZZDUFKLQFFRPIssuedAll reproduction + intellectual property rights reserved by Architecture Incorporated © 2015 3/32" = 1'-0"C:\Users\MalachyM\Documents\17005-17 Artis SL_Acadia CENTRAL-CURRENT_MalachyM.rvt9/4/2019 7:25:29 PMA1.1FIRST FLOORPLAN3URMHFWMMWBO08/30/191150 W. COLORADO BLVD.ARCADIA, CA 91007Artis Senior Living of ArcadiaARTIS SENIOR LIVINGENTITLEMENTENTITLEMENT 3/32" = 1'-0"FIRST FLOOR PLANREVISIONSFIRST FLOOR AREA = 23,806 GSFSECOND FLOOR AREA= 20,465 GSFTOTAL FLOOR AREA = 44,271 GSF FIRST FLOOR UNIT COUNT = 40 UNITSSECOND FLOOR UNIT COUNT= 40 UNITSTOTAL BUILDING UNIT COUNT = 80 UNITS REF.REF.DWDWREF.REF.N503 SFASSEMBLYFAMILYROOM16233.5642 SFASSEMBLYDININGROOM16342.8121 SFEDUCATIONALPANTRY1646200 SFASSEMBLYSCREENPORCH16513.417 SFACCESSORYST.1670.148 SFACCESSORYST.1690.290 SFACCESSORYLAUNDRY1700.3118 SFACCESSORYMECH1710.4505 SFASSEMBLYFAMILYROOM17333.6120 SFEDUCATIONALPANTRY175690 SFACCESSORYLAUNDRY1760.348 SFACCESSORYST.1770.2118 SFACCESSORYMECH1780.4222 SFINSTITUTIONALUNIT-13711.8216 SFINSTITUTIONALUNIT-13721.8216 SFINSTITUTIONALUNIT-33731.8235 SFINSTITUTIONALUNIT-33741.8234 SFINSTITUTIONALUNIT-23751.8216 SFINSTITUTIONALUNIT-23761.8216 SFINSTITUTIONALUNIT-13771.8216 SFINSTITUTIONALUNIT-13781.8216 SFINSTITUTIONALUNIT-23791.8294 SFINSTITUTIONALUNIT-4-HC3822.4221 SFINSTITUTIONALUNIT-23831.8302 SFINSTITUTIONALUNIT-3-HC3862.4294 SFINSTITUTIONALUNIT-4-HC3872.4302 SFINSTITUTIONALUNIT-3-HC3882.417 SFACCESSORYST.4500.1STAIR 3222 SFINSTITUTIONALUNIT-14521.8216 SFINSTITUTIONALUNIT-14531.8216 SFINSTITUTIONALUNIT-34541.8235 SFINSTITUTIONALUNIT-34551.8216 SFINSTITUTIONALUNIT-24561.8216 SFINSTITUTIONALUNIT-14571.8216 SFINSTITUTIONALUNIT-14581.8234 SFINSTITUTIONALUNIT-24591.8194 SFASSEMBLYSCREENPORCH46012.9234 SFINSTITUTIONALUNIT-14721.8216 SFINSTITUTIONALUNIT-14741.8216 SFINSTITUTIONALUNIT-14751.8216 SFINSTITUTIONALUNIT-14881.8216 SFINSTITUTIONALUNIT-14891.8216 SFINSTITUTIONALUNIT-14901.8216 SFINSTITUTIONALUNIT-14911.8216 SFINSTITUTIONALUNIT-14921.8216 SFINSTITUTIONALUNIT-14931.8233 SFINSTITUTIONALUNIT-14941.8233 SFINSTITUTIONALUNIT-14951.8216 SFINSTITUTIONALUNIT-14961.8216 SFINSTITUTIONALUNIT-14971.8216 SFINSTITUTIONALUNIT-14981.8216 SFINSTITUTIONALUNIT-14991.81025 SFCORRIDOR216 SFINSTITUTIONALUNIT-23891.81025 SFCORRIDOR641 SFASSEMBLYDININGROOM50642.7221 SFINSTITUTIONALUNIT-23921.8ACCESSORY STORAGE/MECHANICAL/EQUIP(1:300)KITCHEN (1:200)BUSINESS (1:100)ASSEMBLY (1:15)INSTITUTIONAL (SLEEPING AREAS)(1:120)EDUCATIONAL (1:20)33"33"33"33"FECFECSC2-ASC2-BSC-2BSC2-CDRY TYPE FIRE SPRINKLER ATPORCH, PER CAFIRE CODEDRY TYPE FIRE SPRINKLER AT PORCH, PER CA FIRE CODEDOOR CLOSERS INTO RES ROOM NOT REQUIRED PER SECTION 435.8.4.1 TYP.LAUNDRY ROOMS IS UNDER 100 SF, FIRE RATING NOT REQUIRED PER TABLE 509FR EXT BEARING WALLS STRUCTURE PROTECTION PROVIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH UL ASSEMBLY V454- SEE WALL SECTIONS FOR EXTERIOR FINISHTRAVEL TO SMOKE BARRIER DOOR = 165'-10"MAX ALLOWABLE IS 200' - OKTRAVEL TO SMOKE BARRIER DOOR = 165'-10"MAX ALLOWABLE IS 200' - OKFECFEC33"FECELEVATOR HOISTWAY DOOR OPENING PROTECTION NOT REQUIRED PER SECTION 3006.2ELEVATOR HOISTWAY DOOR OPENING PROTECTION NOT REQUIRED PER SECTION 3006.233"240 SFBUSINESSHEALTHCENTER6462.4201 SFBUSINESSBARBERBEAUTYSHOP650269 SFBUSINESSSPA6510.749 SFBUSINESSVISITORSTLT6490.581 SFBUSINESSOFFICE6470.846 SFACCESSORYST.6480.278 SFACCESSORYJC6450.3298 SFASSEMBLYGALLERY64419.9767 SFASSEMBLYCAFE64351.2159 SFACCESSORYSTORAGE6520.5188 SFKITCHENCAFEPANTRY6531448 SFCORRIDOR69 SFPORCHELEV.ELEV.72 SFPORCH98 SFCORRIDOR98 SFCORRIDOR233 SFUNIT-1661INSITUTIONAL1.8EXIT SIGN WITH LIGHTS AND CHEVRONSEGRESS PATH WITH TRAVEL DISTANCEEXIT DOOR LOAD AND WIDTH EGRESS UNITS PROVIDED34"170FIRE EXTINGUISHERFIRE EXTINGUISHER CABINETELECTRIC WATER COOLER)()(&1 HOUR RATED SMOKE BARRIER PER 2016 CBC SECTION 435.5.1 ROOM TAG ROOM NUMBER ROOM AREA FUNCTION TYPE OCCUPANT LOADRoom name###AREAOccupancyOccupancy Load Tag ValueLIFE SAFETY LEGEND:EWC1 HOUR FIRE RATING PARTITION CONSTRUCTED PER 2016 CBC SECTION 708 • FOR SEPERATION OF SPACE PER 2016 CBC SECTION 708• FOR DWELLING UNIT SEPARATION PER 2016 CBC SECTION 420.8• FOR CORRIDOR WALLS PER 2016 CBC TABLE 1020.11 HOUR RATED BEARING WALLS, RATED FOR PROTECTION OF STRUCTURE ONLY PER 2016 CBC TABLE 601, NOT AS SEPERATIONDELAYED EGRESS DOORS'(NURSE CALL SMOKE COMPARTMENTSC2 HOUR FIRE BARRIER CONSTRUCTED PER 2016 CBC SECTION 707SECOND FLOOR SMOKECOMPARTMENT DIAGRAMSC-1B4,971 SQFTSC-1C7,478 SQFTSC-1C7,478 SQFT'UDZQ&KHFNHG6FDOHConstruction Documents for:FDPSXVFRPPRQVGULYHVXLWHUHVWRQYLUJLQLD7HO)D[ZZZDUFKLQFFRPIssuedAll reproduction + intellectual property rights reserved by Architecture Incorporated © 2016A Memory and Assisted Living ResidenceP:\17005-16 Artis Senior Living - Morgan Hill\17005-17 Artis Senior Living - Arcadia\Revit\17005-17 Artis SL_Acadia CENTRAL-CURRENT.rvt2/20/2020 10:52:17 AMAs indicatedLS2.1LIFE SFETY 2NDFLOOR PLAN3URMHFWAuthorCheckerArtis Senior Living of ArcadiaARTIS SENIOR LIVING1150 W. COLORADO BLVD.ARCADIA, CA 91007ENTITLEMENTENTITLEMENTENTITLEMENT08/30/195HYLVLRQV 3/32" = 1'-0"1SECOND FLOOR PLANBUILDING DATA - SPRINKLEREDPROJECT ADDRESS1150 WEST COLORADO BLVD. ARCADIA, CA 91007GENERAL DESCRIPTION2 STORY - 80 BED MEMORY CARE / ASSISTED LIVING FACILITYAPPLICABLE CODES2016 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE YES2016 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE YES2016 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE YES2016 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE YES2016 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE YESSTATE OF CALIFORNIA TITLE 22 DIVISON 6 CHAPTER 8RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES FOR THE ELDERLY (RCFE)YESUSE GROUP (SECTION 310.4.1)RESIDENTIAL R-2.1CONSTRUCTION TYPE (SECTION 602)NONCOMBUSTIBLE II-APROJECT AREAFIRST FLOOR (GROSS BUILDING AREA): 23,767 sfSECOND FLOOR (GROSS BUILDING AREA): 20,425 sfTOTAL AREA: 44,193 sfALLOWABLE AREA (PER TABLE 506.2)AREA PER TABLE 506.2 (At) (WITHOUT HEIGHT INCREASE) 57,000 SFAREA MODIFICATION: Aa={At+(NS x If} x 2 NAMODIFIED ALLOWABLE AREA PER STORY NAFRONTAGE INCREASE (PER 506.3)If={F/P-0.25}W/30 NABUILDING HEIGHT / NUMBER OF STORIES (PER TABLE 504.3)NUMBER OF STORIES (ALLOWABLE / PROVIDED) 3 STORIES / 2 STORIESBUILDING HEIGHT (ALLOWABLE/ PROVIDED) 40'-0" / 35'- 6"FIRE ALARMPER SECTION 907.2.9 OF THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE YESFULLY SPRINKLEDCALIFORNIA FIRE CODE 903.3.1.1 (NFPA13) YESFIRE RESISTANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR BUILDING ELEMENTS (RATING) TABLE 601 (RATING /DESIGN)PRIMARY STRUCTURAL FRAME 1 HREXTERIOR BEARING WALLS 1 HREXTERIOR NON-LOAD BEARING WALLS 0 / NAINTERIOR BEARING WALLS 1 HRINTERIOR NON-BEARING WALLS 0 / NAFLOOR CONSTRUCTION + SECONDARY MEMBERS 1 HRROOF CONSTRUCTION + SECONDARY MEMBERS 1 HRMISCELANEOUS FIRE RESISTANCE REQUIREMENTSSHAFT ENCLOSURES (713.4) FIRE BARRIER 1 HRSHAFT ENCLOSURES ELEVATOR/MECHANICAL (713.4) 1 HR FIRE BARRIEROCCUPANCY SEPERATION (508.2.4) NOT REQUIREDSLEEPING UNIT SEPERATION EXCEPTION (420.8) 1 HR FIRE PARTITIONCO2 DETECTION (915.1.4) YESEMERGENCY RESPONDER RADIO COVERAGE (916) TBD BY FIRE OFFICIALSMOKE COMPARTMENT (435,709) (MIN 2 AREAS0 MAX AREA 22,500 SFSMOKE COMPARTMENT (435, 709) (MIN 2 AREAS) MAX TRAVEL 200'-0"SMOKE COMPARTMENT (435, 709) (MIN 2 AREAS) MIN RATING 1 HRFIRE BLOCKING (718.2) REQUIREDDRAFTSTOPPING (718.4.2) BLG SPRINKLED PER 903.3.1.1 NRINCIDENTAL USE (509)LAUNDRY ROOMS OVER 100 SF NA- SPRINKLEDWASTE AND LINEN COLLECTION ROOMS OVER 100 SF NA- SPRINKLEDSTORAGE ROOMS OVER 100 SF NA- SPRINKLEDINTERIOR WALL & CEILING FINISHES (TABLE 803.11 AND SECTION 803.1)WALLS / CEILINGS - EXIT ENCLOSURE / PASSAGEWAY CLASS BWALLS / CEILINGS - CORRIDORS CLASS CWALLS / CEILINGS - ROOMS + SPACES CLASS CINTERIOR FLOOR FINISHES (804.4.2)INTERIOR FLOOR FINISHES (804.4.2) CLASS 1>OR= 0.45 WATTS/ CM²) PERNFPA 253EGRESS REQUIREMENTSEGRESS STAIR WIDTH REQUIRED (SECTION 1005.3.1; .2" PEROCCUPANT)1ST FLOOR, EXIT AT LEVEL OFDISCHARGEEGRESS STAIR WIDTH REQUIRED (SECTION 1005.3.1; .2" PEROCCUPANT)2ND FLOOR: 63" PROVIDED 156"EGRESS DOOR WIDTH REQUIRED (SECTION 1005.3.2; .15" PEROCCUPANT)1ST FLOOR, REQ: 62" PROVIDED:198"EGRESS DOOR WIDTH REQUIRED (SECTION 1005.3.2; .15" PEROCCUPANT)2ND FLOOR, REQ: 54" PROVIDED: 99"MAXIMUM TRAVEL DISTANCE (TABLE 1017.2) 250'-0" MAXIMUMMAXIMUM DEAD END CORRIDOR (1020.4) 50'-0"REQUIRED NUMBER OF EXITS (TABLE 1006.3.1) 2EXIT DOORWAY SEPARATION (1007.1.1, EXCEPTION 2) 1/3 THE DIAGONAL; DIAGONALDISTANCEMAXIMUM COMMON PATH OF TRAVEL (TABLE 1006.2.1) 75'-0"PLUMBING FIXTURE REQUIREMENTS - CPC 2016Classification OccupancyDescriptionSex WC Occupancy FactorRequiredWCProvidedWCLav OccupancyFactorRequiredLavProvidedLav Bathtubs/ShowersOccupancyFactorRequiredBathtubs/ShowersProvidedBathtub/ShowersRequiredDFProvidedDFService SinkRESIDENTIAL R2-1ASSISTED LIVING FACILITYMALE &FEMALE1 per Room80801 per Room80801 per 1565/761 per 100 21 required perfloor............ ....StaffMALE &FEMALE1 per Facility11-11......Visitors (Including Common Areas)MALE &FEMALE..3. .19. . . ............... ....Total PlumbingFixtures....8184.81100 .6814 ProvidedOCCUPANCY SUMMARY - 2ND...NET ROOMAREAAREA PEROCCUPANTOccupancy CLASSIFICATIONOccupantLoad0 SF(none)1.8829 SF300 SF ACCESSORY ACCESSORY - STORAGE AREAS,MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT ROOM32915 SF15 SFASSEMBLY ASSEMBLY - W/O FIXED SEATS -UNCONCENTRATED250640 SF100 SF BUSINESS BUSINESS - AREAS6.4241 SF20 SF EDUCATIONAL EDUCATIONAL - CLASSROOM128902 SF120 SF INSTITUTIONAL INSTITUTIONAL - SLEEPING AREA72.6188 SF200 SF KITCHEN KITCHEN - COMMERCIAL113716 SF346.8 REF.REF.DWDWREF.REF.503 SFFAMILY ROOM642 SFDINING ROOM121 SFPANTRYSCREENPORCH17 SFST.48 SFST.90 SFLAUNDRY118 SFMECH505 SFFAMILY ROOM120 SFPANTRY90 SFLAUNDRY48 SFST.118 SFMECH2' - 8 1/4" 22' - 8 1/2"22' - 0"28' - 10 3/4"15' - 7 1/8"29' - 9 1/2"15' - 7 1/8"28' - 10 3/4"22' - 0"22' - 8 1/2" 2' - 8 1/4"12' - 1 1/4"47' - 4 5/8"28' - 10 3/4"60' - 11 5/8"28' - 10 3/4"47' - 4 5/8"12' - 1 1/4"1' - 4 3/4"41' - 11 1/2"111' - 10 1/8"28' - 10 3/4"18' - 6 1/2"26' - 11 1/8"45' - 5 5/8"28' - 10 3/4"60' - 11 5/8"28' - 10 3/4"45' - 5 5/8"26' - 11 1/8"18' - 6 1/2"28' - 10 3/4"111' - 10 1/8"41' - 11 1/2"1' - 4 3/4"155' - 2 1/4"12' - 6 5/8"12' - 5 1/2"12' - 6 1/2"12' - 5 1/2"12' - 6 1/2"12' - 5 1/2"12' - 6 1/2"13' - 6"13' - 6 1/4" 12' - 6 1/2" 12' - 5 1/2" 12' - 6 1/2" 12' - 5 1/2" 12' - 6 1/2" 12' - 5 1/2" 12' - 6 3/4"12' - 6"0" 16' - 10 3/4"12' - 6" 0"16' - 10 3/4"16' - 10 3/4" 0" 12' - 6"16' - 10 3/4" 0" 12' - 6"222 SFUNIT-1216 SFUNIT-1216 SFUNIT-3235 SFUNIT-3234 SFUNIT-2216 SFUNIT-2216 SFUNIT-1216 SFUNIT-1216 SFUNIT-2294 SFUNIT-4-HC221 SFUNIT-2302 SFUNIT-3-HC294 SFUNIT-4-HC302 SFUNIT-3-HC98' - 4 3/4"17 SFST.191 SFSTAIR 3222 SFUNIT-1216 SFUNIT-1216 SFUNIT-3235 SFUNIT-3216 SFUNIT-2216 SFUNIT-1216 SFUNIT-112' - 6 3/4"12' - 5 1/2"12' - 6 1/2"12' - 5 1/2"12' - 6 1/2"12' - 5 1/2"12' - 6 1/2"13' - 6 1/4"98' - 4 1/2"155' - 2 1/4"13' - 6"12' - 6 1/2" 12' - 5 1/2" 12' - 6 1/2" 12' - 5 1/2" 12' - 6 1/2" 12' - 5 1/2" 12' - 6 5/8"234 SFUNIT-2SCREENPORCH237' - 8 3/4"18' - 6 1/2"6' - 7 3/8"18' - 6 1/2"18' - 6 1/2"6' - 7 3/8"18' - 6 1/2"18' - 6 1/2"6' - 7 3/8"18' - 6 1/2"234 SFUNIT-1216 SFUNIT-1216 SFUNIT-1216 SFUNIT-1216 SFUNIT-1216 SFUNIT-1216 SFUNIT-1216 SFUNIT-1216 SFUNIT-1233 SFUNIT-1233 SFUNIT-1216 SFUNIT-1216 SFUNIT-1216 SFUNIT-1216 SFUNIT-11025 SFCORRIDOR221 SFUNIT-2216 SFUNIT-269 SFPORCH72 SFPORCH201 SFBARBER BEAUTY SHOP69 SFSPA240 SFHEALTH CENTER81 SFOFFICE46 SFST.78 SFJC159 SFSTORAGE188 SFCAFE PANTRY767 SFCAFE298 SFGALLERYCORRIDOR76 SFELEV.74 SFELEV.233 SFUNIT-1'UDZQ&KHFNHG6FDOHFDPSXVFRPPRQVGULYHVXLWHUHVWRQYLUJLQLD7HO)D[ZZZDUFKLQFFRPIssuedAll reproduction + intellectual property rights reserved by Architecture Incorporated © 2015 3/32" = 1'-0"P:\17005-16 Artis Senior Living - Morgan Hill\17005-17 Artis Senior Living - Arcadia\Revit\17005-17 Artis SL_Acadia CENTRAL-CURRENT.rvt2/20/2020 10:54:47 AMA1.2SECONDFLOOR PLAN3URMHFWAuthorChecker08/30/191150 W. COLORADO BLVD.ARCADIA, CA 91007Artis Senior Living of ArcadiaARTIS SENIOR LIVINGENTITLEMENTENTITLEMENT 3/32" = 1'-0"SECOND FLOOR PLANREVISIONSFIRST FLOOR AREA = 23,806 GSFSECOND FLOOR AREA= 20,465 GSFTOTAL FLOOR AREA = 44,271 GSF FIRST FLOOR UNIT COUNT = 40 UNITSSECOND FLOOR UNIT COUNT= 40 UNITSTOTAL BUILDING UNIT COUNT = 80 UNITS 1X8 FIBERCEMENT FASCIAPREFINISHEDALUM GUTTER &DOWN SPOUTFIBER CEMENTVENTED SOFFITBOARDCONT. 1" BAFFLE VENT.PROVIDE ENTIRE WIDTHOF TRUSS SPACINGSS FLASHINGWITH DRIP EDGE#30 LB FELTUNDERLAYMENTVARIES SEESECT.122X BLOCKING BETWEENTRUSSESVARIES2A4.0Sim2A4.0Sim2A4.0Sim2A4.0Sim2A4.0Sim2A4.0Sim2A4.0Sim2A4.0Sim3A4.0Sim4A4.0Sim5:125:125:125:125:125:125:124:124:125:125:125:125:125:125:125:125:125:125:125:125:125:125:125:124:124:124:124:124:124:124:124:12EXHAUST FANEXHAUST FANSINGLE PLY ROOF FLASHINGTO TOP OF CURB,FURNISHED & INSTALLED BYROOFING CONTRACTORLEVELMIN. 1'-0"VARIESSINGLE-PLY ROOFING MEMBRANEFULLY ADHERED TO INSULATIONBD. OVER 5/8" GYP SHEATHING &11/2" METAL DECKINGJOIST BEYOND5x3x1/4" L.L.V. ANGLE FRAMING REQ'D @ ALL OPNG EDGES W/O OTHER STRUCT (BEAMS)NOTE: 1.) THIS CURB TO BE USED FOR ALL RTU'S AND EXHAUST FANS2.) ROOF TOP EQUIPMENT CURBS MUST BEAR ON STRUCT'L STEEL FRAMINGPRE-ENGINEERED CURB W/RIGID INSUL FURN &INSTALLED BY MECH.CONTR(EQUIP MUST SIT LEVEL)MTL. DUCT W/ INSUL.BY MECH CONTRACTORROOF DECK & INSULATION TO BEINSTALLED INSIDE PERIMETEROF CURB. ONLY DUCTWORKPENETRATION TO REMAIN OPENDECK BEARING5 1/4" CEMENT FIBER CROWNMOLDING 8 1/4" (7" EXPOSURE) CEMENT FIBER SIDING ON WEATHER BARRIER OVER 5/8" EXTERIOR GYP SHEATHINGSINGLE-PLY MEMBRANE FLASHINGFULLY ADHERED TO HIGH PERFORMANCE 5/8" COVER BOARD PER MFR. RECOMMENDATIONSON METAL STUDS LAP OVER TOP OFPARAPET. (DENSDECK PRIME OR APPROVED EQUAL)CONT. CLEATCONT 2X FRT BLOCKING4 5/8"23'-4"CONT. SEALANT1 X 4 CEMENT FIBER TRIM BOARD1 X 4 CEMENT FIBER TRIM BOARDPRE-FINISHED METAL COPING10 1/2"TS 4 x 4 AT 48" OC - SEE STRUCTURAL DWGS6" MTL STUD INFILL TERMINATION BAR ,TYPT.O. STEELREF. SECTT.O. BLOCKINGREF. SECTR-30 SPRAY FOAM INSULATION (TYP) AT PERIMETER WALL5/8" TYPE "X" GYP BD ON 6" MTL STUDS @ 16" OC8"STEEL LOAD DISTRIBUTION ANGLE, SEE STRUCTURALR-20 BATT INSULATION CEILING - ROOF ASSYUL DESIGN P510SINGLE-PLY MEMBRANE FULLY ADHERED TO 1/4" GYP COVERBOARD MECHANICALLY FASTENED THROUGH TAPERED RIGID INSULATION OVER 5/8" TYPE "X" GYPSUM BD AND ATTACHED TO METAL DECK HOT AIR WELD, 1 1/2" MIN1/8" CUT-EDGE SEALANT'UDZQ&KHFNHG6FDOHFDPSXVFRPPRQVGULYHVXLWHUHVWRQYLUJLQLD7HO)D[ZZZDUFKLQFFRPIssuedAll reproduction + intellectual property rights reserved by Architecture Incorporated © 2015As indicated9/4/2019 9:11:01 PMA4.0ROOF PLAN3URMHFWMMWJO08/30/191150 W. COLORADO BLVD.ARCADIA, CA 910071150 W. COLORADO BLVD.ARCADIA, CA 91007Artis Senior Living of ArcadiaARTIS SENIOR LIVINGENTITLEMENTENTITLEMENTREVISIONS1/16" = 1'-0"1ROOF PLAN1 1/2" = 1'-0"2SOFFIT DETAIL1 1/2" = 1'-0"3ROOF CURB PRE ENGINEERED1 1/2" = 1'-0"4PARAPET DETAIL  522)5,'*(  $$:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::'67)/225 1')/225 '(&.%5* 522)5,'*(   $:::::::::::::::::::::::::'''''''''522)5,'*( 67)/225 1')/225 '(&.%5* 522)5,'*(   (4(4(4(4$:::::::::::::::::::::522)5,'*( 67)/225 1')/225 '(&.%5* 522)5,'*(   (4(4(4(4$::::::::::::::::::::::522)5,'*( 67)/225 1')/225 '(&.%5* 522)5,'*(  0$7(5,$//(*(1'$63+$/76+,1*/(60$18)$&785(57$0.26(5,(6+(5,7$*(&2/25%/$&.:$/187&(0(17),%(56,',1*(;32685(0$18)$&785(5-$0(6+$5',(02'(/+$5',3/$1./$36,',1*60227+&2/25$5&7,&:+,7(&(0(17),%(575,0#:,1'2:6 '22560$18)$&785(5-$0(6+$5',(&2/25,521*5(<%5,&.0$18)$&785(50&1($502'(/2/'&$/,)251,$&2/25:+,7(+$//75(//,6&2/250$7&+&(0(176,',1*&2/25&(0(17),%(575,0#:$//60$18)$&785(5-$0(6+$5',(&2/25$5&7,&:+,7(35(),1,6+('0(7$/&23,1*&(0(17),%(59(57,&$/6,',1*%2$5' %$77(1:,'(0$18)$&785(5-$0(6+$5',(02'(/+$5',(3$1(/9(57,&$/6,',1*60227+&2/25$5&7,&:+,7(12786('&$676721(6,//0$18)$&785(5%25$/02'(/&$67),7:$7(57$%/(6,//&2/25&$5%21'UDZQ&KHFNHG6FDOHFDPSXVFRPPRQVGULYHVXLWHUHVWRQYLUJLQLD7HO)D[ZZZDUFKLQFFRP,VVXHG$OOUHSURGXFWLRQLQWHOOHFWXDOSURSHUW\ULJKWVUHVHUYHGE\$UFKLWHFWXUH,QFRUSRUDWHG‹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ƒƒƒ    &$676721(6,//# $))6,*1$*(5  5 $      55&08:$//:,7+%5,&.9(1((5$//6,'(6&$676721(6,//[3267[[3267[[[[)5$0(:,7+[&52660(0%(56  'UDZQ&KHFNHG6FDOHFDPSXVFRPPRQVGULYHVXLWHUHVWRQYLUJLQLD7HO)D[ZZZDUFKLQFFRP,VVXHG$OOUHSURGXFWLRQLQWHOOHFWXDOSURSHUW\ULJKWVUHVHUYHGE\$UFKLWHFWXUH,QFRUSRUDWHG‹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‹  30$(1/$5*('(/(9$7,2163URMHFW$XWKRU&KHFNHU:&2/25$'2%/9'$5&$',$&$:&2/25$'2%/9'$5&$',$&$$UWLV6HQLRU/LYLQJRI$UFDGLD$57,66(1,25/,9,1*(17,7/(0(17(17,7/(0(175(9,6,216 ::::522)5,'*( 67)/225 1')/225 '(&.%5* 522)5,'*(  [[[[[[[[  7<32&  $:::::::::::522)5,'*( 67)/225 1')/225 '(&.%5* 'UDZQ&KHFNHG6FDOHFDPSXVFRPPRQVGULYHVXLWHUHVWRQYLUJLQLD7HO)D[ZZZDUFKLQFFRP,VVXHG$OOUHSURGXFWLRQLQWHOOHFWXDOSURSHUW\ULJKWVUHVHUYHGE\$UFKLWHFWXUH,QFRUSRUDWHG‹  30$(1/$5*('(/(9$7,2163URMHFW$XWKRU&KHFNHU:&2/25$'2%/9'$5&$',$&$:&2/25$'2%/9'$5&$',$&$$UWLV6HQLRU/LYLQJRI$UFDGLD$57,66(1,25/,9,1*(17,7/(0(17(17,7/(0(175(9,6,216 2341'UDZQ&KHFNHG6FDOHFDPSXVFRPPRQVGULYHVXLWHUHVWRQYLUJLQLD7HO)D[ZZZDUFKLQFFRPIssuedAll reproduction + intellectual property rights reserved by Architecture Incorporated © 2015As indicatedC:\Users\MalachyM\Documents\17005-17 Artis SL_Acadia CENTRAL-CURRENT_MalachyM.rvt9/17/2019 11:18:17 AMA3.2RENDERINGS3URMHFWAuthorChecker08/30/191150 W. COLORADO BLVD.ARCADIA, CA 91007Artis Senior Living of ArcadiaARTIS SENIOR LIVINGENTITLEMENTENTITLEMENTREVISIONSN.T.S.1VIEW 1N.T.S.2VIEW 2N.T.S.3VIEW 3N.T.S.4VIEW 4N.T.S.View Key DWREF.DWREF.REF.REF.REF.W12-5-2019L-12Know what'sbelow.Callbefore you dig.R1150 W. COLORADO BLVD.ARCADIA, CA 91007Artis Senior Living of AcadiaARTIS SENIOR LIVINGARMSTRONG ANDWALKER280 Mel Canyon RoadDuarte, Ca. 91010Email: Phone: (626) 357-4599Landscape ArchitectureERNRTPRMExp. 03/31/20No. 2293STATEOFCALIFOSA.MANNAACSDNALDERETSIGERTARCHITECNG IAOarmstrongwalker@gmail.comSchematic Landscape PlanNSCALE: 1" = 20' - 0"SEE SHEET L-2 FORPLANT LIST L-221150 W. COLORADO BLVD.ARCADIA, CA 91007Artis Senior Living of AcadiaARTIS SENIOR LIVINGARMSTRONG ANDWALKER280 Mel Canyon RoadDuarte, Ca. 91010Email: Phone: (626) 357-4599Landscape ArchitectureERNRTPRMExp. 03/31/20No. 2293STATEOFCALIFOSA.MANNAACSDNALDERETSIGERTARCHITECNG IAOarmstrongwalker@gmail.comSchematic Landscape PlanPlant List and ImagesSCALE: 1" = 20' - 0"DECORATIVE COLOR CONCRETE PAVINGWOOD BENCHOUTDOOR PLAZA WITH 16" HIGH SEAT WALLGAZEBO AT OUTDOOR PLAZACANOPY SHADE TREECHINESE PISTACHEVERTICAL EVERGREEN TREEFLOWERING ACCENT TREEFIREWHEEL TREEHYMENOSPORUMCREPE MYRTLERAISED FLOWER AND FAGRANT PLANT GARDENDECOMPOSED GRANITE WALKWAYCANOPY SHADE TREERAYWOOD ASHFLOWERING ACCENT TREEPINK TABEBUIAFLOWERING ACCENT TREEARBUTUS MARINAVERTICAL EVERGREEN TREEBRISBANE BOXVERTICAL EVERGREEN TREEGROUND COVERSPREADING SUNSHINE LANTANAMID-LEVEL SCREENING FLOWERING SHRUBSLITTLE JOHN BOTTLEBRUSHMID-LEVEL SCREENING FLOWERING SHRUBSSUNSET ROCKROSEGROUND COVERHUNTINGTON CARPET ROSEMARYSMALL ACCENT PLANTRED YUCCASMALL ACCENT PLANTYELLOW AND ORANGE BULBINETRELLIS COVERED PATIO AREA12-5-2019 3' - 5 1/2"8' - 6"2' - 8 1/2"3' - 0"22' - 1"4' - 0"1/4" / 12"1/4" / 12"5' - 0 1/2"9' - 6 1/16"9' - 2 1/2"16' - 9 7/16"6' - 3"5' - 8 7/16"7 5/8"23' - 5"5' - 2 1/2"4' - 10 1/2"4' - 0"4' - 2"9' - 2"3" TYP1/4" / 12"1/4" / 12"1/4" / 12"1/4" / 12"1/4" / 12"SLAB EL = 0' - 4"SLAB EL = 0' - 4"EMERGENCY GENERATORMAIN SERVICE SWITCHELASTOMERIC PAINT APPLIED TO CALL EXPOSED CMU, TYPTHROUGH WALL SCUPPER, TYPAS2.02AS2.02SIM10AS2.0Sim10AS2.0SimSLOPE SLAB AWAY FROM ELEVATED CONC & EQUIP, TYP1AS2.01" ID GALV PIPE FOR CANE BOLT KEEPER, BOTH OPEN AND CLOSED POSITION, EA LEAFPIPE BOLLARD, TYPAS2.02PREMANUF PVC PRIVACY FENCE GATES, (COLOR: WHITE) W/ LOCKING SLIDE BOLT LATCHELASTOMERIC PAINT APPLIED TO ALL EXPOSED CMU, TYPCONCRETEAPRONPIPE BOLLARD, TYP96 GAL. ORGANIC WASTE CART3 YARD3 YARD7 5/8"3' - 6"6' - 0"6' - 0"3' - 6"7 5/8"1/4" / 12"CONCRETE PAD11 5/8"3"17' - 10"3"35' - 6"55' - 4 3/8"14' - 8"10' - 0"15'-0".1 1/2" x 1 1/2" x 1/4" GALV STL FRAME GATE - DIAGONAL, TYPFACE BRICKPREFIN ALUM COPING CAP W/ DRIP EA EDGEPREMANUF PVC FENCE GATES (COLOR:WHITE) W/ LOCKING SLIDE BOLT5/8" DIA x 15" GALV CANE BOLT, EA LEAFGRADE OF PAVING TO BE LEVEL ALONG GATESTHROUGH WALL SCUPPER, TYP1AS2.0PIPE BOLLARD, TYPSEE PREFIN ALUM COPING CAP W/ DRIP EA EDGEPREMANUF PVC FENCE GATES (COLOR WHITE) W/ LOCKING SLIDE BOLT5/8" DIA x 15" GALV CANE BOLT, EA LEAFGRADE OF PAVING TO BE LEVEL ALONG GATESCLEAR10' - 0"T.O. SLABT.O. CMU8'-0"0'-0"T.O. CMU6'-0"070204104" NYLON METAL GATE WHEEL HEAVY DUTY FLAT FREE SRPING LOADED SWIVEL CASTER MODEL NUMBER- WALFRONTDA3Q81UFXG4" NYLON METAL GATE WHEEL HEAVY DUTY FLAT FREE SRPING LOADED SWIVEL CASTER MODEL NUMBER- WALFRONTDA3Q81UFXGFACE BRICK, TYPPREFIN ALUM COPING CAP W/ DRIP EA EDGETHROUGH WALL SCUPPER, TYP1AS2.0T.O. SLAB0'-0"T.O. CMU8'-0"PREFIN ALUM COPING CAP W/ DRIP EA EDGET.O. CMU6'-0"07020410PREFIN ALUM COPING CAP W/ DRIP EA EDGETHROUGH WALL SCUPPER, TYP07020410T.O. SLAB0'-0"T.O. CMU8'-0"PREFIN ALUM COPING CAP W/ DRIP EA EDGE07020410T.O. SLAB0'-0"T.O. CMU6'-0"CLEAR10' - 0"3" WIDE x 3/16" GALV STL PL, TYP AT SLIDE BOLT AND CANE BOLT LOCATIONS5/8" DIA GALV STL SLIDE BOLT1" GALC PIPE W/ STANDOFF3/8" GALV BOLTS, TYPOF GATES3"1 1/2" x 1 1/2" GALV STL TUBE FRAME, PTD TO MATCH GATE SLATS AT GENERATOR GATE5"X 5" GALV STL TUBE PTD TO MATCH GATERETURN MASONRY AT ROUGH OPENING3" X 2" X 1/4" HSS AT DUMPSTER ENCLOSUREPTD GALV PLATE ABOVE AT DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE ONLYHEAVY DUTY ADJUSTABLE HINGE13/16"6" DIA STD STL PIPE BOLLARD, FILLED W/ CONC, PAINT TRAFFIC YELLOW (2 COATS)WRAP W/ (2) 1" BANDS OF REFLECTIVE TAPEPAVINGCOAT EMBEDDED PORTION OF PIPE W/ BITUMINUOUS EMULSIONCONC FOOTINGCTR BOLLARD @DUMPSTER ENCL = 6' - 8"3' - 6"3' - 6"6"6"DIAMETER1' - 6"CONC WASH, 1" ABOVE TOP OF PIPEFACE OF EQUIPMENT 4"ISOLATION STRIP. SEE STRUCTSITE CONC SLAB3"CUSTOM 1 1/2" X 1 1/2" GALV STL TUBE FRAME WITH CROSS BRACING, PAINT TO MATCH PVC SLATSSEE PLANVARIESSEE ELEVATIONSVARIES4" CMU BELOW GRADE8" BOND BEAM GALV CORRUGATED MTL WALL TIES AT 16" EA WAY8" SMOOTH FACED CMU WITH CELLS FULLY GROUTED REF STRUCT DWGS ELASTOMERIC PAINT ON EXPOSED CMU SURFACESFACE BRICK WITH BRICKTIES @ 16"1/2" EXP JT W/ FIBER FILLER AND SEALANTCONC SLAB ON GRAVELFOOTING, SEE STRUCTGROUT FILL ALL CMU CORES BELOW GRADEFINISH GRADEPREFIN ALUM COPINGNOTE:PROVIDE SPECIAL INSPECTION ON MASONRY PER COUNTY REQSTOP OF CMUVARIEST.O. SLABSS FLASHING WITHDRIP EDGESEE STRUCT. FOR REINFORCEMENTGENERATOR SLAB SEE STRUCTEXPOSED CEMENT FIBER OVER CMUAS2.010SimSS FLASHING WITHDRIP EDGE'UDZQ&KHFNHG6FDOHConstruction Documents for:FDPSXVFRPPRQVGULYHVXLWHUHVWRQYLUJLQLD7HO)D[ZZZDUFKLQFFRPIssuedAll reproduction + intellectual property rights reserved by Architecture Incorporated © 2016A Memory and Assisted Living ResidenceC:\Users\MalachyM\Documents\17005-00 Artis SL_EmGen&Dumpster CENTRAL-R17_Arcadia_MalachyM.rvt9/4/2019 7:23:35 PMAs indicatedAS2.0SITE DETAILS3URMHFWAuthorCheckerArtis Senior Living of ArcadiaARTIS SENIOR LIVING1150 W. COLORADO BLVD.ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 9207808/30/19 3/8" = 1'-0"AEM GEN ENCLOSURE 3/8" = 1'-0"4GENERATOR FRONT ELEV 3/8" = 1'-0"5GENERATOR REAR ELEV 3/8" = 1'-0"6GENERATOR SIDE WALL 3/8" = 1'-0"9DUMPSTER SIDE WALL 1 1/2" = 1'-0"2DUMPSTER/GEN ENCLOSURE GATES 1/2" = 1'-0"3BOLLARD 1 1/2" = 1'-0"10SLAB DETAIL 3/8" = 1'-0"12TYP GATE FRAME5HYLVLRQV 3/4" = 1'-0"1DUMPSTER - EGEN WALL *$3&217,18286%$))/(9(17%(7:((1522)75866(6)5$0,1*$63+$/7522)6+,1*/(629(5/%)(/781'(5/$<0(173/<:22'6+($7+,1*3(56758&785$/66)/$6+,1*:,7+'5,3('*(35(),1,6+('$/80*877(5$1''2:1632876[),%(5&(0(17)$6&,$),%(5&(0(179(17('62)),7%2$5'721*($1'*5229($762)),7),%(5&(0(1775,0:$//$66(0%/<7<3,&$/(;7),%(5&(0(1775,0 %2$5'$1'%$77(1256,',1*:+(5(2&&856'(16*/$666+($7,1*3/<:22'6+($7+,1*3(56758&785$/,168/$7,213(57,7/(*<3%')5$0,1*3(56758&785$/&(,/,1*-2,6763(56758&785$/3529,'(*877(5*8$5'),/7(56&5((13/$67(53/<:22'6+($7+,1*3(56758&785$/,168/$7,213(57,7/(*<3%')5$0,1*3(56758&785$/[#2&[ 5[[[3267 [[3267[&52660(0%(56 6(((/(9$7,2165 %5,&.9(1((5[  0,1 &/5  ',$0,17<3&/53/$1(/(9$7,21$/7(51$7(+22.6ƒ+22.$5281'9(57%$5 29(5/$3+22.6)8//9(57%$563$&,1* '2127+22.$5281'6$0(%$5&21&3,/(:  9(57%$56 7,(6#2&) F 36,0,1  7,(6#2&),1,6+*5$'(6/23(7232))227,1*72'5$,1/,*+732/(%$6(3/$7($1'$1&+25%2/76%<27+(56 )70$;32/(+7 'UDZQ&KHFNHG6FDOHFDPSXVFRPPRQVGULYHVXLWHUHVWRQYLUJLQLD7HO)D[ZZZDUFKLQFFRP,VVXHG$OOUHSURGXFWLRQLQWHOOHFWXDOSURSHUW\ULJKWVUHVHUYHGE\$UFKLWHFWXUH,QFRUSRUDWHG‹$VLQGLFDWHG30$'(7$,/6$1'6&+('8/(63URMHFW$XWKRU&KHFNHU:&2/25$'2%/9'$5&$',$&$:&2/25$'2%/9'$5&$',$&$$UWLV6HQLRU/LYLQJRI$UFDGLD$57,66(1,25/,9,1*(17,7/(0(17(17,7/(0(175(9,6,216  7<3,&$/($9(62)),7  7<3,&$/75(//,66(&7,21'(7$,/:,1'2:6&+('8/(7\SH0DUN 7\SH: 6,1*/(+81* Z [ K : 6,1*/(+81* Z [ K : 6,1*/(+81* Z [ K : 6,1*/(+81* Z [ K : 6,1*/(+81* Z [ K : 6,1*/(+81* Z [ K : 6,1*/(+81* Z [ K : 6/,',1* Z [ K : 6/,',1* Z [ K : 6/,',1* Z [ K '2256&+('8/(7\SH0DUN 7\SH :LGWK +HLJKW' (175<'225:,7+6,'(/,*+76    ' 6725()5217'225    ' 21(3$1(/:22'$1'*/$66)5(1&+'225   ' )/86+'225:9,6,21/,7(    ' */$66'28%/('225   ' */$66'225   ' */$66'225:,7+6,7(/,*+7    ' )/86+'225     6,7(32/(/,*+7)227,1* 2341'UDZQ&KHFNHG6FDOHFDPSXVFRPPRQVGULYHVXLWHUHVWRQYLUJLQLD7HO)D[ZZZDUFKLQFFRPIssuedAll reproduction + intellectual property rights reserved by Architecture Incorporated © 2015As indicated\\fileserve8\p-drive\17005-17 Artis Senior Living - Arcadia\Revit\17005-17 Artis SL_Acadia CENTRAL-CURRENT.rvt8/30/2019 3:32:48 PMA5.0SITE VIEWS3URMHFWAuthorChecker08/30/191150 W. COLORADO BLVD.ARCADIA, CA 91007Artis Senior Living of ArcadiaARTIS SENIOR LIVINGENTITLEMENTENTITLEMENTREVISIONSN.T.S.1Site View 1N.T.S.2Site View 2N.T.S.3Site View 3N.T.S.4Site View 4N.T.S.View Key 8765'UDZQ&KHFNHG6FDOHFDPSXVFRPPRQVGULYHVXLWHUHVWRQYLUJLQLD7HO)D[ZZZDUFKLQFFRPIssuedAll reproduction + intellectual property rights reserved by Architecture Incorporated © 2015As indicated\\fileserve8\p-drive\17005-17 Artis Senior Living - Arcadia\Revit\17005-17 Artis SL_Acadia CENTRAL-CURRENT.rvt8/30/2019 3:32:50 PMA5.1SITE VIEWS3URMHFWAuthorChecker08/30/191150 W. COLORADO BLVD.ARCADIA, CA 91007Artis Senior Living of ArcadiaARTIS SENIOR LIVINGENTITLEMENTENTITLEMENTREVISIONSN.T.S.1Site View 5N.T.S.2Site View 6N.T.S.3Site View 7N.T.S.4Site View 8N.T.S.View Key $WWDFKPHQW1R 5HVROXWLRQ1RDQG 2UGLQDQFH1R $WWDFKPHQW1R $WWDFKPHQW1R 'UDIW,601'5HVSRQVHWR &RPPHQWDQG0053 $WWDFKPHQW1R 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 7KLVSDJHLQWHQWLRQDOO\OHIWEODQN    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: x Adoption of the IS/MND x Zone Change: To revoke the existing Architectural Design (D) Overlay Zone and Automobile Parking (P) Overlay Zone from the Project Site; x Architectural Design Review Approval; x Conditional Use Permit to allow for the development of the Proposed Project in a C- G Zone; x Tree Encroachment Permit; and x 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: x California Department of Social Services (DSS) x 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 Legend Project Site 03 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) 0800 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: ƒ No Impact. The project would not have any measurable environmental impact on the environment. ƒ 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. ƒ 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. ƒ 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 (O 3), 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: x 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: x 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 NO X, 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 x Construction Fuel Consumptione 36,934 gallons 533,800,838 gallons 0.0069% x 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 Cali fornia 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 x 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 x Area 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 x Mobile Source 395.80 0.02 0.62 0.00 0.00 396.43 x Energy 302.82 0.01 0.28 0.00 1.37 304.48 x Solid Waste 2.43 0.14 3.59 0.00 0.00 6.02 x 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 x Area 18.64 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.10 18.77 x Mobile Source 309.49 0.02 0.41 0.00 0.00 309.91 x Energy 129.10 0.01 0.14 0.00 0.54 129.78 x Solid Waste 3.75 0.22 5.54 0.00 0.00 9.28 x 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 ƒ 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. ƒ Minimize hydromodification impacts to natural drainage systems. ƒ 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 (Leq) 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: x 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. x 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 x During construction, stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers. x 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. x 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.  MM BAKERINTL.COM 3760 Kilroy Airport Way, Suite 270 Long Beach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¶V6XPPDU\RI3URMHFW'HVFULSWLRQ 7KH/HDG$JHQF\SURSRVHVWRD>VLF@VTXDUHIRRWVHQLRUOLYLQJFDUHIDFLOLW\ZLWKURRPV RQDFUHV 3URSRVHG3URMHFW %DVHGRQDUHYLHZRI)LJXUH$3URMHFW/RFDWLRQ0DSLQWKH 01'DQGDHULDOSKRWRJUDSKV6RXWK&RDVW$40'VWDIIIRXQGWKDWWKH3URSRVHG3URMHFWLVORFDWHG LPPHGLDWHO\VRXWKRI,QWHUVWDWH , DQGZLWKLQIHHWIURPDJDVROLQHVHUYLFHVWDWLRQ &RQVWUXFWLRQLVH[SHFWHGWRWDNHPRQWKV 6RXWK&RDVW$40'6WDII¶V6XPPDU\RI$LU4XDOLW\$QDO\VLV ,Q WKH $LU 4XDOLW\ $QDO\VLV VHFWLRQ WKH /HDG $JHQF\ TXDQWLILHG WKH 3URSRVHG 3URMHFW¶V FRQVWUXFWLRQDQGRSHUDWLRQDOHPLVVLRQVDQGFRPSDUHGWKRVHHPLVVLRQVWR6RXWK&RDVW$40'¶V 5($UWLV6HQLRU/LYLQJ3URMHFW5HVSRQVHVWR&RPPHQWVRQWKH'UDIW,601' -XQH 3DJH UHFRPPHQGHGUHJLRQDODQGORFDOL]HGDLUTXDOLW\&(4$VLJQLILFDQFHWKUHVKROGV%DVHGRQWKH DQDO\VHVWKH/HDG$JHQF\IRXQGWKDWWKH3URSRVHG3URMHFW¶VFRQVWUXFWLRQDQGRSHUDWLRQDODLU TXDOLW\LPSDFWVZRXOGEHOHVVWKDQVLJQLILFDQW 6RXWK&RDVW$40'6WDII¶V&RPPHQWV %DVHGRQUHYLHZVRIWKH$LU4XDOLW\$QDO\VLVLQWKH01'6RXWK&RDVW$40'VWDIIUHFRPPHQGV WKDWWKH/HDG$JHQF\SHUIRUPDPRELOHVRXUFHKHDOWKULVNDVVHVVPHQW +5$ WRGLVFORVHWKH SRWHQWLDOKHDOWKULVNVLQWKH)LQDO01'LQFRUSRUDWHVWUDWHJLHVWRUHGXFHH[SRVXUHVE\VHQLRU UHVLGHQWVWRWR[LFDLUFRQWDPLQDQWVIURPYHKLFOHVDQGWUXFNVWUDYHOLQJRQ,DQGSURWHFWSXEOLF KHDOWKRIWKRVHOLYLQJDWWKH3URSRVHG3URMHFW'HWDLOHGFRPPHQWVDUHSURYLGHGDVIROORZV 5HVSRQVHWR&RPPHQW1R 7KHLQWURGXFWRU\FRPPHQWLVQRWHGIRUWKHDGPLQLVWUDWLYHUHFRUG7KH6RXWK&RDVW$40'VWDII¶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¶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³DJHQFLHVVXEMHFWWR &(4$JHQHUDOO\DUHQRWUHTXLUHGWRDQDO\]HWKHLPSDFWRIH[LVWLQJHQYLURQPHQWDOFRQGLWLRQVRQD SURMHFW¶VIXWXUHXVHUVRUUHVLGHQWV´+RZHYHULWVKRXOGEHQRWHGWKDWWKHUHDUHH[FHSWLRQVWRWKH FRXUW¶VGHFLVLRQ)RULQVWDQFHZKHQDSURMHFWKDVSRWHQWLDOO\VLJQLILFDQWH[DFHUEDWLQJHIIHFWVRQ H[LVWLQJHQYLURQPHQWDOKD]DUGVWKRVHLPSDFWVDUHSURSHUO\ZLWKLQWKHSXUYLHZRI&(4$EHFDXVH WKH\FDQEHFRQVLGHUHGDVLPSDFWVRIWKHSURMHFWRQH[LVWLQJFRQGLWLRQVUDWKHUWKDQLPSDFWVRIWKH HQYLURQPHQWRQWKHSURMHFW7KHFRXUWFRQFOXGHGWKDWLWLVSURSHUXQGHU&(4$WRXQGHUWDNHDQ DQDO\VLVRIWKHGLVSHUVDORIH[LVWLQJFRQWDPLQDQWVEHFDXVHVXFKDQDQDO\VLVZRXOGEHIRFXVHGRQ KRZWKHSURMHFW³ZRXOGZRUVHQH[LVWLQJFRQGLWLRQV´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¶VWUDIILF LPSDFWVRQSDJHVWKURXJKRIWKH'UDIW,601'WKH3URMHFWZRXOGUHVXOWLQDUHGXFWLRQLQ WRWDOGDLO\DQGSHDNKRXUWULSVZKHQFRPSDUHGWRWKHH[LVWLQJUHVWDXUDQWXVHDQGZRXOGWKXVQRW H[DFHUEDWHWKHOHYHORIDLUSROOXWDQWVJHQHUDWHGE\IUHHZD\YHKLFOHWUDIILFRQ,UHVXOWLQJLQD OHVVWKDQVLJQLILFDQWLPSDFWUHODWHGWRWUDQVSRUWDWLRQ$VVXFKWKHDVVHVVPHQWRIWKH3URMHFW¶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¶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¶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¶V$LU 4XDOLW\ DQG /DQG 8VH +DQGERRN $FFRUGLQJO\ SXUVXDQW WR &$5%¶V JXLGDQFHWKH3URSRVHG3URMHFWVKRXOGEHVLWHGIHHWRUPRUHIURPWKHJDVVWDWLRQ¶VHPLVVLRQ VRXUFHV LHWKHIXHOLQJLVODQGVSXPSV 7KHGLVWDQFHEHWZHHQWKH3URSRVHG3URMHFW¶VSURSHUW\ ERXQGDU\ DORQJ 0LFKLOOLQGD $YHQXH DQG WKH FORVHVW IXHOLQJ FDQRS\ DW WKH JDV VWDWLRQ LV DSSUR[LPDWHO\IHHWZLWKDGLVWDQFHEHWZHHQWKHSURSHUW\ERXQGDU\DQGWKHQHDUHVWIXHOLQJ LVODQG RI DSSUR[LPDWHO\  IHHW 7KHUHIRUH WKH 3URSRVHG 3URMHFWFRPSOLHVZLWK&$5%¶V JXLGDQFH,WVKRXOGDOVREHQRWHGWKH&$5%¶VJXLGDQFHLVDGYLVRU\DQGQRWUHJXODWRU\KRZHYHU WKH&LW\VWULYHVWRFRPSO\ZLWKWKLVJXLGDQFHDVGLVFXVVHGKHUHLQ $VGLVFXVVHGLQ5HVSRQVHWR&RPPHQW1RWKH&RXUWIRXQGLQ&DOLIRUQLD%XLOGLQJ,QGXVWU\ $VVRFLDWLRQY%D\$UHD$LU4XDOLW\0DQDJHPHQW'LVWULFWWKDWDJHQFLHVVXEMHFWWR&(4$JHQHUDOO\ DUHQRWUHTXLUHGWRDQDO\]HWKHLPSDFWRIH[LVWLQJHQYLURQPHQWDOFRQGLWLRQVRQDSURMHFW¶VIXWXUH UHVLGHQWVRUXVHUV LHUHYHUVH&(4$ EXWQHHGWRIRFXVRQWKHLPSDFWVRIWKHSURMHFW¶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• 'LVFORVXUH RQ SRWHQWLDO KHDOWK LPSDFWV WR SURVSHFWLYH VHQLRU UHVLGHQWV IURP OLYLQJ LQ SUR[LPLW\WRDIUHHZD\DQGRWKHUVRXUFHVRIDLUSROOXWLRQDQGWKHUHGXFHGHIIHFWLYHQHVVRI DLUILOWUDWLRQV\VWHPZKHQZLQGRZVDUHRSHQDQGZKHQVHQLRUUHVLGHQWVDUHRXWGRRU 5($UWLV6HQLRU/LYLQJ3URMHFW5HVSRQVHVWR&RPPHQWVRQWKH'UDIW,601' -XQH 3DJH • ,GHQWLILFDWLRQRIWKHUHVSRQVLEOHLPSOHPHQWLQJDQGHQIRUFHPHQWDJHQF\VXFKDVWKH/HDG $JHQF\IRUHQVXULQJWKDWHQKDQFHGILOWHUVDUHLQVWDOOHGRQVLWHDWWKH3URSRVHG3URMHFW EHIRUHDSHUPLWRIRFFXSDQF\LVLVVXHG • ,GHQWLILFDWLRQRIWKHUHVSRQVLEOHLPSOHPHQWLQJDQGHQIRUFHPHQWDJHQF\VXFKDVWKH/HDG $JHQF\¶VEXLOGLQJDQGVDIHW\LQVSHFWLRQXQLWWRSURYLGHSHULRGLFUHJXODULQVSHFWLRQRQ ILOWHUV • 3URYLGHLQIRUPDWLRQDQGJXLGDQFHWRWKH3URMHFWGHYHORSHURUSURSRQHQWRQWKHLPSRUWDQFH RIILOWHULQVWDOODWLRQDQGRQJRLQJPDLQWHQDQFH • 3URYLGHLQIRUPDWLRQWRWKH3URMHFWGHYHORSHURUSURSRQHQWDERXWZKHUHWKH0(59ILOHUV >VLF@FDQEHSXUFKDVHG • 'LVFORVXUHRQLQFUHDVHGFRVWVIRUSXUFKDVLQJHQKDQFHGILOWUDWLRQV\VWHPV • 'LVFORVXUHRQLQFUHDVHGHQHUJ\FRVWVIRUUXQQLQJWKH+9$&V\VWHPZLWK0(59ILOWHUV • 'LVFORVXUH RQ UHFRPPHQGHG VFKHGXOHV HJ RQFH D \HDU RU HYHU\ VL[ PRQWKV  IRU UHSODFLQJWKHHQKDQFHGILOWUDWLRQXQLWV • ,GHQWLILFDWLRQ RI WKH UHVSRQVLEOH HQWLW\ VXFK DV UHVLGHQWV RUSURSHUW\ PDQDJHPHQW WR HQVXUHILOWHUVDUHLQVSHFWHGIRUUHSODFHPHQWDQGPDLQWHQDQFHRQWLPHLIDSSURSULDWHDQG IHDVLEOH • 'HYHORSRQJRLQJFRVWVKDULQJVWUDWHJLHVLIDYDLODEOHIRUUHSODFLQJWKHHQKDQFHGILOWUDWLRQ XQLWV • 6HW XS FULWHULD IRU DVVHVVLQJ SURJUHVV LQ LQVWDOOLQJ UHSODFLQJ DQG PDLQWDLQLQJ WKH HQKDQFHGILOWUDWLRQXQLWVDQG •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¶VUHVSRQVHVWRWKH$40'FRPPHQWVDUHSURYLGHGLQWKLV5HVSRQVHWR&RPPHQWV$OO ZULWWHQ FRPPHQWV UHFHLYHG KDYH EHHQ DGHTXDWHO\ UHVSRQGHG WR LQDFFRUGDQFH ZLWK &(4$ *XLGHOLQHV6HFWLRQ7KHGHWHUPLQDWLRQRIWKHVLJQLILFDQFHRILPSDFWVLQWKH,QLWLDO6WXG\ SDUWLFXODUO\DVLWUHODWHVWRDLUTXDOLW\UHPDLQVYDOLGDQGDSSOLFDEOHWRWKH3URSRVHG3URMHFW 7KHUHIRUHQRIXUWKHUDQDO\VLVLVZDUUDQWHG1RRWKHUDJHQF\DQGSXEOLFFRPPHQWVZHUHUHFHLYHG GXULQJWKH'UDIW,601'¶VSXEOLFUHYLHZSHULRG SENT VIA E-MAIL: May 5, 2020 vquiroz@arcadiaca.gov Venessa Quiroz, Planner City of Arcadia, Planning Department 240 W. Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91006 Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Proposed Artis Senior Living Care Facility South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) staff appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above-mentioned document. The following comments include recommended revisions to the air quality analysis and health risk assessment that the Lead Agency should include in the Final MND. South Coast AQMD Staff’s Summary of Project Description The Lead Agency proposes to a 44,192-square-foot senior living care facility with 80 rooms on 2.79 acres (Proposed Project). Based on a review of Figure A-2, Project Location Map, in the MND and aerial photographs, South Coast AQMD staff found that the Proposed Project is located immediately south of Interstate 210 (I-210) and within 100 feet from a gasoline service station. Construction is expected to take 19 months1. South Coast AQMD Staff’s Summary of Air Quality Analysis In the Air Quality Analysis section, the Lead Agency quantified the Proposed Project’s construction and operational emissions and compared those emissions to South Coast AQMD’s recommended regional and localized air quality CEQA significance thresholds. Based on the analyses, the Lead Agency found that the Proposed Project’s construction and operational air quality impacts would be less than significant. South Coast AQMD Staff’s Comments Based on reviews of the Air Quality Analysis in the MND, South Coast AQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency perform a mobile source health risk assessment (HRA) to disclose the potential health risks in the Final MND, incorporate strategies to reduce exposures by senior residents to toxic air contaminants from vehicles and trucks traveling on I-210, and protect public health of those living at the Proposed Project. Detailed comments are provided as follows. Health Risk Assessment (HRA) from Freeways and Other Sources of Air Pollution 1. Notwithstanding the court rulings, South Coast AQMD staff recognizes that the Lead Agencies that approve CEQA documents retain the authority to include any additional information they deem relevant to assessing and mitigating the environmental impacts of a project. Because of South Coast AQMD’s concern about the potential public health impacts of siting sensitive populations within close proximity of I-210, South Coast AQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency review and consider the following comments when making local planning and land use decisions. Sensitive receptors are people that have an increased sensitivity to air pollution or environmental contaminants. Sensitive receptors include schools, daycare centers, nursing homes, elderly care 1 MND. Page 30 Comment No. 1 Comment No. 2 Venessa Quiroz May 5, 2020 2 facilities, hospitals, and residential dwelling units. As stated above, the Proposed Project will include the operation of a senior living care facility. Based on a review of Figure A-2 in the MND, South Coast AQMD staff found that the Proposed Project immediately south of I-210. Senior residents living at the Proposed Project will be exposed to diesel particulate matter (DPM) emitted from vehicles and trucks traveling on I-210. The California Air Resources Board has identified DPM as a toxic air contaminant (TAC) based on its carcinogenic effects2. Additionally, the Proposed Project is located within 100 feet of a gasoline service station to the west. Senior residents will also be exposed to other TACs such as benzene. Therefore, South Coast AQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency consider health impacts on future senior residents living at the Proposed Project and perform a mobile source HRA3 analysis to disclose the potential health risks in the Final MND4. This recommendation will facilitate the purpose and goal of CEQA on public disclosure and enable decision-makers with meaningful information to make an informed decision on project approval. It will also foster informed public participation by providing the public with useful information that is needed to understand the potential health risks from living in close proximity to a high-volume freeway. Guidance Regarding Residences Sited Near a High-Volume Freeway or Other Sources of Air Pollution 2. To facilitate stronger collaboration between Lead Agencies and South Coast AQMD to reduce community exposure to source-specific and cumulative air pollution impacts, South Coast AQMD adopted the Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning in 20055. This Guidance document provides suggested policies that local governments can use in their General Plans or through local planning to prevent or reduce potential air pollution impacts and protect public health. In addition, guidance on siting incompatible land uses (such as placing residential uses near freeways and gasoline service stations) can be found in the California Air Resources Board (CARB)’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (Handbook)6. In the Handbook, CARB recommends avoiding siting new sensitive land uses such as the Proposed Project within 500 feet of a freeway7, and 300 feet of a large gasoline dispensing facility (defined as a facility with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year or greater.) A 50-foot separation is recommended for typical gasoline dispensing facilities8. Therefore, South Coast AQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency review the guidance documents when making local planning and land use decisions. 2 California Air Resources Board. August 27, 1998. Resolution 98-35. Accessed at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/diesltac/diesltac.htm. 3 South Coast Air Quality Management District. Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risk from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis. Accessed at: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/airquality-analysis-handbook/mobile-source-toxics-analysis. 4 South Coast AQMD has developed the CEQA significance threshold of 10 in one million for cancer risk. When South Coast AQMD acts as the Lead Agency, South Coast AQMD staff conducts a HRA, compares the maximum cancer risk to the threshold of 10 in one million to determine the level of significance for health risk impacts, and identifies mitigation measures if the risk is found to be significant. 5 South Coast AQMD. May 2005. Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning . Accessed at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/air-quality-guidance/complete-guidance-document.pdf. 6 California Air Resources Board. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. Accessed at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf. 7 Ibid. Page 10. 8 Ibid. Page 32. Comment No. 2 (Continued) Comment No. 3 Venessa Quiroz May 5, 2020 3 Health Risk Reduction Strategies 3. Many strategies are available to reduce exposures to DPM, including, but are not limited to, building filtration systems with Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) 13 or better, or in some cases, MERV 15 or better is recommended; building design, orientation, location; vegetation barriers or landscaping screening, etc. Enhanced filtration units are capable of reducing exposures. Installation of enhanced filtration units can be verified during occupancy inspection prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit. 4. Enhanced filtration systems have limitations. South Coast AQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency consider the limitations of the enhanced filtration. For example, in a study that South Coast AQMD conducted to investigate filters9, a cost burden is expected to be within the range of $120 to $240 per year to replace each filter. The initial start-up cost could substantially increase if an HVAC system needs to be installed. In addition, because the filters would not have any effectiveness unless the HVAC system is running, there may be increased energy costs to the residents. It is typically assumed that the filters operate 100 percent of the time while residents are indoors, and the environmental analysis does not generally account for the times when the residents have their windows or doors open or are in common space areas of the project. In addition, these filters have no ability to filter out any toxic gases from vehicle exhaust. Therefore, the presumed effectiveness and feasibility of any filtration units should be carefully evaluated in more detail prior to assuming that they will sufficiently alleviate exposures to toxic emissions. 5. Because of the limitations, to ensure that enhanced filters are enforceable throughout the lifetime of the Proposed Project as well as effective in reducing exposures to DPM emissions, South Coast AQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency provide additional details regarding the ongoing, regular inspection, maintenance, and monitoring of filters in the Final MND. To facilitate a good faith effort at full disclosure and provide useful information to future sensitive receptors who will live in close proximity to I-210 and a gasoline service station, the Lead Agency should include the following information in the Final MND, at a minimum: x Disclosure on potential health impacts to prospective senior residents from living in proximity to a freeway and other sources of air pollution, and the reduced effectiveness of air filtration system when windows are open and when senior residents are outdoor; x Identification of the responsible implementing and enforcement agency such as the Lead Agency for ensuring that enhanced filters are installed on-site at the Proposed Project before a permit of occupancy is issued; x Identification of the responsible implementing and enforcement agency such as the Lead Agency’s building and safety inspection unit to provide periodic, regular inspection on filters; x Provide information and guidance to the Project developer or proponent on the importance of filter installation and ongoing maintenance; x Provide information to the Project developer or proponent about where the MERV filers can be purchased; x Disclosure on increased costs for purchasing enhanced filtration systems; x Disclosure on increased energy costs for running the HVAC system with MERV filters; x Disclosure on recommended schedules (e.g., once a year or every six months) for replacing the enhanced filtration units; 9This study evaluated filters rated MERV 13 or better. Accessed at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/ceqa/handbook/aqmdpilotstudyfinalreport.pdf. Also see 2012 Peer Review Journal article by South Coast AQMD: http://d7.iqair.com/sites/default/files/pdf/Polidori-et-al-2012.pdf. Comment No. 4 Venessa Quiroz May 5, 2020 4 x Identification of the responsible entity such as residents or property management to ensure filters are inspected for replacement and maintenance on time, if appropriate and feasible; x Develop ongoing cost sharing strategies, if available, for replacing the enhanced filtration units; x Set up criteria for assessing progress in installing, replacing, and maintaining the enhanced filtration units; and x Set up process for evaluating the effectiveness of the enhanced filtration units at the Proposed Project. Conclusion Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15074, prior to approving the Proposed Project, the Lead Agency shall consider the MND for adoption together with any comments received during the public review process. Please provide South Coast AQMD with written responses to all comments contained herein prior to the adoption of the Final MND. When responding to issues raised in the comments, response should provide sufficient details giving reasons why specific comments and suggestions are not accepted. There should be good faith, reasoned analysis in response. Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information do not facilitate the purpose and goal of CEQA on public disclosure and are not meaningful, informative, or useful to decision makers and the public who are interested in the Proposed Project. South Coast AQMD staff is available to work with the Lead Agency to address any air quality questions that may arise from this comment letter. Please contact me at lsun@aqmd.gov, should you have any questions. Sincerely, Lijin Sun Lijin Sun, J.D. Program Supervisor, CEQA IGR Planning, Rule Development & Area Sources LS LAC200501-05 Control Number Comment No. 4 (Continued) Comment No. 5 State of California – Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director South Coast Region 3883 Ruffin Road San Diego, CA 92123 (858) 467-4201 www.wildlife.ca.gov Conserving California’s Wildlife Since 1870 May 21, 2020 Vanessa Quiroz Associate Planner 240 W. Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91007 vquiroz@arcadiaca.gov Subject: CEQA Filing Fee Exemption Request Project Name: Artis Senior Living Project SCH Number and/or local agency ID number: N/A Dear Ms. Quiroz: Based on a review of the project referenced above, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife has determined that for the purposes of the assessment of CEQA filing fees (Fish and G. Code § 711.4(c)) the project has the potential to affect fish and wildlife, or their habitat, and the project as described requires payment of a CEQA filing fee pursuant to the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 753.5(d). At the time of filing of the Notice of Determination with the county clerk or Office of Planning and Research (State Clearinghouse), the appropriate CEQA filing fee will be due and payable. Please see the following website for a list of current fees: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/CEQA/Fees. This determination is for the purpose of assessment of CEQA filing fees and is independent of a lead agency’s conclusion or determination regarding a project’s effect on the environment pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15064. If you have any questions, please contact Andrew Valand at (562) 342-2142 or by email at Andrew.Valand@wildlife.ca.gov. Sincerely, For Victoria Tang Sr. Environmental Scientist, Supervisor          California Environmental Quality Act MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 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 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 1 May 2020 I. Introduction To ensure that the mitigation measures identified in a project’s Initial Study are implemented, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the Lead Agency for a project to adopt a program for monitoring or reporting on the measures it has imposed to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects. As specifically set forth in Section 15097(c) of the CEQA Guidelines, the public agency may choose whether its program will monitor mitigation, report on mitigation, or both. “Monitoring” is generally an ongoing or periodic process of project oversight, while “reporting” generally consists of a written compliance review that is presented to the decision-making body or authorized staff person. An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) has been prepared to address the Artis Senior Housing Project’s (Project) potential environmental impacts. The evaluation of the Project includes mitigation measures to avoid or substantially lessen potentially significant impacts to less- than-significant levels. Specifically, the IS/MND includes mitigation measures related to the following environmental issue areas: Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Noise, and Tribal Cultural Resources. This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is designed to monitor implementation of these Project-specific mitigation measures. II. Purpose The overall intent of this MMRP is to: x Verify compliance with mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND prepared for the Proposed Project; x Provide a framework to document implementation of the identified mitigation measures; x Provide a record of mitigation requirements; x Identify monitoring and enforcement agencies; x Establish and clarify administrative procedures for the clearance of mitigation measures; and x Establish the frequency and duration of monitoring. III. Organization As shown in Table 1, each mitigation measure for the Proposed Project is listed by environmental issue area, with accompanying information identifying the: x Enforcement Agency – the agency with the power to enforce the Project’s mitigation measures. x Monitoring Agency – the agency to which reports involving compliance and implementation of the mitigation measures are made. x Monitoring Phase – the phase of the Project (e.g., pre-construction, construction, architectural coatings, occupation, etc.) during which the mitigation measure shall be monitored. x Monitoring Frequency – the frequency at which the mitigation measure shall be monitored during the phase identified in the prior column. x Action Indicating Compliance – the action or actions by which the enforcement/monitoring agency indicates that compliance with the identified mitigation measure has been determined. Artis Senior Housing Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 2 May 2020 Table 1 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program No. Mitigation Measures Enforcement Agency Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Monitoring Frequency Action Indicating Compliance 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. City of Arcadia Development Services Department City of Arcadia Development Services Department Pre-Construction/ Construction During all grading and tree-removal activities Submittal of compliance documentation by a qualified biologist 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. 7. Additional construction best practices described in the Protected Tree Report shall be implemented. City of Arcadia Development Services Department City of Arcadia Development Services Department Pre-Construction/ Construction During Plan Check and construction Submittal of compliance documentation by a Certified Arborist 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 City of Arcadia Development Services Department City of Arcadia Development Services Department Construction During all ground disturbing activities Submittal of compliance documentation by a qualified archaeologist Artis Senior Housing Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 3 May 2020 Table 1 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program No. Mitigation Measures Enforcement Agency Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Monitoring Frequency Action Indicating Compliance 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. City of Arcadia Development Services Department City of Arcadia Development Services Department Construction During all ground disturbing activities Submittal of compliance documentation by qualified Paleontologist Noise NOI-1 Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, the Project applicant shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City of Arcadia Building 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 Building Official (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 Building Official (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. City of Arcadia Development Services Department City of Arcadia Development Services Department Pre-Construction/ Construction During Plan Check and construction Approval of a grading permit Tribal Cultural Resources TCR-1 Retain 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 City of Arcadia Development Services Department City of Arcadia Development Services Department Construction During all ground disturbing activities Submittal of compliance documentation by tribal monitor Artis Senior Housing Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 4 May 2020 Table 1 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program No. Mitigation Measures Enforcement Agency Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Monitoring Frequency Action Indicating Compliance 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 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 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. City of Arcadia Development Services Department City of Arcadia Development Services Department Construction During all ground disturbing activities Submittal of compliance documentation by tribal monitor TCR-3 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 City of Arcadia Development Services Department City of Arcadia Development Services Department Construction During all ground disturbing activities Submittal of compliance documentation by tribal monitor Artis Senior Housing Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 5 May 2020 Table 1 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program No. Mitigation Measures Enforcement Agency Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Monitoring Frequency Action Indicating Compliance 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 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 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. City of Arcadia Development Services Department City of Arcadia Development Services Department Construction During all ground disturbing activities Submittal of compliance documentation by tribal monitor $WWDFKPHQW1R 3XEOLF&RPPHQW $WWDFKPHQW1R Attachment No. 7 Draft IS/MND, Response to Comments, and MMRP – Technical Studies (Appendix A –E) can be found at www.Arcadica.gov/ projects Attachment No. 7 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 Legend 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 (O 3), 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., O 3 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; SO2 = 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 NO X, 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, 10 th 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. MBAKERINTL.COM 3760 Kilroy Airport Way, Suite 270 Long Beach, CA 90806 P: (562) 200-7165 F: (562) 200-1766 MEMORANDUM To: Vanessa Quiroz, City of Arcadia Associate Planner From: Madonna Marcelo, Michael Baker International CC: Lisa Flores, City of Arcadia Planning & Community Development Administrator Date: June 19, 2020 Subject: Artis Senior Living Project Responses to Comments on the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration A Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Draft IS/MND) was prepared for the Artis Senior Living Project (Proposed Project) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines. The Draft IS/MND was circulated for public review and comment from April 23, 2020 to May 22, 2020. One letter was received by the City from the following agency and attached hereto: Lijin Sun, J.D. Program Supervisor, CEQA IGR Planning, Rule Development & Area Sources South Coast Air Quality Management District 21865 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4178 Below presents the comments followed by the corresponding response to each of the comments. Comment No. 1 South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) staff appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above-mentioned document. The following comments include recommended revisions to the air quality analysis and health risk assessment that the Lead Agency should include in the Final MND. South Coast AQMD Staff’s Summary of Project Description The Lead Agency proposes to a [sic] 44,192-square-foot senior living care facility with 80 rooms on 2.79 acres (Proposed Project). Based on a review of Figure A-2, Project Location Map, in the MND and aerial photographs, South Coast AQMD staff found that the Proposed Project is located immediately south of Interstate 210 (I-210) and within 100 feet from a gasoline service station. Construction is expected to take 19 months. South Coast AQMD Staff’s Summary of Air Quality Analysis In the Air Quality Analysis section, the Lead Agency quantified the Proposed Project’s construction and operational emissions and compared those emissions to South Coast AQMD’s RE: Artis Senior Living Project Responses to Comments on the Draft IS/MND June 19, 2020 Page 2 recommended regional and localized air quality CEQA significance thresholds. Based on the analyses, the Lead Agency found that the Proposed Project’s construction and operational air quality impacts would be less than significant. South Coast AQMD Staff’s Comments Based on reviews of the Air Quality Analysis in the MND, South Coast AQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency perform a mobile source health risk assessment (HRA) to disclose the potential health risks in the Final MND, incorporate strategies to reduce exposures by senior residents to toxic air contaminants from vehicles and trucks traveling on I-210, and protect public health of those living at the Proposed Project. Detailed comments are provided as follows. Response to Comment No. 1 The introductory comment is noted for the administrative record. The South Coast AQMD staff’s summary of the project description and air quality analysis correctly identifies the aspect of the Project and significance conclusions provided in the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND). This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. Comment No. 2 Health Risk Assessment (HRA) from Freeways and Other Sources of Air Pollution 1. Notwithstanding the court rulings, South Coast AQMD staff recognizes that the Lead Agencies that approve CEQA documents retain the authority to include any additional information they deem relevant to assessing and mitigating the environmental impacts of a project. Because of South Coast AQMD’s concern about the potential public health impacts of siting sensitive populations within close proximity of I-210, South Coast AQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency review and consider the following comments when making local planning and land use decisions. Sensitive receptors are people that have an increased sensitivity to air pollution or environmental contaminants. Sensitive receptors include schools, daycare centers, nursing homes, elderly care facilities, hospitals, and residential dwelling units. As stated above, the Proposed Project will include the operation of a senior living care facility. Based on a review of Figure A-2 in the MND, South Coast AQMD staff found that the Proposed Project immediately south of I-210. Senior residents living at the Proposed Project will be exposed to diesel particulate matter (DPM) emitted from vehicles and trucks traveling on I-210. The California Air Resources Board has identified DPM as a toxic air contaminant (TAC) based on its carcinogenic effects. Additionally, the Proposed Project is located within 100 feet of a gasoline service station to the west. Senior residents will also be exposed to other TACs such as benzene. Therefore, South Coast AQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency consider health impacts on future senior residents living at the Proposed Project and perform a mobile source HRA analysis to disclose the potential health risks in the Final MND. This recommendation will facilitate the purpose and goal of CEQA on public disclosure and enable RE: Artis Senior Living Project Responses to Comments on the Draft IS/MND June 19, 2020 Page 3 decision-makers with meaningful information to make an informed decision on project approval. It will also foster informed public participation by providing the public with useful information that is needed to understand the potential health risks from living in close proximity to a high-volume freeway. Response to Comment No. 2 The concerns identified by SCAQMD are acknowledged. The Project Site is immediately south of I-210. However, the analysis of potential health risks due to exposure of future Project residents to emissions from I-210 is not considered within the scope of CEQA in general, or the IS/MND in particular, as that pertains to the effects of the environment on the Project rather than the effects of the Project on the environment. This perspective on the intent and scope of CEQA was affirmed in the California Supreme Court opinion in California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369. The court held that “agencies subject to CEQA generally are not required to analyze the impact of existing environmental conditions on a project’s future users or residents.” However, it should be noted that there are exceptions to the court’s decision. For instance, when a project has potentially significant exacerbating effects on existing environmental hazards, those impacts are properly within the purview of CEQA because they can be considered as impacts of the project on existing conditions rather than impacts of the environment on the project. The court concluded that it is proper under CEQA to undertake an analysis of the dispersal of existing contaminants because such an analysis would be focused on how the project “would worsen existing conditions.” Finding that CEQA calls upon an agency to evaluate existing conditions in order to assess whether a project could exacerbate hazards that are already present, the court held that most of CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(a) is valid. Thus, simply attracting residents or users to a site containing an environmental hazard or risk is not an impact that must be analyzed. Instead, project-induced changes that worsen an existing hazard or risk are. The Proposed Project would not worsen existing environmental conditions and would not exacerbate an existing environmental condition. As noted in the discussion of the Project’s traffic impacts on pages 82 through 85 of the Draft IS/MND, the Project would result in a reduction in total daily and peak hour trips when compared to the existing restaurant use and would, thus, not exacerbate the level of air pollutants generated by freeway vehicle traffic on I-210, resulting in a less-than-significant impact related to transportation. As such, the assessment of the Project’s air quality impacts has not encompassed an evaluation of potential health risks associated with traffic exhaust emissions along I-210. Please refer to Response to Comment No. 3 below for a discussion of the gasoline service station located to the west of the Project Site. Comment No. 3 Guidance Regarding Residences Sited Near a High-Volume Freeway or Other Sources of Air Pollution 2. To facilitate stronger collaboration between Lead Agencies and South Coast AQMD to reduce community exposure to source-specific and cumulative air pollution impacts, South Coast RE: Artis Senior Living Project Responses to Comments on the Draft IS/MND June 19, 2020 Page 4 AQMD adopted the Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning in 2005. This Guidance document provides suggested policies that local governments can use in their General Plans or through local planning to prevent or reduce potential air pollution impacts and protect public health. In addition, guidance on siting incompatible land uses (such as placing residential uses near freeways and gasoline service stations) can be found in the California Air Resources Board (CARB)’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (Handbook). In the Handbook, CARB recommends avoiding siting new sensitive land uses such as the Proposed Project within 500 feet of a freeway, and 300 feet of a large gasoline dispensing facility (defined as a facility with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year or greater.) A 50-foot separation is recommended for typical gasoline dispensing facilities. Therefore, South Coast AQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency review the guidance documents when making local planning and land use decisions. Response to Comment No. 3 When determining whether or not an HRA was required for the Proposed Project, the City relied on the guidance in the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. This document recommends that lead agencies avoid siting residences within 300 feet of a large gas station (i.e., a facility with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year or greater) or 50 feet for a typical gas station (i.e., a facility with a throughput of less than 3.6 million gallons per year). Based on the small size (five fueling islands) of the 76 gas station across Michillinda Avenue on the southwestern corner of Colorado Boulevard and Michillinda Avenue, this gas station is considered to be a typical gas station within the meaning of CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook. Accordingly, pursuant to CARB’s guidance, the Proposed Project should be sited 50 feet or more from the gas station’s emission sources (i.e., the fueling islands/pumps). The distance between the Proposed Project’s property boundary along Michillinda Avenue and the closest fueling canopy at the gas station is approximately 90 feet, with a distance between the property boundary and the nearest fueling island of approximately 100 feet. Therefore, the Proposed Project complies with CARB’s guidance. It should also be noted the CARB’s guidance is advisory and not regulatory; however, the City strives to comply with this guidance, as discussed herein. As discussed in Response to Comment No. 2, the Court found in California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District that agencies subject to CEQA generally are not required to analyze the impact of existing environmental conditions on a project’s future residents or users (i.e., reverse CEQA) but need to focus on the impacts of the project’s effects on the environment. Since the nearby gas station is already part of the existing environment, the City is not required to evaluate its potential impacts on the Proposed Project. Operation of the nearby gas station is permitted by SCAQMD, and fuel-related emissions are regulated by SCAQMD Rule 461. Gasoline-dispensing facilities are required to use Phases I/II enhanced vapor recovery systems. Thus, the potential for fugitive volatile organic compounds (VOC) or toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions from the nearby gasoline pumps is negligible. As such, the fueling pumps would not be a significant source of TACs, and the sensitive receptors RE: Artis Senior Living Project Responses to Comments on the Draft IS/MND June 19, 2020 Page 5 that would be located on the Project Site (approximately 150 feet from the existing fueling pumps) would not be exposed to TAC emissions from the gasoline pumps across Michillinda Avenue. In addition, the Proposed Project would not change the VOC or TAC emissions from this gas station and, thus, would not have any potentially significant exacerbating effects on existing environmental hazards. No further analysis of this issue is warranted, and the determination of the significance of impacts in the Initial Study remains valid and applicable to the Proposed Project. Comment No. 4 Health Risk Reduction Strategies 3. Many strategies are available to reduce exposures to DPM, including, but are not limited to, building filtration systems with Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) 13 or better, or in some cases, MERV 15 or better is recommended; building design, orientation, location; vegetation barriers or landscaping screening, etc. Enhanced filtration units are capable of reducing exposures. Installation of enhanced filtration units can be verified during occupancy inspection prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit. 4. Enhanced filtration systems have limitations. South Coast AQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency consider the limitations of the enhanced filtration. For example, in a study that South Coast AQMD conducted to investigate filters, a cost burden is expected to be within the range of $120 to $240 per year to replace each filter. The initial start-up cost could substantially increase if an HVAC system needs to be installed. In addition, because the filters would not have any effectiveness unless the HVAC system is running, there may be increased energy costs to the residents. It is typically assumed that the filters operate 100 percent of the time while residents are indoors, and the environmental analysis does not generally account for the times when the residents have their windows or doors open or are in common space areas of the project. In addition, these filters have no ability to filter out any toxic gases from vehicle exhaust. Therefore, the presumed effectiveness and feasibility of any filtration units should be carefully evaluated in more detail prior to assuming that they will sufficiently alleviate exposures to toxic emissions. 5. Because of the limitations, to ensure that enhanced filters are enforceable throughout the lifetime of the Proposed Project as well as effective in reducing exposures to DPM emissions, South Coast AQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency provide additional details regarding the ongoing, regular inspection, maintenance, and monitoring of filters in the Final MND. To facilitate a good faith effort at full disclosure and provide useful information to future sensitive receptors who will live in close proximity to I-210 and a gasoline service station, the Lead Agency should include the following information in the Final MND, at a minimum: · Disclosure on potential health impacts to prospective senior residents from living in proximity to a freeway and other sources of air pollution, and the reduced effectiveness of air filtration system when windows are open and when senior residents are outdoor; RE: Artis Senior Living Project Responses to Comments on the Draft IS/MND June 19, 2020 Page 6 · Identification of the responsible implementing and enforcement agency such as the Lead Agency for ensuring that enhanced filters are installed on-site at the Proposed Project before a permit of occupancy is issued; · Identification of the responsible implementing and enforcement agency such as the Lead Agency’s building and safety inspection unit to provide periodic, regular inspection on filters; · Provide information and guidance to the Project developer or proponent on the importance of filter installation and ongoing maintenance; · Provide information to the Project developer or proponent about where the MERV filers [sic] can be purchased; · Disclosure on increased costs for purchasing enhanced filtration systems; · Disclosure on increased energy costs for running the HVAC system with MERV filters; · Disclosure on recommended schedules (e.g., once a year or every six months) for replacing the enhanced filtration units; · Identification of the responsible entity such as residents or property management to ensure filters are inspected for replacement and maintenance on time, if appropriate and feasible; · Develop ongoing cost sharing strategies, if available, for replacing the enhanced filtration units; · Set up criteria for assessing progress in installing, replacing, and maintaining the enhanced filtration units; and · Set up process for evaluating the effectiveness of the enhanced filtration units at the Proposed Project. Response to Comment No. 4 It is noted that the regulations set forth in Section 150 of Subchapter 7 of the 2019 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards require that residential uses, including the Proposed Project, be equipped with MERV 13 air filters in the mechanical ventilation systems, to provide enhanced filtration of outdoor air before passing through any system thermal conditioning components. These filters are designed to remove small and medium diameter particles. As noted in the SCAQMD comments, these filters can be effective in reducing exposure to DPMs. Although these filters are only effective while mechanical ventilation systems are operating, residents of the Proposed Project could be exposed to freeway emissions while outdoors or when the ventilation systems are not operating. However, the health effects from DPMs are described in terms of individual cancer risk based on a lifetime (i.e., 70-year) resident exposure duration. Project residents are anticipated to remain mostly indoors since many of them would require continuous supervision and care. In addition, the City will impose a condition of approval that requires the operators of the Proposed Project to submit a copy of the lease agreement. The lease agreement will require all future residents to acknowledge the potential health risk associated with living within 500 feet of a freeway. RE: Artis Senior Living Project Responses to Comments on the Draft IS/MND June 19, 2020 Page 7 Comment No. 5 Conclusion Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15074, prior to approving the Proposed Project, the Lead Agency shall consider the MND for adoption together with any comments received during the public review process. Please provide South Coast AQMD with written responses to all comments contained herein prior to the adoption of the Final MND. When responding to issues raised in the comments, response should provide sufficient details giving reasons why specific comments and suggestions are not accepted. There should be good faith, reasoned analysis in response. Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information do not facilitate the purpose and goal of CEQA on public disclosure and are not meaningful, informative, or useful to decision makers and the public who are interested in the Proposed Project. South Coast AQMD staff is available to work with the Lead Agency to address any air quality questions that may arise from this comment letter. Please contact me at lsun@aqmd.gov, should you have any questions. Response to Comment No. 5 The City’s responses to the AQMD comments are provided in this Response to Comments. All written comments received have been adequately responded to in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15074. The determination of the significance of impacts in the Initial Study, particularly as it relates to air quality, remains valid and applicable to the Proposed Project. Therefore, no further analysis is warranted. No other agency and public comments were received during the Draft IS/MND’s public review period. SENT VIA E-MAIL: May 5, 2020 vquiroz@arcadiaca.gov Venessa Quiroz, Planner City of Arcadia, Planning Department 240 W. Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91006 Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Proposed Artis Senior Living Care Facility South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) staff appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above-mentioned document. The following comments include recommended revisions to the air quality analysis and health risk assessment that the Lead Agency should include in the Final MND. South Coast AQMD Staff’s Summary of Project Description The Lead Agency proposes to a 44,192-square-foot senior living care facility with 80 rooms on 2.79 acres (Proposed Project). Based on a review of Figure A-2, Project Location Map, in the MND and aerial photographs, South Coast AQMD staff found that the Proposed Project is located immediately south of Interstate 210 (I-210) and within 100 feet from a gasoline service station. Construction is expected to take 19 months1. South Coast AQMD Staff’s Summary of Air Quality Analysis In the Air Quality Analysis section, the Lead Agency quantified the Proposed Project’s construction and operational emissions and compared those emissions to South Coast AQMD’s recommended regional and localized air quality CEQA significance thresholds. Based on the analyses, the Lead Agency found that the Proposed Project’s construction and operational air quality impacts would be less than significant. South Coast AQMD Staff’s Comments Based on reviews of the Air Quality Analysis in the MND, South Coast AQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency perform a mobile source health risk assessment (HRA) to disclose the potential health risks in the Final MND, incorporate strategies to reduce exposures by senior residents to toxic air contaminants from vehicles and trucks traveling on I-210, and protect public health of those living at the Proposed Project. Detailed comments are provided as follows. Health Risk Assessment (HRA) from Freeways and Other Sources of Air Pollution 1. Notwithstanding the court rulings, South Coast AQMD staff recognizes that the Lead Agencies that approve CEQA documents retain the authority to include any additional information they deem relevant to assessing and mitigating the environmental impacts of a project. Because of South Coast AQMD’s concern about the potential public health impacts of siting sensitive populations within close proximity of I-210, South Coast AQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency review and consider the following comments when making local planning and land use decisions. Sensitive receptors are people that have an increased sensitivity to air pollution or environmental contaminants. Sensitive receptors include schools, daycare centers, nursing homes, elderly care 1 MND. Page 30 South CoastAir Quality Management District 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4178 (909) 396-2000 • www.aqmd.gov I South CoastAQMD Venessa Quiroz May 5, 2020 2 facilities, hospitals, and residential dwelling units. As stated above, the Proposed Project will include the operation of a senior living care facility. Based on a review of Figure A-2 in the MND, South Coast AQMD staff found that the Proposed Project immediately south of I-210. Senior residents living at the Proposed Project will be exposed to diesel particulate matter (DPM) emitted from vehicles and trucks traveling on I-210. The California Air Resources Board has identified DPM as a toxic air contaminant (TAC) based on its carcinogenic effects2. Additionally, the Proposed Project is located within 100 feet of a gasoline service station to the west. Senior residents will also be exposed to other TACs such as benzene. Therefore, South Coast AQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency consider health impacts on future senior residents living at the Proposed Project and perform a mobile source HRA3 analysis to disclose the potential health risks in the Final MND4. This recommendation will facilitate the purpose and goal of CEQA on public disclosure and enable decision-makers with meaningful information to make an informed decision on project approval. It will also foster informed public participation by providing the public with useful information that is needed to understand the potential health risks from living in close proximity to a high-volume freeway. Guidance Regarding Residences Sited Near a High-Volume Freeway or Other Sources of Air Pollution 2. To facilitate stronger collaboration between Lead Agencies and South Coast AQMD to reduce community exposure to source-specific and cumulative air pollution impacts, South Coast AQMD adopted the Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning in 20055. This Guidance document provides suggested policies that local governments can use in their General Plans or through local planning to prevent or reduce potential air pollution impacts and protect public health. In addition, guidance on siting incompatible land uses (such as placing residential uses near freeways and gasoline service stations) can be found in the California Air Resources Board (CARB)’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (Handbook)6. In the Handbook, CARB recommends avoiding siting new sensitive land uses such as the Proposed Project within 500 feet of a freeway7, and 300 feet of a large gasoline dispensing facility (defined as a facility with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year or greater.) A 50-foot separation is recommended for typical gasoline dispensing facilities8. Therefore, South Coast AQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency review the guidance documents when making local planning and land use decisions. 2 California Air Resources Board. August 27, 1998. Resolution 98-35. Accessed at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/diesltac/diesltac.htm. 3 South Coast Air Quality Management District. Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risk from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis. Accessed at: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/airquality-analysis-handbook/mobile-source-toxics-analysis. 4 South Coast AQMD has developed the CEQA significance threshold of 10 in one million for cancer risk. When South Coast AQMD acts as the Lead Agency, South Coast AQMD staff conducts a HRA, compares the maximum cancer risk to the threshold of 10 in one million to determine the level of significance for health risk impacts, and id entifies mitigation measures if the risk is found to be significant. 5 South Coast AQMD. May 2005. Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning . Accessed at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/air-quality-guidance/complete-guidance-document.pdf. 6 California Air Resources Board. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. Accessed at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf. 7 Ibid. Page 10. 8 Ibid. Page 32. Venessa Quiroz May 5, 2020 3 Health Risk Reduction Strategies 3. Many strategies are available to reduce exposures to DPM, including, but are not limited to, building filtration systems with Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) 13 or better, or in some cases, MERV 15 or better is recommended; building design, orientation, location; vegetation barriers or landscaping screening, etc. Enhanced filtration units are capable of reducing exposures. Installation of enhanced filtration units can be verified during occupancy inspection prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit. 4. Enhanced filtration systems have limitations. South Coast AQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency consider the limitations of the enhanced filtration. For example, in a study that South Coast AQMD conducted to investigate filters9, a cost burden is expected to be within the range of $120 to $240 per year to replace each filter. The initial start-up cost could substantially increase if an HVAC system needs to be installed. In addition, because the filters would not have any effectiveness unless the HVAC system is running, there may be increased energy costs to the resident s. It is typically assumed that the filters operate 100 percent of the time while residents are indoors, and the environmental analysis does not generally account for the times when the residents have their windows or doors open or are in common space areas of the project. In addition, these filters have no ability to filter out any toxic gases from vehicle exhaust. Therefore, the presumed effectiveness and feasibility of any filtration units should be carefully evaluated in more detail prior to assuming that they will sufficiently alleviate exposures to toxic emissions. 5. Because of the limitations, to ensure that enhanced filters are enforceable throughout the lifetime of the Proposed Project as well as effective in reducing exposures to DPM emissions, South Coast AQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency provide additional details regarding the ongoing, regular inspection, maintenance, and monitoring of filters in the Final MND. To facilitate a good faith effort at full disclosure and provide useful information to future sensitive receptors who will live in close proximity to I-210 and a gasoline service station, the Lead Agency should include the following information in the Final MND, at a minimum: • Disclosure on potential health impacts to prospective senior residents from living in proximity to a freeway and other sources of air pollution, and the reduced effectiveness of air filtration system when windows are open and when senior residents are outdoor; • Identification of the responsible implementing and enforcement agency such as the Lead Agency for ensuring that enhanced filters are installed on-site at the Proposed Project before a permit of occupancy is issued; • Identification of the responsible implementing and enforcement agency such as the Lead Agency’s building and safety inspection unit to provide periodic, regular inspection on filters; • Provide information and guidance to the Project developer or proponent on the importance of filter installation and ongoing maintenance; • Provide information to the Project developer or proponent about where the MERV filers can be purchased; • Disclosure on increased costs for purchasing enhanced filtration systems; • Disclosure on increased energy costs for running the HVAC system with MERV filters; • Disclosure on recommended schedules (e.g., once a year or every six months) for replacing the enhanced filtration units; 9This study evaluated filters rated MERV 13 or better. Accessed at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/ceqa/handbook/aqmdpilotstudyfinalreport.pdf. Also see 2012 Peer Review Journal article by South Coast AQMD: http://d7.iqair.com/sites/default/files/pdf/Polidori-et-al-2012.pdf. Venessa Quiroz May 5, 2020 4 • Identification of the responsible entity such as resi dents or property management to ensure filters are inspected for replacement and maintenance on time, if appropriate and feasible; • Develop ongoing cost sharing strategies, if available, for replacing the enhanced filtration units; • Set up criteria for assessing progress in installing, replacing, and maintaining the enhanced filtration units; and • Set up process for evaluating the effectiveness of the enhanced filtration units at the Proposed Project. Conclusion Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15074, prior to approving the Proposed Project, the Lead Agency shall consider the MND for adoption together with any comments received during the public review process. Please provide South Coast AQMD with written responses to all comments contained herein prior to the adoption of the Final MND. When responding to issues raised in the comments, response should provide sufficient details giving reasons why specific comments and suggestions are not accepted. There should be good faith, reasoned analysis in response. Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information do not facilitate the purpose and goal of CEQA on public disclosure and are not meaningful, informative, or useful to decision makers and the public who are interested in the Proposed Project. South Coast AQMD staff is available to work with the Lead Agency to address any air quality questions that may arise from this comment letter. Please contact me at lsun@aqmd.gov, should you have any questions. Sincerely, Lijin Sun Lijin Sun, J.D. Program Supervisor, CEQA IGR Planning, Rule Development & Area Sources LS LAC200501-05 Control Number SENT VIA E-MAIL: May 5, 2020 vquiroz@arcadiaca.gov Venessa Quiroz, Planner City of Arcadia, Planning Department 240 W. Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91006 Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Proposed Artis Senior Living Care Facility South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) staff appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above-mentioned document. The following comments include recommended revisions to the air quality analysis and health risk assessment that the Lead Agency should include in the Final MND. South Coast AQMD Staff’s Summary of Project Description The Lead Agency proposes to a 44,192-square-foot senior living care facility with 80 rooms on 2.79 acres (Proposed Project). Based on a review of Figure A-2, Project Location Map, in the MND and aerial photographs, South Coast AQMD staff found that the Proposed Project is located immediately south of Interstate 210 (I-210) and within 100 feet from a gasoline service station. Construction is expected to take 19 months1. South Coast AQMD Staff’s Summary of Air Quality Analysis In the Air Quality Analysis section, the Lead Agency quantified the Proposed Project’s construction and operational emissions and compared those emissions to South Coast AQMD’s recommended regional and localized air quality CEQA significance thresholds. Based on the analyses, the Lead Agency found that the Proposed Project’s construction and operational air quality impacts would be less than significant. South Coast AQMD Staff’s Comments Based on reviews of the Air Quality Analysis in the MND, South Coast AQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency perform a mobile source health risk assessment (HRA) to disclose the potential health risks in the Final MND, incorporate strategies to reduce exposures by senior residents to toxic air contaminants from vehicles and trucks traveling on I-210, and protect public health of those living at the Proposed Project. Detailed comments are provided as follows. Health Risk Assessment (HRA) from Freeways and Other Sources of Air Pollution 1. Notwithstanding the court rulings, South Coast AQMD staff recognizes that the Lead Agencies that approve CEQA documents retain the authority to include any additional information they deem relevant to assessing and mitigating the environmental impacts of a project. Because of South Coast AQMD’s concern about the potential public health impacts of siting sensitive populations within close proximity of I-210, South Coast AQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency review and consider the following comments when making local planning and land use decisions. Sensitive receptors are people that have an increased sensitivity to air pollution or environmental contaminants. Sensitive receptors include schools, daycare centers, nursing homes, elderly care 1 MND. Page 30 Venessa Quiroz May 5, 2020 2 facilities, hospitals, and residential dwelling units. As stated above, the Proposed Project will include the operation of a senior living care facility. Based on a review of Figure A-2 in the MND, South Coast AQMD staff found that the Proposed Project immediately south of I-210. Senior residents living at the Proposed Project will be exposed to diesel particulate matter (DPM) emitted from vehicles and trucks traveling on I-210. The California Air Resources Board has identified DPM as a toxic air contaminant (TAC) based on its carcinogenic effects2. Additionally, the Proposed Project is located within 100 feet of a gasoline service station to the west. Senior residents will also be exposed to other TACs such as benzene. Therefore, South Coast AQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency consider health impacts on future senior residents living at the Proposed Project and perform a mobile source HRA3 analysis to disclose the potential health risks in the Final MND4. This recommendation will facilitate the purpose and goal of CEQA on public disclosure and enable decision-makers with meaningful information to make an informed decision on project approval. It will also foster informed public participation by providing the public with useful information that is needed to understand the potential health risks from living in close proximity to a high-volume freeway. Guidance Regarding Residences Sited Near a High-Volume Freeway or Other Sources of Air Pollution 2. To facilitate stronger collaboration between Lead Agencies and South Coast AQMD to reduce community exposure to source-specific and cumulative air pollution impacts, South Coast AQMD adopted the Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning in 20055. This Guidance document provides suggested policies that local governments can use in their General Plans or through local planning to prevent or reduce potential air pollution impacts and protect public health. In addition, guidance on siting incompatible land uses (such as placing residential uses near freeways and gasoline service stations) can be found in the California Air Resources Board (CARB)’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (Handbook)6. In the Handbook, CARB recommends avoiding siting new sensitive land uses such as the Proposed Project within 500 feet of a freeway7, and 300 feet of a large gasoline dispensing facility (defined as a facility with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year or greater.) A 50-foot separation is recommended for typical gasoline dispensing facilities8. Therefore, South Coast AQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency review the guidance documents when making local planning and land use decisions. 2 California Air Resources Board. August 27, 1998. Resolution 98-35. Accessed at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/diesltac/diesltac.htm. 3 South Coast Air Quality Management District. Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risk from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis. Accessed at: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/airquality-analysis-handbook/mobile-source-toxics-analysis. 4 South Coast AQMD has developed the CEQA significance threshold of 10 in one million for cancer risk. When South Coast AQMD acts as the Lead Agency, South Coast AQMD staff conducts a HRA, compares the maximum cancer risk to the threshold of 10 in one million to determine the level of significance for health risk impacts, and id entifies mitigation measures if the risk is found to be significant. 5 South Coast AQMD. May 2005. Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning . Accessed at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/air-quality-guidance/complete-guidance-document.pdf. 6 California Air Resources Board. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. Accessed at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf. 7 Ibid. Page 10. 8 Ibid. Page 32. Venessa Quiroz May 5, 2020 3 Health Risk Reduction Strategies 3. Many strategies are available to reduce exposures to DPM, including, but are not limited to, building filtration systems with Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) 13 or better, or in some cases, MERV 15 or better is recommended; building design, orientation, location; vegetation barriers or landscaping screening, etc. Enhanced filtration units are capable of reducing exposures. Installation of enhanced filtration units can be verified during occupancy inspection prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit. 4. Enhanced filtration systems have limitations. South Coast AQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency consider the limitations of the enhanced filtration. For example, in a study that South Coast AQMD conducted to investigate filters9, a cost burden is expected to be within the range of $120 to $240 per year to replace each filter. The initial start-up cost could substantially increase if an HVAC system needs to be installed. In addition, because the filters would not have any effectiveness unless the HVAC system is running, there may be increased energy costs to the resident s. It is typically assumed that the filters operate 100 percent of the time while residents are indoors, and the environmental analysis does not generally account for the times when the residents have their windows or doors open or are in common space areas of the project. In addition, these filters have no ability to filter out any toxic gases from vehicle exhaust. Therefore, the presumed effectiveness and feasibility of any filtration units should be carefully evaluated in more detail prior to assuming that they will sufficiently alleviate exposures to toxic emissions. 5. Because of the limitations, to ensure that enhanced filters are enforceable throughout the lifetime of the Proposed Project as well as effective in reducing exposures to DPM emissions, South Coast AQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency provide additional details regarding the ongoing, regular inspection, maintenance, and monitoring of filters in the Final MND. To facilitate a good faith effort at full disclosure and provide useful information to future sensitive receptors who will live in close proximity to I-210 and a gasoline service station, the Lead Agency should include the following information in the Final MND, at a minimum: • Disclosure on potential health impacts to prospective senior residents from living in proximity to a freeway and other sources of air pollution, and the reduced effectiveness of air filtration system when windows are open and when senior residents are outdoor; • Identification of the responsible implementing and enforcement agency such as the Lead Agency for ensuring that enhanced filters are installed on-site at the Proposed Project before a permit of occupancy is issued; • Identification of the responsible implementing and enforcement agency such as the Lead Agency’s building and safety inspection unit to provide periodic, regular inspection on filters; • Provide information and guidance to the Project developer or proponent on the importance of filter installation and ongoing maintenance; • Provide information to the Project developer or proponent about where the MERV filers can be purchased; • Disclosure on increased costs for purchasing enhanced filtration systems; • Disclosure on increased energy costs for running the HVAC system with MERV filters; • Disclosure on recommended schedules (e.g., once a year or every six months) for replacing the enhanced filtration units; 9This study evaluated filters rated MERV 13 or better. Accessed at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/ceqa/handbook/aqmdpilotstudyfinalreport.pdf. Also see 2012 Peer Review Journal article by South Coast AQMD: http://d7.iqair.com/sites/default/files/pdf/Polidori-et-al-2012.pdf. Venessa Quiroz May 5, 2020 4 • Identification of the responsible entity such as resi dents or property management to ensure filters are inspected for replacement and maintenance on time, if appropriate and feasible; • Develop ongoing cost sharing strategies, if available, for replacing the enhanced filtration units; • Set up criteria for assessing progress in installing, replacing, and maintaining the enhanced filtration units; and • Set up process for evaluating the effectiveness of the enhanced filtration units at the Proposed Project. Conclusion Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15074, prior to approving the Proposed Project, the Lead Agency shall consider the MND for adoption together with any comments received during the public review process. Please provide South Coast AQMD with written responses to all comments contained herein prior to the adoption of the Final MND. When responding to issues raised in the comments, response should provide sufficient details giving reasons why specific comments and suggestions are not accepted. There should be good faith, reasoned analysis in response. Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information do not facilitate the purpose and goal of CEQA on public disclosure and are not meaningful, informative, or useful to decision makers and the public who are interested in the Proposed Project. South Coast AQMD staff is available to work with the Lead Agency to address any air quality questions that may arise from this comment letter. Please contact me at lsun@aqmd.gov, should you have any questions. Sincerely, Lijin Sun Lijin Sun, J.D. Program Supervisor, CEQA IGR Planning, Rule Development & Area Sources LS LAC200501-05 Control Number State of California – Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director South Coast Region 3883 Ruffin Road San Diego, CA 92123 (858) 467-4201 www.wildlife.ca.gov Conserving California’s Wildlife Since 1870 May 21, 2020 Vanessa Quiroz Associate Planner 240 W. Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91007 vquiroz@arcadiaca.gov Subject: CEQA Filing Fee Exemption Request Project Name: Artis Senior Living Project SCH Number and/or local agency ID number: N/A Dear Ms. Quiroz: Based on a review of the project referenced above, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife has determined that for the purposes of the assessment of CEQA filing fees (Fish and G. Code § 711.4(c)) the project has the potential to affect fish and wildlife, or their habitat, and the project as described requires payment of a CEQA filing fee pursuant to the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 753.5(d). At the time of filing of the Notice of Determination with the county clerk or Office of Planning and Research (State Clearinghouse), the appropriate CEQA filing fee will be due and payable. Please see the following website for a list of current fees: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/CEQA/Fees. This determination is for the purpose of assessment of CEQA filing fees and is independent of a lead agency’s conclusion or determination regarding a project’s effect on the environment pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15064. If you have any questions, please contact Andrew Valand at (562) 342-2142 or by email at Andrew.Valand@wildlife.ca.gov. Sincerely, For Victoria Tang Sr. Environmental Scientist, Supervisor DocuSign Envelope ID: 9A6B9500-9931-48BE-A0EE-71C39AEC163A California Environmental Quality Act MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 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 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 1 May 2020 I. Introduction To ensure that the mitigation measures identified in a project’s Initial Study are implemented, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the Lead Agency for a project to adopt a program for monitoring or reporting on the measures it has imposed to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects. As specifically set forth in Section 15097(c) of the CEQA Guidelines, the public agency may choose whether its program will monitor mitigation, report on mitigation, or both. “Monitoring” is generally an ongoing or periodic process of project oversight, wh ile “reporting” generally consists of a written compliance review that is presented to the decision-making body or authorized staff person. An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) has been prepared to address the Artis Senior Housing Project’s (Project) potential environmental impacts. The evaluation of the Project includes mitigation measures to avoid or substantially lessen potentially significant impacts to less - than-significant levels. Specifically, the IS/MND includes mitigation measures related to the following environmental issue areas: Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Noise, and Tribal Cultural Resources. This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is designed to monitor implementation of these Project-specific mitigation measures. II. Purpose The overall intent of this MMRP is to:  Verify compliance with mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND prepared for the Proposed Project;  Provide a framework to document implementation of the identified mitigation measures;  Provide a record of mitigation requirements;  Identify monitoring and enforcement agencies;  Establish and clarify administrative procedures for the clearance of mitigation measures; and  Establish the frequency and duration of monitoring. III. Organization As shown in Table 1, each mitigation measure for the Proposed Project is listed by environmental issue area, with accompanying information identifying the:  Enforcement Agency – the agency with the power to enforce the Project’s mitigation measures.  Monitoring Agency – the agency to which reports involving compliance and implementation of the mitigation measures are made.  Monitoring Phase – the phase of the Project (e.g., pre-construction, construction, architectural coatings, occupation, etc.) during which the mitigation measure shall be monitored.  Monitoring Frequency – the frequency at which the mitigation measure shall be monitored during the phase identified in the prior column.  Action Indicating Compliance – the action or actions by which the enforcement/monitoring agency indicates that compliance with the identified mitigation measure has been determined. Artis Senior Housing Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 2 May 2020 Table 1 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program No. Mitigation Measures Enforcement Agency Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Monitoring Frequency Action Indicating Compliance 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. City of Arcadia Development Services Department City of Arcadia Development Services Department Pre- Construction/ Construction During all grading and tree-removal activities Submittal of compliance documentation by a qualified biologist 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. 7. Additional construction best practices described in the Protected Tree Report shall be implemented. City of Arcadia Development Services Department City of Arcadia Development Services Department Pre- Construction/ Construction During Plan Check and construction Submittal of compliance documentation by a Certified Arborist 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 City of Arcadia Development Services Department City of Arcadia Development Services Department Construction During all ground disturbing activities Submittal of compliance documentation by a qualified archaeologist Artis Senior Housing Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 3 May 2020 Table 1 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program No. Mitigation Measures Enforcement Agency Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Monitoring Frequency Action Indicating Compliance 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 ne cessary, monitoring activities shall be discontinued. City of Arcadia Development Services Department City of Arcadia Development Services Department Construction During all ground disturbing activities Submittal of compliance documentation by qualified Paleontologist Noise NOI-1 Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, the Project applicant shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City of Arcadia Building 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 Building Official (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 sh all demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Building Official (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 comp ressors 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. City of Arcadia Development Services Department City of Arcadia Development Services Department Pre- Construction/ Construction During Plan Check and construction Approval of a grading permit Tribal Cultural Resources TCR-1 Retain 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 City of Arcadia Development Services Department City of Arcadia Development Services Department Construction During all ground disturbing activities Submittal of compliance documentation by tribal monitor Artis Senior Housing Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 4 May 2020 Table 1 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program No. Mitigation Measures Enforcement Agency Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Monitoring Frequency Action Indicating Compliance 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, grad ing, 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 cultur al 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 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 purpos es. 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, trea tment 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. City of Arcadia Development Services Department City of Arcadia Development Services Department Construction During all ground disturbing activities Submittal of compliance documentation by tribal monitor TCR-3 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 City of Arcadia Development Services Department City of Arcadia Development Services Department Construction During all ground disturbing activities Submittal of compliance documentation by tribal monitor Artis Senior Housing Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 5 May 2020 Table 1 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program No. Mitigation Measures Enforcement Agency Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase Monitoring Frequency Action Indicating Compliance 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 obje cts 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 a lso 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/o r 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 activiti es 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 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. City of Arcadia Development Services Department City of Arcadia Development Services Department Construction During all ground disturbing activities Submittal of compliance documentation by tribal monitor