HomeMy WebLinkAbout1576
.
RESOLUTION NO. 1576
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF ARCADIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY
COUNCIL AMENDMENTS TO APPENDIX A AND THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT OF THE
ARCADIA GENERAL PLAN ADDRESSING STATUTORY
REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO THE CITY'S HOUSING
ELEMENT
.
WHEREAS, this General Plan change was initiated by the City to amend
Appendix A and the Community Development Element of the 1996 General Plan
to address the statutory requirements of the State of California Department of
Housing and Community Development.
WHEREAS, on July 28, 1998, a public hearing was held before the
Planning Commission on said matter at which time all interested persons were
given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and
WHEREAS, after the public hearing the Planning Commission voted 5 to
o to recommend to the City Council approval of General Plan Change 98-001;
and
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARCADIA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the factual data submitted by the Community Development
Division in the attached report is true and correct.
Section 2. This Commission finds:
1. That the proposed revisions and amendments to Appendix A -
Population and Housing Assessment and the Community Development section of
the 1996 General Plan will bring the City's Housing Element into compliance with
the statutory requirements set forth in the California Government Code. In
addition these changes provide more detailed information and clarification to
policies within the text of the General Plan, but do not change any of the City's
policies or goals as adopted by the City Council in September 1996.
.
-1-
1576
.
.
.
2. That the approval of General Plan Change 98-001 will not be
detrimental to the public health or welfare, or injurious to the property or
improvements in such zone or vicinity.
3. That the granting of General Plan Change 98-001 will not have a
significant effect on the environment.
Section 3. That for the foregoing reasons the Planning Commission
recommends to the City Council approval of General Plan Change 98-001 as set
forth in amended AppendiX A and revised pages 2-29 through 2-33 of the
Community Development Section of the General Plan.
Section 4. The decision, findings and conditions contained in this
Resolution reflect the Commission's action of July 28, 1998 and the following
vote:
AYES:
Commissioners Bruckner, Huang, Kalemkiarian, Sleeter,
Murphy
None
None
NOES:
ABSENT:
-2-
1576
.
.
.
Section 5. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and shall
cause a copy to be forwarded to the City Council of the City of Arcadia.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was adopted at a
regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 11 day of August by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Huang, Sleeter, Murphy, Bruckner
None
Commissioner.l(alemkiarian
ATTEST:
Secretary, Planmn
City of Arcadia
Approved by:
I!jJd 1/ t(JJ!kL
Michael H. Miller, City Attorney
-3-
1576
.
"""1
~
STAFF REPORT
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
July 28, 1998
'"
TO: Arcadia City Planning Commission
FROM: Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator
SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment 98-001 - Revision to the Housing Element
SUMMARY
The purpose of this General Plan Amendment (98-001) is to amend Appendix A and the
Community Development Element of the 1996 General Plan to address the statutory
requirements of the State of Califomia Department of Housing and Community
Development. Once adopted, the City's Housing Element update will be in compliance
with State Housing Element law.
.
BACKGROUND
The City Council adopted the current General Plan in September 1996. Per State Law,
a copy of the City's Housing Element was sent to the State of Califomia Housing and
Community Development Department. Comments were received from the State
advising the City that the housing element required revisions to address certain
statutory requirements. In reply to this letter, the City prepared responses to their
comments as well as revised the Housing Element to address the issues raised in their
letter. These revisions were submitted to the Department of Housing and Community .
Development in August 1997.
In December we received a letter from the State advising us that the City's hOl:lsing
element update will be in compliance with the State housing element law when the
element is amended to incorporate these changes.
DISCUSSION
The following are the comments submitted to the Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD) in response to their initial review of the City's Housing
Element adopted by the City in December, 1996.' The information set forth below
provided answers and further information relating to the issues cited in their letter. In
.
, The following COmments were prepared by lSA Associates with review by the City and submitted to the
State for their consideration.
GPIGP9S.1 PC Staff Report - GP 98-001
July 28, 1998
Page 1
.
.
.
")
.
"
addition, part of the Housing portion of the Community Development section of the
General Plan was amended along with Appendix A relating to Population and Housing.
All this material was submitted to HCD in August 1997 and approved by them in
December.
These comments will assist the Planning Commission in identifying the changes that
have been made to the housing element of the General Plan to bring the document into
compliance with the State statutes.
A. HOUSING NEEDS, RESOURCES, AND CONSTRAINTS
1. Projected Housing Needs by Income Level
HCD requested that the Housing Element be revised to include the current
statutory planning period (1989-1998t Appropriate revisions to the Housing
Element are attached.
In addition, HCD requested that the methodology used in the adopted Housing
Element to project housing needs to the year 2003 be revised. Because it is
recommended that the Housing Element be revised to reflect the current
statutory planning period (1989-1998)2, no revisions to the Housing Element are
needed in regard to housing needs through 2003.
2.
Analysis of Household Characteristics
As noted in the HCD comments, the Housing Element meets the minimum
requirements of State law in regard to documentation and analysis of housing
characteristics. HCD has additionally provided tables that they would like to see
incorporated into the Housing Element when it is next updated. These tables will
be incorporated and analyzed atthattime.
3. Potential Governmental Constraints
HCD's comments requested a series of revisions to the Housing Element in
regard to analysis of governmental constraints. These are detailed below.
a. Hillside Constraints
HCD requested that the Housing Element identify slope constraints
associated with hillside development in the northern portion of the City to
ensure that Mure development in this area maximizes housing
opportunities. The Housing Element notes that approximately 158 acres of
vacant hillside land remains within the City of Arcadia, and identifies a
potential development yield of 18 dwelling units. HCD argues that because
2 The Slate recently extended the planning period to June 3D, 1999.
3 Same as 2 above
GP/GP9&-1
PC Staff Report - GP 9B-001
July 2B, 199B
Page 2
.
.
.
,
GP/GP98- 1
'\
this area is zoned R-M, it could. according to the maximum density
allowed under the General Plan and zoning, yield a greater amount
housing.
The General Plan Land Use Element does, in fact, establish a maximum
allowable density for the northem hillside area that could theoretically
result in a higher development yield. However, until specific hillside
development designs are proposed to the City, the actual number of
dwelling units which could be built within this area when taking slope and
other environmental factors into consideration is a matter of speculation.
In order to provide a useful analysis of the land aVailable to provide
adequate housing opportunities for all economic segments of the
community, it appeared prudent to use a minimal potential yield for the
northem hillside area in the Housing Element's analysis of lands available
for housing development. The development yield used in the Housing
Element's analysis was based on the information and evaluation of
impacts included in the General Plan EIR, and is intended for analytical
purposes only, and does not establish a maximum allowable development
intensity for the area. During the review of any development proposed
within this area, the City will seek to maximize residential development
yield in a manner consistent with the physical and environmental
constraints placed on the land by its steep hillside character. Thus, no
additional analysis is needed.
b.
On- and Off-Site Requirements
HCD requested that the Housing Element identify and analyze on- and off-
site requirements such as curbing, street widths, and circulation
improvements. Because the vast majority of new housing that will be
constructed within Arcadia will be infill development (much of which will
consist of replacement of single family and low intensity multi-family units
with higher density development), on-and off-site requirements such as
those identified above are generally not an issue in local housing
development. In fact, because Arcadia's new housing development is
primarily infill, on- and off-site requirements are lower than those typically
experienced in 'growing communities.
In terms of circulation improvements, the City's Circulation Element does
not identify any major improvements that would be needed as the result of
Mure residential development. Thus, the only circulation improvements
that would generally be needed for future residential development will be
intemal circulation. Because the City's street standards are similar to those
of surrounding communities, no unusual costs would be placed on future
residential development. The information provided above is included in the
attached recommended modifications to the Housing Element (Exhibit B).
PC Staff Report - GP 98-001
July 28, 1998
Page 3
.
.
.
)
,
c.
Discretionary Review Requirements
HCD requests that the Housing Element describe and analyze
discretionary review requirements and typical processing timelines. Multiple
family developments, as well as subdivisions and parcel maps require
review by the Planning Commission. All discretionary applications are
acted upon in the minimum amount of time necessary to ensure adequate
review of the project, and within the time frames established by the
Streamlining Act and CEQA. The City continually reviews its internal
procedures for processing discretionary development penn its in order to
ensure that processing time frames are minimal, and that submittal
requirements are limited to what is necessary to protect the public health,
safety, and welfare. The infonnation described above is included in the
attached recommended revision to the Housing Element.
d. Fee Schedule
A statement that the City's development fees are the minimum necessary
to recover actual costs is included in the attached recommended revision
to the Housing Element. Also, the City's current fee schedule will be
included as an Appendix to the General Plan Housing Element.
e.
Building Codes and Enforcement
To meet HCD's request, infonnation on building codes and their
enforcement is included in the attached recommended revision to the
Housing Element.
f. General Plan Policies
HCD requests that the Housing Element analyze relevant new General
Plan policies, stating that ''taken together could constrain the development
of affordable housing." It is unclear as to which policies HCD refers, since
no polices contained in the General Plan are intended to result in such a
constraint. Instead, General Plan policies aim at encouraging new
residential development.
Policies CD-17 through CD-20 address hillside development and are
aimed at providing a reasonable degree of protection for environmental
resources within remaining hillside areas, ensuring that new hillside
development protect the public health, safety, and welfare. These policies
are not stringent, and do not constitute a constraint on housing
opportunities when compared to typical hillside development policies of
other communities.
GP/GP9B-1
PC Staff Report - GP 9B-001
July 2B, 199B
Page4
.
.
.
'1
r:--
".
Policies CD-21 and CD-22 strive to ensure that new development fits in
with existing development and are focused on eliminating a major cause
of public protest against new residential development, which will thus
facilitate the review of proposed residential development Policies CD-23
through CD-28 speak directly to encouraging housing opportunities for all
economic segments of the community.
Policies CD-32 through CD-33 address regional cooperation and establish
an equitable basis for addressing the issue of cross-jurisdictional impacts
of proposed development. The General Plan ensures that development
within the City of Arcadia will not unreasonably impact adjacent
communities, and that adequate measures will be provided by surrounding
communities to mitigate potential impacts in Arcadia that might result
development in their communities. The net effect of such a system will be
to facilitate development by eliminating the inter-jurisdictional squabbling
that often occurs in development review.
Chapter 3.0 of the General Plan addresses municipal services and
facilities, and is designed to ensure that services and facilities are made
available to support build out of the General Plan, including planned
residential development. Thus, the Municipal Services and Facilities
Element removes potential constraints on the development of housing in
Arcadia by eliminating potential shortfalls in services and facilities.
Chapter 4.0 of the General Plan deals with environmental resources. As a
primarily built-out comm.unity, Mure development is largely unaffected by
environmental resource issues, with the exception pf air quality. The
Environmental Resources Element of the General Plan implements the
provisions of the West San Gabriel Valley Air Quality Plan.
Chapter 5.0 of the General Plan provides policies necessary to protect
public health and safety. The Environmental Hazards Element addresses
seismicity and geology,f1ooding, noise, hazardous Waste management,
and wildland fire hazards, and establishes appropriate levels of protection
for existing and Mure residents from each of these hazards.
Chapter 6.0 of the General Plan provides for implementation and
monitoring of the General Plan, and translates General Plan policies into
implementable development standards. This section establishes
perfonnance standards for public services and facilities, and is intended to
ensure certainty in the review of discretionary development projects. It
does not impose any unreasonable requirements for future residential
development, but does protect the public health, safety, and welfare.
The infonnation provided above is included in the recommended revisions
to the adopted Housing Element
GP/GP98-1
PC Staff Report - GP 98-001
July 28, 1998
Page 5
.
.
.
'.
GP/GP98-1
1
B
HOUSING PROGRAMS
1. Available Housing Sites
HCD requests that the Housing Element discuss actions that will be
undertaken to facilitate development of infill sites within Transition Area 2~
In addition, HCD requests that the City demonstrate that housing which is
affordable to low and moderate income households could be developed
within this area. HCD further requests the inclusion of policies
encouraging the development of second units. Finally, HCD requests that
the Housing Element provide sites for the development of emergency
shelters and transitional housing.
To facilitate the development of infill sites within Transition Area 2, the
Housing Element includes programs to assist with infrastructure
development, density bonuses for senior housing in addition to the those
required under State density bonus law, development fee reduction, a first
time home buyers' program, a free market housing participation program
to encourage affordable housing within market rate projects, Section 8
housing assistance, and developer consultation and technical assistance.
As evidenced by the survey of residential parcels conducted for the
Housing Element, as well as by field review of Transition Area 2,
numerous small parcels have already been converted from single family to
multiple family housing. Rental rates in this area provide evidence that
new rental units are affordable to loW and moderate income households.
With the application of the Housing Element programs outlined above, it is
clear that Transition Area 2 provides sites that can support the
development of housing affordable to low and moderate income
households.
The issue of second units within single family residential areas has long
been debated within the community. As demonstrated in the Housing
Element, a modification to existing regul~tions related to second units is
unnecessary.
2.
Program Actions to Remove Govemmental Constraints
HCD does not provide comments relative to programs for the removal of
housing constraints, because of their assertion that the Housing Element's
analysis of govemmental constraints on the production of housing is
inadequate. As outlined above. there are no govemmental constraints
imposed by the City of Arcadia that necessitate the inclusion of actions to
remove them.
PC Staff Report - GP 98-001
July 28, 1998
Page 6
""
.
3.
Estimate of Redevelopment Agency Set-Aside Funds
Table A-18 of the adopted Housing Element (Appendix A - Population and
Housing Assessment) provides a detailed identification of anticipated set-
aside funds as well as the planned use of redevelopment set-aside funds.
HCD's comments regarding the deferral of Redevelopment Agency set-
aside funds is a comment on past implementation activities, not the
adequacy of the adopted Housing Element. The Housing Element
provides an analysis of past housing program implementation. As shown
in this analysis, a density bonus ordinance was adopted, and a net
increase of 235 dwelling units was experienced. From this analysis, it was
also determined that the City would need to redouble its implementation
efforts. A commitment to do so is integral to the adopted Housing Element.
As staff noted at the beginning of the "Discussion", the Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD) received all of the above comments along with revised
pages 2-29 through 2-33 of the Community Development Section of the General Plan
and a revised Appendix A. According to the HCD. after City adoption of the proposed
changes, the Housing Element will be in compliance with statutory law. A copy of the
adopted changes will be forwarded to HCD.
.
It is important to note the proposed changes provide more detailed information
and clarification to policies within the text of the General Plan document The
proposed amendments do not change any of the City's policies or goals as
originally approved by the Planning Commission and City Council in 1996.
As a matter of information, the planning period for housing elements has been extended
through June 30,1999. This housing elementwill be implemented through that period.
CEQA
Pursuant to the provisions of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act, the Community
Development Division has prepared an initial study for the proposed project. Said initial
study did not disclose any substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in any of
the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water,
minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise and objects "of historical or aesthetic significance.
When considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence that the proposed project
will have any potential for adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which
the wildlife depends. Therefore, a Negative Declaration has been prepared for this
project.
RECOMMENDA llON
.
The Development Services Department recommends that the Housing Element of the
General Plan be amended per the attached Exhibit A and B.
GP/(;PllS,l
PC Staff Report - GP 98-001
July 28, 1998
Page 7
.
.
.
'\
.~
"
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission should direct staff to convey the Commission's
recommendations and comments to the City Council for its consideration at a scheduled
public hearing.
If the Planning Commission has any questions regarding this application prior to the
scheduled public hearing, please contact me at your earliest convenience.
Enclosures: Environmental Documents
Exhibit A - Pages 2-29 - 2-33 of the Community Development Section of
the General Plan
Exhibit B - revised Appendix A - Population and Housing Assessment
GP/GP98-1
PC Staff Report - GP 98-001
July 28, 1998
Page B
'1
.
.
~
.
EXHIBIT A
Community Development Revisions
/
",\
."
k'
.'
~. .
.
2.0 Community Development
Th& Gelleral Plan
AppTOa&h alld spedji&
strategi<s Jar park alld
ro:reatim/l1l lleeds is
in&1uded in 1M Muni.
cipal Facilities and Ser.
vices chapter.
.
A detJli1cd cvaluatilm of
CDmmuni!Y lumsing new
is presented pur:srumt to
Government Code Sec-
tions 65880-65889 in
Appendix A. Population
IVld Housing A.ssas-
menL
.
the only remaining mineral extraction resource within the City. Policies for the
management of this resource are included in the Mineral Resources pottion of the
Environment3J. Resources chapter. No timber or agricultural resources currently
exist within the City.
Open Spacefor Public Recreation
Lands for public recreation are an imponant part of Arcadia's open space inven-
tory. Such lands include developed City park land, County park and golf course
facilities, as well as joint-use school/park fucilities. An inventory of such fucilities is
included in Chapter 3.0 - Municipal Facilities and Services. The City of Arcadia will
continue to provide an amy of recreational opportunities to all residents within
the community by providing a variety of park sites and programs designed to meet
the needs of all residents.
HOUSING
Issues
State Requirements for the Provision 'of Affordable Housing
The means by which families and individuals of all economic situations are ade-
quately housed within the context of rising costs and increasing competition for
available physical and financial resources has become, in recent years, a significant
public concern.
In response to this concern, the State of California amended the Government Code
in 1980 to require each local community to include in the Housing Element of its
General Plan a specific analysis of its housing needs and a realistic set of programs
designed to meet those needs. The requirements oftbe law are prefaced by several
statements of State policy, among which are the following:
.... The availabili1;y of housing is o/vita! Stale-wide importance,
and the early attainment of decent housing and a suitable living ,..
environment for every California family is a priority of the highest
order. . (Section 65580, State of California Government Code.)
.... Local and State governments have a responsibili1;y to use the
powers vested in them to facilitate the improvement and develop-
men! of housing to make adequate proriision for the housing needs
of all economic segments of the communi1;y. . (Ibid..)
.... The legislature recognizes that m carrying out this responsibi-
lity, each local government also has the responsibili1;y to consider
economic, environmental, andfiscalfactors and communi1;y goals
set forth in the Genera! Plan and to cooperate with other local
AI/ClO/.I GENE1l.tL PUN
2-29
r:i=SOlbllT1itc/\nl\linaI\nl<h2mL""
Sop/embed. J 996
-,
_. I
"-:,-,:
.
2.0 Community Development
governments andtbe State in addressing regional bousing needs. "
(Ibid.)
The law requires each locality to:
. identify and analyze the current and projected housing needs of all eco-
nomic segments of the community;
. evaluate current and potential constraints to meeting those needs, due both
to marketplace and government operations;
. assess the availability of land suitable for residential use and opportUnities
for energy conservation in residential developmentj and
. set forth goals, objectives, polities, and programs that are responsive to the
identified housing needs, governmental and non-governmental constraints,
and identified housing opportUnities.
.
The law recognizes that housing needs may far exceed available resources. This is
most critical in this day of uncertain public fiscal resources and a changing private
sector investment climate. As a result, quantified objectives need not be identical
to the identified existing housing needs.
As of]anuary 1, 1992, the State Department of Housing and Community Develop-
ment (RCD) also requires that cities analyze units within their jurisdictions that will
be discontinuing or are in jeopardy of losing programs that assist in the provision
of low income housing. Acco~g to HCD, this analysis includes the following
topics:
.
An inventory of units "at risk" oflosing restrictions on their affordability.
.
Cost analysis of preserving at-risk units versus replacement.
Documentation of non-profit agencies capable of acquiring and managing
at-risk projects. .
.
,..
. Identification of potential financing resources for housing preservation.
. Number of at-riskprojects/units to be preserved.
. Proposed efforts to preserve units at risk of losing affordability restrictions.
Arcadia's Role in Providing New Housing
.
The City of Arcadia recognizes its role in the need to provide affordable housing
within the San G2brie1 Valley region. The City of Arcadia, however, has little oppor-
ARCUlLf GENEIW.PUN
2.30
r:ItwSD2IPn>i""\rl>l/ina/\t><h2;;,L/'tV
Septembu 3. J 996
I
.,.-)
".0,
2.0 Community Development
integrate, to the extent feasi-
ble, new affordable projectS
that serve to meet the City's
housing goals without sacrificing the character of the community;
.
.
tunity to expand the available hous-
ing stock to accommodate new
affordable housing projects due to a
lack ofvacant land. This situation is
complicated by the fact that, al-
though requirements for local af-
fordable housing have remained the
same, State and federal funding that
assist the development of affordable
housing developments has de-
creased or disappeared altogether
making it difficult for cities to both
comply with State housing mandates
and provide fiscally responsible
management of City funds. In light
of these issues, the City of Arcadia's
approach to providing opportunities
for the development of housing that
is affordable to all economic seg-
ments of the community includes a
combination of local and regional
actions that:
.
Projtettd New Houslnf
Needs/oT the 1989-1998
Housing :Element Period
Inco= Category
New ConstTuctWn
'Needs (Units)
Very Low
(0-5096 ofColUlty
medilln inCl111le)
1M.
Low
(50%-8096)
ill
Moderate
(80-12096)
.ill.
Abov. Moderate (OP'"
12096)
m
Total ~nits
~1
I InduJa w.'" ifw np..I ~l.>=U mui ="
~~if~~J#~~~p.~
....... if 432 4><<11in:..ilL
s..r.e LSAAssoda... In<. 1996.
. represent fiscally prudent and responsible methods that can demonstrate a
beneficial outcome; and
. include provisions that address the physical limitations, availability of land,
topography, safety, and environmental impacts found in Arcadia.
Provision of Adequate Sitesfor Housing
,..
Due to the fact that there is little vacant land remaining in the City, Arcadia's ap-
proach to the provision of adequate sites for housing will not simply rely on the
development of vacant land, but will strive to find other opportunities in the Gen-
eral Plan to provide additional affordable .sites. Thus, the City has included oppor-
tunitiesin the General Plan for the development of existing underutilized residen-
tial land uses currently undergoing transitions to higher densities, as well as an
integration of mixed use developments in and around the City's downtown and
existing commercial areas. The City intends to use these methods to increase the
potential for affordable residential projectS.
.
AIlCUlLl GENEllAL PLAN
2-31
r.1aa.S02....ita\rp\,mulIi0dt2..L ,..
S.plember 3. 1996
"1
2.0 Community Development
.
The City of Arcadia currently utilizes four.
programs to assist in the provision of qual-
ity housing to lower income residents.
These include the Section 8 rental paymeilt
assistance program, operated by the Los
Angeles County Housing Authority; a Com-
munity Development Block Grant (CDBG)
program that underwrites housing rehabili-
tation; the State mandated "Set Aside" fund
administered by the Arcadia Redevelop-
ment Agency; and a density bonus program
that was adopted by the City putSUant to
State law. The Section 8 and CDBG pro-
grams have been successfully serving Arca-
dia residents for a number of years. How-
ever, due to other. project and program
obligations, the Redevelopment Agency has
been unable, in the past, to provide hous-
ing funds, and has annually made findings
to defer its obligation to.meet the State's 20
percent set aside mandate. The density
bonus program offers density bonuses and
other incentives to developers willing to
commit a portion of their residential development to being affordable to lower
income households.
A1mllaliud HO/lSing Objectives:
1989-1998
New Re- Con.
Om.st. hab. SOT.
16 10
lnaxme
ea.'Y
Vtry.u.w
lnaxme
(0-5096)
.u.w lnaxme
(S~096)
Modmllr
111lZ1171& (8().
12(96)
Upper
177J1Jm& (fM!T
12(96)
Total
12(j
13
6
5
16
3
o
2
38
o
83 21 125
N<<z: ~+rID~ifc-!y
--
'l~ N-mGmlms.";.,, 8 L\Uu.
s..... O!J' if A=1i4. 1995.
.
In the 1996-1997 fiscal year, the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency will make its fir.;t
housing set-aside payment. As a result of this payment, it is the City's intent to
support overall coordination of existing programs and development of housing
programs designed to meet the City's housing objectives (see box on the previous
page). Key to this approach will be the development of local housing programs
focusing on the following areas of need.
Assisted Housing
The City will strive torc:tain the number of assisted housing units that are currently
located in the City in an effort to maintain existing affordable housing opportUni-
ties, along with expanding housing opportUnities in the City.
Maintenance of E:dsting Sound Housing
Because of the generally high values of homes within the City, Arcadia has not
experienced a significant problem with the maintenance of existing housing. As
housing stock in the City continues to age, however, property maintenance issues
.
r.Iro:S02iPnJi<<t\tl7\1inal~ml"",
Sl!plember 3. 1996
2-32
ARCADJA GENE/W.PUN
.'\
2.0 Community Development
.
could come into play. The City will work to prevent housing deterioration by
encouraging homeowners to maintain a high standard of property maintenance.
Housingfor Special Needs Groups
The City of Arcadia will take steps to promote programs to ensure an adequate
supply of housing that meets the needs of various "special needs" groups (e.g.,
handicapped, elderly,large.families, and the homeless). These include expedited
processing and use of available State and federal housing programs.
Prevention of Housing Discrimination
The City of Arcadia will promote fair housing practices through cooperation with,
and referrals to,.fair housing enforcement organizations.
REGIONAL COORDINATION AND COOPERATION
Issues
.
Tht Ci!)' will insist tJult
lDcJzl inurms be protattd
and tJuzt "pMI p/mlning
J"Dgrarns Mt ignon low
amditiDns.
.
Balancing Internal and External Impacts of Development
While local control and management of land use within the community are among
the primary issues of concern in the community, Arcadia recognizes that the City is
not isolated; Arcadia is pan of a larger region, and shares the concerns of that
region. The effecrs of regional problems in other communities surrounding Arca-
dia are felt in the form of traffic congestion, crime, air pollution, and a concern for
the adequacy of long-term water supplies.
Although regional problems require regional solutions, in pursuing these regional
solutions and fu1filling its responsibilities to the larger regional community, the
City will insist that local interests be protected and that regional pl2nn;ng pro- .
grams not ignore local conditions. It is Arcadia's vision that individual communities
and neighborhoods need not abandon their local social values in pursuit .of a
"greater' regional good, and that no one group should have to accept the brunt of
the impacrs of a regional solution.
This principle of balancing local interests with regional needs applies to the devel.
opment review process. It is not appropriate for a jurisdiction, in approving a
development project, to internalize the benefits of development, and externalize
the related impacrs. The regional principle that focuses on an equitable allocation
of development benefits and impacts between jurisdictions further applies ro
individual neighborhoods within Arcadia. A guiding tenet of the General Plan is
that both the benefits and impacts of management decisions related to land use,
environmental regulation, and traffic flow need to balance citywide needs of indi-
AIlCW1A GENEIlAL PUN
2-33
r:kt4S02"""i<<tItoI/i=/\rpch2fnl.nv
September 3, /996
~.~
Appendix A - Population and Housing Assessment
.
INTRODUCTION
The Arcadia Population and Housing Assessment provides background data and
anall'sis for the Genernl Plan Housing Element. This assessment, which has been
prepared in conformance with State housing law (Government Code Sections
65580-65589), includes the detailed information necessary to determine the City ot'
Arcadia's housing needs over the 1989-1998 housing period.
PUBIJC PARTICIPATION
As part of the update of the Arcadia Housing Element, early consultation notices
were sent to agencies that could provide input on housing issues. These included
local agencies such as the Los Angeles County Housing AuthOrity, the Fair Housing
Council of San Gabriel Valley, and the California Mutual Housing Association, as
well as the State Depanment of Housing and Community Development in Sacra-
mento and the federnl Department of Housing and Urban Development's San
Francisco office.
.
In addition, a public meetini was held on Wednesday, May 17, 1995, to obtain
comments from Arcadia residents on the General Plan process, including the up-
date of the housing element. Notices for the workshop (including display adver-
tisements) were placed in the Hometown section of the Pasadena Star News o~
May 4: and 11. Press releases were also distributed to the Chinese Daily News,
Sierra Madre News, Los Angeles Times, China Press, and the Chinese Free Daily
News. '
Notices for this meeting were posted at various locations within the City, including
the .Arcadia City Library, Community Center, and post offices; broadcast on the
local cable television bulletin board; and mailed.to a comprehensive m~;];ng list
used by the City for envirorunenl2l projects. A toW of 20 residents were present at
the meeting. Issues raised that were related to housing included the importance of
home maintenance and maintaining "pride of ownership," and the accuracy of the
City's motto, "Community of Homes," in describing the. City's character.
In addition, the Arcadia Planning Commission. conducted public hearings on' the
General Plan, including, the Housing Element on Apri130, May 14, May 16, May 30
and June 25, 1996, and additional hearings were held by the City Council on July 8
and July 10, 1996. During these hearings, there was o."tensive discussion of hous-
ing issues, including the manner in which the City would meet its objecm.-es of
providing housing for all economic. segments of the community.
HOUSING PROGRAM ACHIEVEMENTS FROM 1990 TO 1995
.
The City's 1990 Housing Element contained 28 "Action Prognms" designed to
implement the City's goals and policies related to housing in the community. The
majority of these programs are of an ongoing nature, and will continue as part of
ARCADIA GEJr~ P1-4N
A.I
:,:i..-4D.2i:mt;t::Lt"ptii1"~li:p'D.Jo.sr.rrl'
S.p"",oer J. J 996
.~
.
.
.
,..
EXHIBIT B
Revised Appendix A
.~.~
-~ -
Appendix A - Population and Housing Assessment
.
the newly adopted housing element. In addition, several quantifiable achievements
of housing dement goals can be noted, including the following.
1. The City adopted a density bonus ordinance in May 1995 (Ordinance No.
95-002) to provide density bonuses and additional considerations to devel-
opers who construct multiple-family low income housing units. -
2. Home rehabilitation grants of $7,500 to $10,000 were issued to 116 low
and moderate income households between 1990 and 1994. lis illustrated
in TableA-13 of this appendix, over $1 million of Community Development
.Block Grant (CDBG) funds have been spent on housing rehabilitation
through this program. City staff estimates that an additional 30 grants will
be issued by the end of 1995 at $10,000 each.
3. A net increase of 235 dwelling units were constructed between 1990 and
1995.
POPUlATION CHARACTERISTICS
HISTORIC GROWTH
.
According to ,the January 1994 population survey prepared by the State Department
of Finance (OOF), the City. of Arcadia had 49,753 residents.1 Another 7,463 people
reside in the Arcadia Sphere of Influence, resulting in a towsrody area population
of 57,216.
lis illustrated in Table A-I, population growth in the City of Arcadia has stabilized
significantly over the last 20 years when compared to the dramatic growth experi-
enced in the pOst-war years of the 1940s and 19505. Arcadia's population more
than quadrupled between 1940 and 1960, and over 10,000 homes were
constructed in the City in those 20 years. Since then, growth in the City has contin-
ued at a more modest rate, with population increasing only 16.5 percent overall
from 1960 to 1994. This slowing of the growth rate reflects that fact that Arcadia
was approaching, and has DOW reached a build out condition, wherein oppormni-
ties for new housing development are nearly exclusively OD lands currently devel-
oped with low density housing. .
1
Due to an error in the 'Wl annual growth report prepared for the State, the population
count included in the 1994. r:llher th:m the more recent 1995 DOF report is used in this
Appendix and in the Arc:Id~ GcnenI Pl:1n Housing ElemenL
.
-lRc.<D1A GEJr:JW. PUN
A-2
r:l"1CSOliDmit::l'"P~::ft~Il::"lI.:l.r..s:.rrr
S.;".",b<r 3. J 996
--,
Appendix A - Population and Housing Assessment
. Table A-I. Arcadia's Historical Population
Census Year Population % Change
1940 9,122 N/A
1950 22,809 150.0
1960 42,698 87.1
1970 45,138 5.7
1980 45,994 1.9
1990 48,290 5.0
1994 49.753 3.0
Source: U.s. Census Burt!/ZU eind State Depanmem ofFi_, 19%.
GROWTH PROJECI70NS
The U.S. Census provides thl? most widely used statistics reflecting the population
of cities and states. However, the DOF maintains annual records of population to
augment Census data in the yeatS between Census counts. These statistics are used
by many agencies who wish, to forecast population growth, as well as other related
economic indicators, as accurately as posSible. Among these agencies is the South.
ern California .Association of Governments (SCAG), which establishes a regional
fuunework of planning criteria around various quality of life issues, including the
provision for housing, and management oftraflic and air quality.
.
SCAGpreliminary projections for growth in population, households, and employ.
mtrlt for the City of.Arcadia and the County of Los Angeles are shown in Table A-2.
However, the City does not concur with these profections. SCAG projections often
do not take into account existing physical conditions or specific constraints to
development in a co=unity.2 For example, within Census Tract 4304, SCAG
estimates indicate a population increase of 2,157 persons by the year 2020. The
physical character of the area ispredomiruueIy steep hillsides, with limited access
fOt residential development potential The remainder of the area in this c~
tract consists of flood control facilities, and will not be available for future
development.
2
Cil)' of Arc:ldi~ Sufi met with representatives of the S~n Gabriel Valley Council of Govern-
ments on August 22, 1995 to ~ew SCAG household, population, and employment projec-
tions. The projections provided by the Council of go\=ents to SCAG included in the
San G3briel VallI:)' Subregional Input report dated September 7, 1995 do not reflect realis-
lie conditions in the Citj. of Arc:ldi:t.
.
,{RClDl", GE1-"ERA!. PLAA'
A.3
r: L::.:501iD",ic:tLflZltJinaTloat"Da.i:sr.m'
Seplember 3. /996
'-,
.-
Appendix A - Population and Housing Assessment
.
Table A-2 - SCAG Growth Projections, City of Arcadia
and San Gabriel Valley Subregion
" Change " Change " Change " Change
1990- 2000- 2010- 1990-
1990 2000 2000 2010 2010 2015 2015 201;
'Popul:ttion
An::ldia 48.290 49,764 3" 52,415 5% 53.319 2% 10%
Subregion 1.424,230 l,481,377 4% 1,658,835 12% 1,715.487 3% 20%
Households
A=di:l 18,352 19,258 5" 20.734 8" 21,671 5% IS%
Subregion 431,804 441,777 2% 494,861 12% 517,994 5% 20%
Employment
An::ldia 25,879 25,872 0% 26,737 3%. '27,514 3% 6%
Subrt:2ion 584.96:; 622.0:;3 6% 7'\2.668 18% 766.568 5% 31%
SOurcE' San Gabriel Valley Preliminmy Growtb Forecast, Subregional input Report, September 7, :1995.
.
In Arcadia, 'Io'3.=t land is nearl.y non-existent,.and the transition from existing uses,
which are typically low in density, to other, higher density uses, is occurring rela-
tively slowly, and only in a few areas of the City. In order to accurately reflect the
=pected growth in Arcadi:i, acrual build out counts based on existing land uses
were undertaken to assesS underutilized parcels, as well as areas already in uansi-
tion (see Availability of Potential Sires for. Housing section of this appendix). Popu-
lation forecasts based on these build out estimates have b=n used to a.nalj'Ze the
pOtential for housing growth within the City and General Plan stUdy area.
AGE DISTRIBUTION
In planning for housing and social service needs in the City, it is important to
anal}= the population in terms of age. Comparingdar.a from the 1980 and 1990
Census, the distribution of age groups.within the City has remained relatively
stable, as shown in Table A-3, below. Additional information on Arcadia's elderly
r
population is included in this appendix under the heading "Special Needs Groups, n
as defined by the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).
.
AR-~DJA GENEM!. PUN
A-4
r:l::.eS02!Dmi::rLtIl:I.'=:nal:':f1D::.r.sr.rno
S<pl<mbtr3. 199~
~,
-,
Appendix A - Population and Housing Assessment
. Table A-3 - Age Distribution, City of Arcadia
Age Cate. Percentage Percentage
gory 1980 Distribution 1990 Distribution Change
0-4 years 1,830 3.98% 2,192 4.54% 0.56%
5.17y= 8,871 19.29% 8,261 17.11% -2.18%
18-24 years 4,857 10.56% 4,235 8.77% -1.79%
25-44 years 11,477 24.95% 14,078 29.15% 4.20%
45-64 years 12,145 26.41% 11,819 24.48% -1.93%
65+ 6.814 14.82% 7.705 15.96% 1.14%
Total 45,994 48,290 2,296
Source: City of Arcadia, Deuelopmenl Services Departmenl, May 1995.
.
The differences between the City's 1980 and 1990 age distributions reflects a
continuing trend. Following rpe explosive growth that occurred in Arcadia through
the 1970s, the City's population sClbilized and aged. Children grew up, and moved
out of their homes. Many, although not all, parents whose children grew up and
moved out, also moved out .of the community. This is reflected in a decrease in the
proportion of young adults' aged 18-24 and older adults aged 45-64, as well as an
increase in the proportion of senior citizens over the age of 65. Primarily young
families moved into the community, as "reflected in an increasing proportion of
adults aged 24-44, and pre-school age children. The trend of replacement of older
adults with young families is anticipated to continue through the 1990s.
RACE AND EI'HNIClTY
.Arcadia's population is less diverse in tenus of ethnic composition than that of Los
Angeles County as a whole. About 72 percent of the srody area population, or
34,552 residents, are of white non-Hispanic origin, compared to approximately 57
percent in Los .Angeles County. The next largesuacla1 subgroup identified by the
1990 Census 'W2S Asian, comprising approximately 25 percent of the City's popula-
tion. Of those within this Asian subgroup, 7,434 persons, or approximately 15 per- .
cent of the Cit}~s total population, reponed themselves as Chinese. In comparison,
within the County of Las Angeles, the Asian papulation is approximately 11 per-
cent, with approximatel}' 3 percent of the Count)' total population reponed as
Chinese.
.
ARC.IDlA GEA'EJW.I'1.-<.\'
A-5
r.L::c.S02iDn:tk:t!.!%'liin.r:1L:::~/JIf.r.sr.TCt"
Sop/embed. /996
~
~\
Appendix A - Population and Housing Assessment
.
. Race and Ethnicity
Cit;Y or Aradib
1980
....... ...2:"
1990.
.1adI:G,2S I
H"~'".
YIl.llc".'"
.~ct O.7S
.
Berween 1980 and 1990, the City has experienced significant changes in the ethnic-
it)' of its population. According to the U.S. Census, all ethnic groups within Arc:!-
dia, other than white non-Hispanics, increased in size over the last ten years, with
Hispanic and .Asian/Pacific 1slander groups having the most nouble changes. The
number of .AsianlPacificIslander residents in the City grew from 1,857 in 1980 to
11,368 residents in 1990, an increase of over 500 percent. Of this group, 52.9
percent report themselves as being of Chinese descent.
EDUCATIONAL A1TAINMENT
Educ:!tion is an impOrtant indic:!tor
of a ,-ariety of ch=eristics, such as
occupation and income. According
to the 1990 Census, for residents
over 25 years of age, 88 percent
were high school gr.aduarcs, and
over 36 percent had at least a bache-
lor's degree. This compares to 69
percent of Los Angeles Count)'
residents being high school gr.adu-
atcs, and only 20 percent holding a
bachelor's degree.
Edu.::..tlDnal Alf.inmon\w\lhln Chy and County
I I I I I
H...D....m.~
(I...d.~~
8A..O.llre.~
l~~l
,..
o 20 "0 BD 8D
~_-'~__.""2S__
,DD
I!I Arcadia
IZl L.A. CDunty
.
ARC<!l:A GWEJW. PUS
A-6
r.~.c:502l1'TP;t..."'~Vir..1!l.:DPA-i:sr.'()'
S.pwr.b.r3. '996
~~
.....-...,
Appendix A - Population and Housing Assessment
. ,-
.
INCOME
St:1te housing law uses County median household income figures to define levels of
household income that are cl:lSSified as very low, low, mode....te. and above moder-
ate. HCD~s income classifications are illustrated in Table A-4 below.
Table A-4 - 1990 Household Income Range
Percent of Couuty
Income Level Median Income1 Monthly Income
Very Low 0-50 $0 - $1,456
Low 50-80 $1,456 - $2.331
Moderate 80 - 120 $2.331 - $3,496
Above Moderate >120 Over $3.496
1 B2SCd on-the 1990 Census,.tbe median annual household income-in" Los An.
gclcs County..... $34,965.
Source: !SA Associates. Inc.. 1995.
.
Arcadia's median annual household income in 1990 "llias 547,347. This.figure is
approximately 35 percent greater than the median household income for all Los
Angeles COunty residents.' Nearly 17 percent of Arcadia households earn more than
5100,000 per year (see Table A-5). Yet, ~e City is also home to a substantial num-
ber of low and moder.a.te income households; almost 24 percent of all Arcadia
householdseamed less than $25,000 annually.
Table A-5 - Arcadia Household Income
.
Household Income Percent
Below $15.000 12.0%
$15.000 - $24,999 11.9
S25,OOO - $34.999 12.7
S35,000 - $49,999 15.8
S50,OOO .. $74.999 19.2
$75.000.. S99,999 11.7
$100,000 - S150,OOO 9.3
Above $150.000 7.4
Toul 100%
Source: u.s. Ccr..sw. 1990.
ARCADbl GV.'E:Jl.<L PU"
A-i
r:L"'t.c:501b"1Jj=L?1iilUll&:ll"D~pj.Jr.""
S~p,cmber.i, ! 9$16
.-'>
Appendix A - Population and Housing Assessment
.
What is "[ow income"? m
StDte law requires c,itics 10 provide adequate opponunities"for households
with moderate, low and very low incomes to buy Dr rent adequale housing.
Households with one member working outside the home in III ordinary job can
fall inlo these categories, as defined by the federal g.vcmmcnl in
tcmlS .flbe median lMual income for lbe orca, ",hich i. $40,684
for a-family of four in Lo. Angeles County in 1994.
~J:~
$32,54710 $018,821
(IIJ"IDJ2rm..diantncomeJ
.
~-!;4W_
I 1m ~~
SO to $20,342
(llndu ,...<{ mdi4n;n=m<)
~
$10,343 to $32,546
(1JH 1D8tM ,"",an br:omr)
Source: 1994 Geographic Rder-..na: Report. BTA Economic Research Institute.
Figure A-I - What is "Low lncome?"
Households in Arcadia can be distributed intO HCD's four income cl2.ssi.6cations
through interpolation of the area household incomes. As shown in Table A-G.
approximately 55 percent of the households in the City have above moderate
incomes, while very low and low income households comprise about 28 percent of
the City. .
The terms "low" and "moderate" income households can be somewhat misleading.
As defined in housing Jav,', "modernte" income mer-Jy means average income for
the County. In addition. because large numbers of households have two or more
'wage =ers, single W2ge =er households of common professions often fa1I into
low or moderate income categories (see box above).
.
,t~DIA GEJi~llA!..PJ..A""
A-S
r:b::501i=TDi---\..lPpliiruzll:tDDD.,;..sr.mo
Scpl<mbcr3. 1996
-~
-,
Appendix A - Population and Housing Assessment
.
Table A-6 - Low and Moderate Income Households
City of Arcadia, 1990
Income Level'
Tot:ll in City
Percent of Total
Very Low (under 50 percent
of County median)
Low (50-80 percent of County
median)
Moderate (8Q..120 percent of
County median)
Above Moderate (Above 120
percent of Countv median)
So~: LSAArsocia:es, Inc., 1995.
2,750
15%
2,384
13%
3,117
17%
10.085
55%
SPECIAL NEEDS GROUPS
.
Certain segments of the population often have a more difficult time finding ade-
quate, afforclable housing due to their special circumstances. The State of Califor-
nia defines these "special n'Ceds" groups as female-headed households, large house-
holds (five or more members), the elderly, disabled persons, farm workers, and the
homeless. A Sllrnrn~ry of thes~ group's representation in Arcadia is shown in Table
A-7, followed by additional information on each group.
Group
Female-Hoded Households
Table A-7 - Sn".......,,'Y of Special Needs Groups
Percent of Total
BouseholdslPopulation
3.7%
Large Households (5 or more)
Elderly (65+)
Disabled
Farm Worker Households
10.5%
16.0%
Homeless
10.6%
0.0%
0.1%
Soura:, u.s. Cer.sus. :1990.
.
ARCA!>J...r GEJ,.'SIUL Pu.,.,'
A.9
:-:L-:::501l::m,;::tn!r.nalbDDQ.r..sr.I't"I'
Srpt<mbrrJ. 1996
.~)
------
Appendix A - Population and Housing Assessment
.
Female-headed house-holds often have
lower income levels than those oEmar-
cied couples or male-headed single par-
ent households. The. 2.nnual famil.yincome levels for one-parent families in Los
Angeles County and Arcadia are sho~ in the chan at the right. In Arcadia, the
. annual income for female-
headed households is, on
average, 50 percent higher
than that of female-headed
households county-wide,
yet 75 percent lower than
the average income of
male-headed one parent
households in Arcadia.
According to the 1990
Census, 29 percent, or 261
of the female-headed
households in Arcadia
were Jiving below the pov-
eny level in 1989.
.
Female Headed Households
Cn 1990, nearly 20 percent of Arcadia's
households with children under 18 had
only one parent (896 of the 4,668
households with children). Of these
single-parent homes, 75 percent (676
households) were headed by women;
and 25 percent by men. Countywide,
26 percent of the households with chil-
dren are headed by single parents; with
the same 75 to 25 percent ratio of fe-
male to male beaded bomes.
.
Comparative Income Levels in One Parent Homes
I I I
LA County
.1
.'
so
$10000 S2DDDD S3DDDD $40000 S5DDDO SSDODD
Mean Annual Family Income. 1989
II Female Heado<l
i:B Male-Headod
Large Housebolds
Female Headed Households
City of Art:adia. 1990
@ To1al Households
. Single Female Parent FamlIIes
. Sfngle Male Parent FamDles
. Families with CJ11ldren
A second category of special-needs households involves large families and the
linked issue of overcrowding. Large bouseholds occur in just over ten percent of
Arcadia's homes; 89.9 percent of all households contain four or fr:wer persons.
laIge households occur slightly more frequently in househoids countyWide, wnere
825 percent contain four or fewer household members. Among renter households
in Arcadia, large households are even less common. as shown in TableA-8 below.
.
ARCADI" GENEJl,/L PU^'
A-I 0
r.l:-..:SD:!ipmit:tL"Il'1Jir.::!i.::UC1:;.J:s~_T!l'
S~;m:r.:bt!r 3.1996
-1
Appendix A - Population and Housing Assessment
.
Household Si:l;e
Table A-8 - Household Size, City of Arcadia
Percent of Renter Households
All Households (Percent of total)
24.0% 13.7'.
33.9% 125%
32.1% 9.2%
6.9% 1.8%
3.3% 1.1%
One person
Two pe.rsons
Three or four persons
'Five persons
Six or more persons
SOU""" U.S. Census, 1990; lSoI. /lSsocialt!.S, 1=,1995.
According to the Census, Arcadia's average household size in 1990 was 2.63, in-
creasing from 2.55 in 1980. By comparison, the average household size in Los
Angeles County in 1990 was 2.96. This increase runs counter to the national trend
of declining household size, and is reflective of older citizens moving from the
community, and being replaced by families.
EIderl;y Persons
.
The elderly (age 65 and over) are included in HCD's special needs groups classifica-
tion because elderly households must often rely on .fixed incomes, which make it
difficult to absorb increases in living costs, especially the cost of housing.
Within the City of Arcadia, according to the 1990 Census, 7,705 persons, or 16
percent of the population, are 65 years of age or older. Of this group, women
comprise 61 percent, as compared to 39 percent for men. As shown in Table A-9,
in 1990, approximately 25 percent of Arcadia's elderly population lived alone,
while another 7 percent were living with unreIa.ted individuals in a non-family
household or in group quaners, such as nursing homes. The remaining members
of Arcadia's elderly population reponed themselves as living with a spouse or other
relative in a family household.
In its efforrs to ascertain current needs of the elderly in Arcadia, !.SA contacteg the
City's Senior'Services Coordinator, Rose O'Sullivan, who stated that housing was
the second largest concern for senior citizens in Arcadia, the first being transpOrta-
tion. She indicated that people frequently have the misconception that Arcadia
seniors are wealthy; and pointed out that while they might be "house rich," they
are :i.lso often ~c:ash p~o::' hl her opL."1ion, the Ci:y lus a re:ll need to o.:p:md
assisted housing options for senior citizens.
.
ARC.<!lJA GENEP.lL PLAN
A-ll
r.b.:.S01U:1rit::lrz:'~::n.CIIl.::DD::I.i:!r.r:r
S.p:omber J. J 996
~
,f-:-'
Appendix A - Population and Housing Assessment
.
Table A-9- Elderly Household Composition
City of Arcadia, 1990
. Number of Persons Percent of Total
Household Type 65 :md over 65 and over
Family Households 5,285 68.6%
Living Alone 1,881 . 24.4%
Non-f.unilyhouseholds1 109 1.4%
Group Ou:mers2 430 5.6%
Total 7.705 100%
1 Living illsillgle.bmily hllUSing with Ullrc:12ted illdividuols (e.g., paid ec>mpanillllS).
: The Census ddinition of 8lDup qu~ includes institutional (nursing. bomes,
men'till hospitals, conecdonal f::idlltics) 2nd non-institu.tionaI (college dormitOries,
homeless shelters) bcilities ill this housillg =gory.
Source: LSAAssodates, Inf:.;, 1995.
.
Housing facilities for the elderly current!y existing in Arcadia include Naomi Gar-
dens and board and = facilities. such as the Arcadia Gardens Retirement Hotel,
the Arcadia Royale, the California Home for Aged Deaf, and Wellington CourtS. In
addition to shelter, most board and care facilities, also called retirement homes or
"rest homes," provide meals and non-medical care for their elderly residents.
However, Ms. O'Sullivan points out that the majority of Arcadia's senior population
is active, healthy, and able to live independently.
The one facility in Arcadia that provides subsidized housing to senior citizens able
to live independently is Naomi Gardens, a structure that contains 100 efficiency-
style apartments. Each unit is 559 square feet, and contains a living area, kitchen,
bathroom and one bedroom. All of these units are subsidized by the Federal Sec-
tion 8 rental assistance program, and are available only to residents aged 62 and
older, or to disabled adults aged 18 or older who meet Federal low-income require-
ments. },s of October 1995, all 100 units at Naomi Gardens were rented, and the
waiting list for units, which can contain the names of up to 30 prospective ,r.esi-
dents, v:as also fulL "."
Disabled Persons
According to the 1990 Census, 4,139 residents of the City of Arcadia reported
physical limitations that affect either self care or mobility. This figure represents
10.6 percent of the City's total non-institutionalized population over age sixteen.
In comparison to Los Angeles County, Arcadia has a: smaller percentage of disabled
.
3
Telephone convetS~lion ",'it.h Am~nda Richardson, Naomi Gardens Property Manager,
OClober30. 1995.
AHc.tD:d C;;E},~<L PLAN
A-12
r:l:tQ01m;=Lp]:~~r.=1;'::uIJG.i:.Jr.Trl'
S.p,.",!>" 3. } 996
-"""']
-----.,
Appendix A - Population and Housing Assessment
.
persons; Los Angeles County residents who are disabled constirute 13.2 percent of
the population. As shown in Table A.10 below, the percen'tage of individuals with
mobility and self.care limitations is substantially higher among older residents,
although in Arcadia, nearly 75 percent of those 65 and older reponed no disability
in 1990. .
Table A-10 - Disability Status of Non-Institutionalized Persons, 1990
An:adia Los Angeles COW1t)'
Number PCTCc:nl Number Percent
Total No&mstirutioaa.1i:zed
Persons 16 to 64 Years ~1,"62 5.857.5117
With a Work Dis3bility:
With 2. mobility or.
sc1f.cue limitation 1,646 5.2 ~81,~81 6.5
No mobility or
se1f-can: limitation :zg 0.1 8,610 0.1
No Work Diubilil)':
With a mobility or
. selfoQt'C 1imiavon 604 1.11 2111.528 ~.8
No mobility or
sc1f-care JiJititation 29,184 92.S 5.248,078 811.6
Total Non-iostitution:lllzed
Persons 65 :md Over 7,302 812.165
With a Work Dis:lhility:
With a mobilil)' or
selI-c:arc limitation 1,724 2$.6. 244,154 ~0.1
No mobility or
scU'.oQU'C limitation 43 0.6 8,llll0 1..1
No Work Dis:obility:
With a mobilil)' or
sc1f-c:arc: limiwion 165 2.3 ;;8.418 4.7
No mobility or
se1k:are limiu.tion 5.'570 n.s 520.60'5 64.1
Sourctr: US Cer.sus. 1990.
Fann Workers
.
Adequate housing for farm workers is a serious, and onen ignored issue in many
communities in California; however, in .'u'Cldi:l., no commercial agricultural
operntions exist that .....ould support a need for farm worker housing. The Sana
ARC:.ofDJA GeNE1U!.PU.\'
A-13
r.l:u:.SO.2i~",jt..'1\rJ:lbir-=;i.=:ppa.lu!'.rtl'
S'plCmb.r3, J 996
--~
Appendix A - Population and Housing Assessment
.
Anita Park race track provides on-site housing and services for workers caring for
the race horses. At the peak of racing season, as many as 1,000 may be housed on
site; off-season, as few as 200 workers may be housed on site to help with horse
training activities.
The 1984 Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) prepared by SCAG esti-
mated 30 resident fann worker households with housing assistance needs within
Arcadia. According to SCAG staff, this estimate was based on 1980 Census data
showing employment within agriculmre, forestry, and fishery industries. A region-
wide factor was applied to this number of employees (in 1980, there were 273 such
workers in Arcadia) and the results of this calculation were reponed as the esti-
mated number of fann worker households within the City, without verification of
acmalland uses or presence of fann workers in need of housing assistance within
the City. According to SCAG staff, the RHNA is not currently scheduled to be
updated, so a revised estimate of regional fann worker need is not available at this
time.
.
The City of Arcadia considers the estimate of 30 fann worker households with
housing assistance needs to be a significant overstatement of t.'te actUal conditions
within the City. Based on the urban namre of the commUnity, the adequacy of on-
site housing for workers assisting with the care of race horses, the presence of the
.Angeles National Forest headquarters in Arcadia (which could account for at least
some of the "forestry" employment identified in the Census), and the fact that no
agricultutal operations are airrently located in or adjacent to Arcadia, the City is
estimating that, at least fOI; this housing element period, no need for fann worker
housing exists .
Homeless
The number of families and persons in need of'shelter in Arcadia is difficult to
ascertain due tei the complexities related to homelessness and due to the fact that
little information specific to Arcadia currently exists. The 1990 Census made a
special effon to include homeless persons in,census counts, but cautions data users
that the results of these effortS do not reflect a count of the total population of
homeless persons at the national, state, or local. level
.
The counts reponed in the 1990 Census used two general methodologies to enu-
merare the homeless population. The first method. called the US-Night" or "Shelter
and Street Night Enumeration," was used to count homeless individuals at pre-
identified locations on one specific night (March 20, 1990). These locations in-
cluded emergency shelters for the homeless, shelters for runa'l;ay youth, shelters
for abused women and their children, and open locations in StreetS or other places
not intended for habitation. Counts were conductt::d in all jurisdictions nationwide
with populations of 50,000 or more. The Census bureau notes that these counts
probably do not include persons who were well hidden (those in cars, dumpsters,
on rooftops, etc.), moving about, or in shelter or street locations other than those
A.RCA.01A G!NERA!. Pu,.:
A-14
r.l.:u:50.2wmi:"''1L'''DL'1I:.a!U:rl'DD-r.sr,rn<
SrpJember 3. 1.996
-~
.-~
Appendix A - Population and Housing Assessment
.
identified before the Census count ""':15 taken. In Arcadia, two individuals were
noted as "visible in street locations" as p:ut of the "S-Night" COUnt.
The second methodology used by the 1990 Census to identify the homeless ","'IS
that of "Special Place Enumeration for Persons with No Usual Home Elsewhere."
Counted among this category were residents of group qu:uters (such as group
homes for the mentally ill, substance abuse centers, agricuInual workers' dormito-
ries on farms, and other non-ho?sehold living siruations) who reported that they
had "no usual home elsewhere," or who reported they had a home elsewhere but
did not provide enough address information to locate that home. No members of
this group were counted within the City of Arcadia.
In what may be the most reliable count of the total number of homeless in Los
Angeles County, the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA) estimates
the number of homeless people in Los Angeles County at 83,900. Of this number,
between 10,340 and 12,166 homeless individuals are estimated to be located in the
San GabrielValley. LAHSA is a joint agency of the City and County of Los Angeles,
whose mission is to provide coordinated services and programs for the homeless
'within Los Angeles County. Their estimates are based., in part, upon the annual
surveys conducted by Shelter Partnership, Inc., :which found in 1994 that fifty
percent of the County's homeless are single men, 25 percent are families, 13 per-
cent are single women, and the remaining 12 percent are unaccompanied youth.
.
The Arcadia Police Defartment reports an average of one response each day logged
as "transient activity." This is a significant increase from simi1ar documentation in
the City's 1990 housing clement, which estimated only one such incidence each
month, on average. When responding to a.typical "transient activity" call, officers
gener:illy request that the individual remove himself or herself and any possessions
from the vicinity (often Arcadia County Park). Arrest is rarely a result of the Depart-
ment's interaction with the homeless; typically, a;rest will be considered only in a
case where other violations of the law are occurring.
While no shelter facilities for the homeless are currently operated in Arcadia, Sev-
eral agencies within the City offer assistance and refenals to homeless individuals.
The Arcadia Presbyterian Church will, upon c:vaIuation of need, assist homeless
families by providing an overnight stay at a local motel The Church, which is
located at 121 Alice Street, also oper.ues twO food progrnms, and estimates they
receive requests for assistance from five to six homeless families each month, as
well as up to 20 tranSient men.5 The single men :are typically referred to Union
Station in Pasadena for shelter. The Arcadia Welfare and Thrift Shop, located in
downto'wn Arcadia at 323 N. First Avenue, uses the proceeds from its retail thrift
4
Telephone convelS:ltion v.ith Capmin David Hinig, An:adia Police Dep:uunent, October 17,
1995.
5
Telephone conversation v.'ith Nicky Dandridge,.Arcadia Presbyteri2.n Church, October 17,
1995.
.
ARCAOIA G::NE/UL PU\'
A-I;
r.-\::dO.?bmtiu:\elJ1.F.r.ali.:cpJI.h:s!.m'
S.p,.",b.r3. 1996
.~
.-':-'j
.
Appendi...: A - Population and Housing Assessment
stare aperatian to. pravide c1athing, canned faad, and faad vauchers to. appraxi-
mately 30 hameless individuals each manth, nearly all afwham are single men.G
This agency also. refers hameless men who. are seeking shelter to. Unian Statian in
Pasadena.
,
Based an the fact that Arcadia service agencies repan regular referrals of hameless
individuals to. facilities in Pasadena, it wauld appear that an unmet need exists
relative to. the number af hameless peaple in the City. Given the numbers af
peaple who. do. nat request sacialservices ar use hameless shelters, the estimates
afArcadia'slaca1 agencies may nat reflect the actual need within the City. There is
currently no. way to. dacument the number af peaple who. live in cars, the families
who. "dauble up" in apartments, ar the peaple who. are ane paycheck away fram
being hameless. The effan required to. quantify the actual unmet need far hausing ,
Arcadia's hameless wauld require additianalmanitaring and mare accurate repan-
ing methadalagies than were available to. the City as pan af this hausing element
update.
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
.
Accarding to. the U.s. census, there were 19,483 hausing units in Arcadia in 1990,
all af which are classified as being inside an urbanized area. Of these existing
hames, 18,352 units were' occupied; 11,300 by awners (62 percent), and 7,052
units, (ar 38 percent) by renters. The percentage af awner accupied hames is
significantly higher than.the 48 percent recarded far Los Angeles County as a
wbale,and the vacancy rate af5.8 percent far the City was slightly higher than that
of the Caunty at 5.5 percenL
In additian, accarding to. the 1990 Census, the median value of an awner-<lccupied
hame in Arcadia ....'25 $438,800 in 1990, and the .median manthly rent was $716.
This campares to. a median hame ,-a1ue af $223,800 in Los Angeles Caunty, and a
caunrywide median monthly rent af $626.
U1fIT IYPE
yo
As shawn in Table A-11, single family develapment makes up nearly 70 percent of
Arcadia's housing stack, campared to. 55 percent af the total housing in Los Angeles
Caunt}'. JUSt over ten percent af the City's hausing stock (2,159 units) is made up
af candaminiums. This is slightly higher than the Caunty figure af 7.8 percent
candaminium units.
.
6
Telephane cam-eIS:1tion ....ith M:lI)' Pounds, Arc:1dia Welfare and Thrift, Octaber 17,1995.
A-16
r.I:tcS02t1l'l'1J;,::~lJinal\ap.:tD.i:S!'.r:r
S'Plcmbcr3. 1996
ARCAD~ G~\n.AL PLAS
,-,")
~.
,
Appendix A - Population and Housing Assessment
.
Table A-11 - Housing Unit Mix
City of Arcadia County of Los Angeles
Units in Structure Number Percent Number Percent
1 . det:lched 11,742 60.3 1,533.532 48.5
1 . au..ched 1,340 6.9 206.342 6.5
2 308 1.6 90,69S . 2.9
3.4 1,064 5.5 191.77i 6.1
5-9 1.303 6.7 265,5401 8.4
10-19 1.384 7.1 283.965 9.0
20-49 2,015 10.3 296,249 9.4
501- 142 0.7 205.641 6.5
Mobile Homes 16 0.1 55.425 1.8
Other 169 0.9 34.170 1.1
ToCl!s 19.483 100.0 3.163M3 100.0
Sou,"",,: 1m Census, LS.'4. Msociales, 1995.
.
,
CONDITION AND AGE OF UNII'$
lngeneral, the condition of housing in Arcadia is excellent. According to the 1990
Census; nearly half of the homes in the City are valued at over S200,OOO, and just
under 20 percent of the homes (a total of 5,749) are valued at S500,000 or more.
The median ,'alue of an owner.,occupied home in Arcadia was S458,800 in 1990.
Th.in:r J'= is often regarded as the age when major home repairs become likely or
obsolescence begins to set in. As of 1990, over 60 percent of the homes in Arcadia
were more than 50 years old, with 11,888 units being built prior to 1959 (Table'
A-12). The median year that strucmres were built in the City of Arcadia is 1957.
Within the no.:t 20 years, nearly 90 percent of the housing units in the City will be
more than 30 years old. Despite the age of these units, the T2St majority of the
units within the City are in sound condition. . .'
According to Cil.)' staff, grnnts to assist in the cost of residential rehabilitation (su ch
as roof repairs or o:terior paint) are a\-ailable annuall)' to residents meeting BUD
10'" income requirements. These funds are pro\'ided through the Counl.)-'S CDBG
fund. Table A-13 bdow, shows the number and dollar amount of grants issued
berween 1990 and 1994, which total overSl million. Development Services De- .
partment staff indicates that typically, the number of qualified .applicants has not
exceeded the number of CDBG grants a'\-ailable, and anticipates that approximatdy
35 grants will be issued again in 1996, at S10,000 each.
.
ARCADiA GE.\'E/t.f.L. PLJ,}:
A-17
r:1:t.c..S02I:l'TDjt:t~Vir.::llaDP.1.i:s!'.r:I'
September 3. /996
~,
,-1
Appendix A - Population and Housing Assessment
.
Table A-12 - Age of Housing Stock
Year Structure Built
Number
Percent
1939 and earlier
1940 to 1959
1960 to 1979
~980 to 1990
Total
1,296
10,592
5,575
2,020
19.483
6.7
54.3
28.6
10.4
100%
So,,=, 1990 u.s. Census.
Table A-13 - Distribution of CDBG Housing Rehabilitation Grants
<aant Number Annual
Year Amount Issued Total
1990 . $7,500 19 $142,500
1991 $7,500 22 $165,000
1992 $10,000 22 $220,000
. 1993 '$10,000 22 $220,000
1994 $10,000 31 $310.000
Total 51.057.500
source, Ciry of Arcadia, Development St:rulces Deparrment, May 1995.
A visual surve)' of the general condition of bousing 'in the srudyarea 'was conducted
as part of the current General Plan update program. In most of the CiI)"s neigb-
borboods,there is a consistent level of scale and quality from one house to the
no.'t, giving the overall impression of stability. However, a number of neighbor-
hoods, predominately in the southern portion of the City, are experiencipg a
phenomena commonly !mown as "mansionization." In Arcadia, this is typically
exemplified by the removal of an existing structure, and replacement with a new
home built at a scale much larger than that of the remaining, surrounding neigh-
borhood. Discussions with the Arcadia Development Services Depanment indicate
that this trend began approximately six to eight )'ears ago. Since then, the City has
adopted new design standards to keep the size of new single family residences in
scale with the size of the lot they are being consuuaed on.
.
AIlCl:JIA GENERAL I'U^'
A-IS
:":,L-:.:.5021::f't'i:..,,,:irPL;r~1i::'IE:'~.i:s~.r:"
Sr;>l<mbu 3, 1996
..)
.)
Appendix A - Population and Housing Assessment
.
TENURE AND VACANCY
The tenure distribution of a community's housing Stock, owner versus renter,
influences several aspects of the local housing market. Residential mobility is
influenced by tenure, with resident-owned housing evidencing a much lower
turnover rate than rental housing. Housing overpayment, while faced by many.
households regardless of tenure, is far more prevalent among renters. Tenure
preferences are primarily related to household income and composition, and the
age of the householder.
Vacancy, or the rate of occupied versus unoccupied units, is a widely used indicator
of housing need and choice, as well as the relative health of housing markets. A
~':lcancy rate of four to six percent in a mature community generally indicates a
fairly stable housing markeL Conversely, a high wcancy rate suggests that there is
an o'Ve!SUpply of housing. The vacancy rate for purposes of this analysis constitutes
units a~'lIilable to renters or buyers. According to the U.S. Census, the overall
vacancy rate in Arcadia in 1990 was 5.8 percenL
PROJECTED HOUSING NEEDS, OPPORTIJNITIES, AND CONSTRAINTS
HOUSING NEEDS
.
,
.As mandated by the Government Code Sections 65545 and 65584, Arcadia has an
obligation to establish go:i1s for the provision of adequate opportunities for hous-
ing to meet a fair share of the regional affordable housing need. During each
Housing Element period, the City's goals for providing opporrunities for affordable
housing is adjusted to conform to changes in the regional need. Therefore, pre-
viously constructed affordable housing is counted only for the Housing Element
period in which it v,'25 constructed, and does nOt COUnt for previous or future
years' goals. .
The term "affordable" is used to descnbe housing units that are attainable by per-
sons who ID2intain incomes within cenain percentages of the County median
income.7 These percentages have been translated into several income groups. A
household ciassified as very low incomes earns up to half of the median County
income. A low income household earns between 50 and 80 percent of the Co~nty
Median income. A moderate income household earns between 80 and 120 percent
of the County median income. For o.:a.mple, in 1989, the County moderate in-
come limit for a four-person household "-'25 established. as S64,596 annually. The
same size household classified as. very low income would have earned less than
S32,298 per year. Income ciassifications for 1994, based on State DOF reports, are
sho,,-'T1 in TableA-14 belov,'.
';
-Medw,- income refers to the income at v,'hieh 50 percent of households earn more and 50
percent of households earn less.
.
ARCW:A GDiEP.AL P-UA'
A-19
r.l"t.:501Iunrj::t lr'E'liinJIliapPlJ-J:Jc.r:t'
Stpttmbtr3, J 996
.)
~~
Appendix A - Population and Housing Assessment
"
.
CatellOl'y
Vel')' Low Income
Low Income
Table A-14 - Income Distribution Requirementsl
Percent of
County Median
Less than 50%
Moderate Income
Above Moderate Income
50% to 80%
80% to 120%
Over 120%
Income Ranlle
Under $20,342
$20,342 . $32,547
$32,547 - $48,821
Above $48,821
ll:Ised on 1994 LosAnge1es Count)' medi:mlncome of $40,684 fora four pe<son household.
Source: LS.4. Associates, lru:.
.
TableA-16 shows the City's estimated housing need for the 1989-1998 period. .M
shown in the table Arcadia's housim~ need for this oenod is 806 dwelling' units.
Household projections prepared by the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments
for inpUt to SCAGseverely overestimate the residential development potential of
.Arcadia's hillside areas adjacent to the Angeles National Forest. After adjusting for
a realistic: development scenario for .Arcadia's hiIlsides, and maximizing the residen-
tial development yield of larids within the City, a maximum net increase of 572
dwelling units can be achieved and this only with significant effort. Thus, the San
Gabriel Valley Council of Governments' estimate that Arcadia will grow by 906
househOlds between 1990 and 2000, witbanother 2,413 households being added
between 2000 and 2015 is wholly unrealistic and unachievable.
The City also analyzed building permit activity over the seven year period preced-
ing 1996. As shown in Table A-15, during the seven year period of 1989 through
1995, the City of Arcadia eJ..-perienced a 'net increase of 310 dwelling units. It is
recognized that during the majority of this time period, the State of California
suffered a significant housing slump. Because a tOtal of'" 1 0 dwelline: units were
constructed between lanuarv 1989 and DecembCr 199'5 the remaininl> housine:
need for the Housing' Element plannine: period (as of Sej>tcmber 1996) "''2$ 496
dwelling- units.
Table.A-15 - Housing Production in Arcadia
Sinl!leFamily Multi-Family Net Housing
1989 114 133 (172) 75
1990 78 136 (91) 1'-
-:>
1991 57 91 (141) i
1992 37 33 (61) 9
1995 50 41 (34) 37
1994 47 47 (49) 45
1995 45 13 (44) 9
Tou! 40B 494 (592) 310
. T:tllicd !rom J:mu:uy 10 O:ccmb:rjn oct! yar.
.rIRc...L!);.,t G?;A"EJu.L Pl.,,{.\"
A-20
r:l..-:o02bmj~\r'IJi..::...::!a.:DDIJ.br.T:'1'
Srplrr.:bu 3. J 996
:"""1
~
\
Appendi'X A - Population and Housing Assessment
.
Table A-16 - Projected Housing Need in Arcadia, 1996-2000
% Arcadi3 Regional" of ATcadia"s Mod.ia"s
Households in Households in 1989.19.98 1996'19.95
Category Category' Catcigory' Housing Need Housing Need3
Vel)' Low lncome 15% 24% l09uniLCt 6~ uni[.t;
Low Income 13% 16% 1~7uni(S 97\1nir.o;.
Modc:r:lle Jncome 17" 19" 124 units 74 uniu.
Abo"" Moder.l,e 55" 41" 4~6 ,unl[.o;; 262 unit....
Income
Toto.ls 100% 100% 806 units 496 units
1
B:ased on 1990 1001 income distribution.
Based 00 1990 regio=! incame distribution.
Include.. adiU!iltmenLIIj, ror dweUin2' units ronstrncted berween 1989 and 1996.
,
3
SOUrce: LSAArsociates, I=. 2.997.
OPP01?TUNITIES FOR PROVISION OF HOUSING
.
AvaiJabili1:y of Suitable Sitesfor Residential Development
Over half of the land within .the city (3,421 acres, or 63.9 percent) is zoned for
residential development. Of the city's total acreage, 59 percent is zoned for single
family development, and 5 percent is zoned for multiple family housing. There is
VeJY little vacant land in the City, only a portion of which is appropriate for future
housing activity. Consequently, new housing development is expected to occur at
a modest rate, primarily through recycling and infiIl of vacant lots.
Sites that have been identified as potentially suitable for residential development
are shown in Figure A-2 and listed in Table A-17. AI the present time, six specific
sites totaling approximately 381 acres have been identified by the City as being
underotilized and offering the potential for housing development. In addition,
there are approximately 30 acres of residential land that is comprised of 152 par-
cels in the vicinity of the downtown area C=ging from 3,200 to 24,000 square-feet
each) on which tranSition ~o higher density housing is considered likely ~o occur.
The locations of these parcels are detailed in Exhibit 2, which is attached ~o this
Appendix.
..".5 outlined in Table A.17, under the Cit}.,s ex.isting Gene.~ Pbn and zonL~b' :l n::t
increase of 572 dwelling units could be achieved.
.
A-21
r.i.."':.c:502iD.""Oit:tl..,..hir..::JI!::IJP~.i:J: .W'
S.prember 3. /996
A1C~:J"" C;~.":;IU!. p~}..
"
."')
.
Table A-17 - Existing and Potential Housing Sites
Potential
Site Description Zoning Acreage Net UollS Ownership
UNDERUTIUZED PARCELS
1. Anoaki, R'() 20.00 20 Private:
2. Forest Service OJlices and Yard R.1 8.00 n/:l Fed<=l
3. North and West
Race Tack Perimeter R.1 164.00 n/:l PriVilte
4. South bce TtaoJ< P;uicingAre' R.1 93.00 n/, Pri'vate
School
5. Altem:uiYe School R.3 3.00 72 District
G. Various Resldenti:U 1'=Is' R-2 7.67 52 Private
, R.3 22.06 340 Private
VACANT lAND
7. Hillside Residenti:U.Are>s R.M 158 +/. 18 Pri\"2.tc
8. Resldenti:ll Mixed Use 70 Pm_Ie
TOTAL 572
. Based on comparison be~ p=~specifjc base ""'ps and ,eri:ll phOlOgtllpby pro-
vided by the 01)', and , visuo.112nd use survey perlormed by !.SA Assoc:i>tes, Inc.,
August 1995.
Appendix A - Population and Housing Assessment
50= City of Arcadia DevelopmentServices Depamnent, LSAAssociates, Inc. 1996.
Feasibility of Housing Production on Identified Site~
Anoakia
Site 1, known as "Anoakia," is located at the nonhwest comer of Baldv.in and
Foothill avenues. The site contains buildings originally constructed in 1913 by
Anita Baldwin, daughter of City founder Elias]. "Lucky" Baldwin. The lavish estate
home and grounds were used as MIs. Baldwin's'pm'ale residence until her death in
1939. In 1941, the site became the Anoakia School for Girls. As the result of the
Whinier earthquake, on-site buildings suffered major damage, and the school 'W25
closed in 1990. Only the house is considered to be structurally sound. With the
exception of a caretaker's residence and the owner's office, the buildings on this 20
acre site are currently unused.
.
r.b::S02iD1'D;:::\rJJ~,...:::Ii.ap"lI..hs!.r("
ARCA!>:A GE,'.::RAL PL4N
A-22
S.p,.",,,.,3. J 996
"""
,
~\
Appendix A - Population and Housing Assessment
.
.
.
FigureA-2 POTENTIAL HOUSING SITES
ARCAD!A GE....ERA!. P!.A'"
.A-23
r:!::.::501i:'tDjt'..--:LI"':JIL~m:Ii.=It~~-;:.s! .m'
S.ptember 3. } 996
')
"
Appendix A - Population and Housing Assessment
.
The.Anoakia site is within the City's R-O, or lowest density'residential zone, and has
an architectural design overlay designation, making the zoning for the site R-O&D.
This zoning is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of Single
Family Residential 0-2, meaning the maximum number of housing units that could
be constructed on the site would be twO single family dwellings per acre, or after
subtracting portions of the site that are devoted to public facilities, a total of 33.
The existing land use designation of the site constitutes a major constraint to the
production of housing units which would be affordable to low and moderate
income households. '
.
A serious constraint of this site is the historic nature of the structures that are
currently found there. According to the State Office of Historic PreseJv.ltion's
Historic Property Data File, the Anoakia site appears to be eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places ("National Register"). The recent adoption of State
Assembly Bill.2881 has established a new form of historic designation, "Tbe Califor-
nia Register of Historic Places." The eligibility criteria developed by the State for
this designation is less stringent th:m that used for National Register listing, and,
for this reason, the likelihood of the Anoakia site being considered eligible for
historic status is increased Although the current owners have not sought a historic
designation for this propeiIy, it is may be possible that the appropriate steps
could be taken to prevent the conversion. of'the site to any use that would threaten
the value of these historic resources to the community, including use of the site for
affordable housing.
Based on the constraints .to the devdopment of affordable housing posed by the
Anoakia site's existing land use designations and historical status, this site is not
considered feasible to be utilized for the production of affordable housing within
this housing dement period However, this site could provide up to 20 market
rate single fami1y housing units.
Forest Service Offices and Yard
Although this'10.1 acre site is zoned for residential use with the designation R-1, it
is currendy in use as the headquanersof the Angdes National Forest. The site,
which is located just south of the 210 Freeway at 701 N. Santa Anita Avenne, is
owned by the Federal Government, and has been used by the Forest Service since
1937, primarily for equipment storage. The Supervisor's office, along with associ-
'<red administrative staff, were moved from Pasadena to this site in the earl)' 1980s.
According to Ed Gililland, Forest Engineer, the possibility of exchanging a portion
of the land within the site, in order to fund additional improvements on the re-
mainder, has been entertained for a number of years, However, there is no strong
indication that the Forest Service will take such action in the foreseeable future.
For this reason, the availability of this site for the production of affordable housing
within this housing element period is not considered feasible.
.
ARc...r!)JA GE.\ZJW. PLAN
A.24
r. L.-:.Q02im'oi::rLrvl::r.~! ~~f)".i:S!'.r:I'
S.prcrr.~cr3. J 996
,-',
Appendix A - Population and Housing Assessment
.
Santa Anita Park North and South Parking Areas
These sites are made up of portions of the existing Santa Anita Park race track
facilities. The north and west perimeter of the track, totaling approximately 164
acres, is currently in use and contains the track's paddock areas, stables and park-_
ing areas. The south parking area is currently used for parking, predominately
during the holiday season as additional parking for the Santa Anita Fashion Park
mall, and at season opening at Santa Anita Park (December 26). Because the zon-
ing for both of these sites is R-1, and because attendance at the race track has
declined in recent years due to the advent of off-track betting opportUnities, the
Cit). considered the possibility of using these sites for the provision of affordable
housing in its 1990 housing element, stating a potential for 955 units on the north
and west race track perimeter, ;md an additional 540 units on the south parking
area.
.
However, there are. several constraints to the.use of these sites for. housing projec-
tion. First, both sites faIl within the designated Earthquake Hazard Zone of the
Raymond Hill Fault, which traverses the City from west to east. Second, these sites
currently act as "buffers" between Santa Anita Park and surrounding neighbor-
hoods. The suitability of these areas for residential use; given their proximity to the
race track and Santa Anita FaShion Park mall, and the associated o...posure to traffic
and noise, is questionable. Finally, these sites, especially the north and west race
track perimeter, currently function as pan of Santa Anita Park's operations. For
these reasons, while a change in land use for these sites is recognized as potential,
the availability of these areas for the production of affordable housing is not consid-
ered feasible within this Housing Element period.
A1tenuztive School Site
The Arcadia Unified School District owns a three acre site at 150 South 3rd Avenue
that is currently used for the Arcadia High School Alternative School program.
Recently, the District discussed the potential for closing this school, and having it
developed. The current zoning of the school site is R-3, yielding a potential devel-
opment of 72 dwelling units, which could be affordable to low and moderate
income households.
Underutili:::ed ResidenriaI Parcels
One of the land use tranSitions undertaken by the Cit). in its 1995 General Plan
update is to increase the allowable density of parcels located in the Cit).,s down-
town core. Maximum density for parcels along and near First Avenue and Third
Avenue and south of the Cit)"s Downto....'Il would increase from the current range
of 12 to 24 dwelling units to the acre.
.
In August 1995, LSA surveyed this area visually, and then consulted City aerial
photographs and existing land use maps to determine the development pOtential
within this target are:\.. Based on this anal)'Sis, it was determined that the potential
,riRCt!:).:.,.I GENERA!. Pus
A-25
r.\:tc502iDrn;er:l'1'!r.n:r!l.1:1o::.i:".r:1"
S<pl<tr.bcr 3. ) 996
-."
\
'\'
Appendi~ A - Population and Housing Assessment
.
e.."istsfor the development of 566 additional dwelling units on 152 different exist-
ing residential lots, resulting in a net increase of 392 dwelling units.8 A listing of
each site, including details on the location,. number of existing units, and estimate
of potential units, is attached to this Appendix as Exhibit 2. In evaluating the
potential for additional units on sites within the target area, several criteria were
used to qualify each parcel. If the site's zoning would allow for an increase of only-
one unit, the transition was not considered feasible.
In addition, the City anal}ozed the potential for increasing the maximum allowable
density to 30 dwelling units per acre in all or some of the areas south of down-
town. It was found that the net yield of new dwelling units within existing multi-
family designated lands could be increased to between 446 and 673 dwellings.
However, given the small size of the parcels on which such development would
need to occur (8,000 to 24,000 square feet) and the scattered nature of existing
parcels which could be ttansitioned to higher density use, it did not appear feasible
to expect realistic development yields greater than 24 units per acre in the absence
of significant. parcel consolidation programs.
Hillside Residential Areas .
.
Al the north end of Arcadia is an approximately 158 acre hillside area, adjacent to
the Angeles National Forest. Because of existing steep hillsides, significant biotic
resources, difficult access, -wlld.fire hazards, and proximity to the national forest, the
anticipated residential development yield of this area is low; only 18 dwelling units.
The difficulty of developing this area will1imit these dwelling units to above moder-
ate.income housing.
Mixed Use Areas
Al the eastern ponion of the City, between Santa Clara and Huntington Drive from
the Merro1ink rail line to the eastern city limits, the City identified the potential for
mixed use development. A similar potential was identified along First Avenue
south of the downtown area. As pan of mixed use developments, approximately
70 dwellings could be constrUcted within these areas.
.,..
Funds Available
The City of Arcadia cw:r=tly utilizes three sources of funding to assist in the prcni-
sion of quality housing to lower income residents. These include the Section 8
rental payment assistance. program, operated by the Los Angeles County Housing
Authority; a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program that under-
writes housing rehabilitation; and the State mandated MSet Aside" fund adminis-
.
8
^ touI of 174 .existing d....'C!ling unitS ,,:culd need to be removed to construct the 566 new
d"'cUings.
ARClDi.. GD.Z1<oC.PUN
A-26
r:i.~0.2ir1m;u:L'"%J~;lIl.1i.:rPQ-j:sr.r:I'
Scptembcr3. 1996
.')
')
" "
'.
Appendix A - Population and Housing Assessment
.
tered by the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency. The Section 8 and CDBG programs
h:lve been successfully serving Arcadia residents for a number of years. However,
due to other project and program obligations, the Redevelopment Agency has been
un:1ble to provide housing funds, and h:lS annually made findings to defer its
oblig:ltion to meet the State's 20 percent set aside mandate. As of the current
1994/95 fiscal year, Arcadia's cumulative deferral amount totaled $3,614,500. -
In the 1995196 fiscal year, the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency will make its first
housing set-aside payment. As shown in T:1ble A-18 b~ow, this payment is ex-
pected to total $587,500, with annual payments to follow which will equal 25
percent of the City's taX increment revenue. Redevelopment agencies are allowed
to carry unencumbered Housing Set-Aside Fund surplus amounts forward from
year to year as long:is the surplus does not exceed the larger of either $1,000,000
or the total aggregate deposit amount for the four most recent fiscal years. Any
unencumbered surplus which exceeds the larger of these amounts is defined as
"excess surplus. in State Redevelopment Law. Excess surpluses, if allowed to
develop, are subject to forfeiture to the local housing authority or other public
housing agencies charged with providing affordable housing in the jurisdiction.
Table A-18: Housing Set-Aside Fund SnTnTn~ry
Cumulative
Annwol 20% Ainount Paid Amonnt Paid ~:Estim:lted Pos.-
. Set-Aside CumUlative Set. Into Housing Into Housing sible ""Excess
F.lScaI 'Ye:lr Amount Aside:: Dc:f'crraJ Fund Fund Swplus"
1985/86 226,036 226,036 0 0 0
1986/87 216.624 442,660 0 0 0
1987/88 255.501 698,161 0 0 0
1988189 264,780 962.941 0 0 0
1989190 300,941 1.263.882 0 0 0
1990191 422.339 1.686.221 .il 0 0
1991192 532.279 2.218.500 0 0 0
1992193 472,878 2,691,378 0 0 0
1993194 463.096 3,151.474 0 0 0
1994193" 460,000 3,614.500 0 0 0
1995196" 470,000 3,520.500 587.500 587,500 0
1996197" 480,000 3.400.500 600.000 1.187,500 187.500
1997198" 490.000 3,278.100 612,000 1.799.500 600.000
1998199" 500.000 3.153.100 625.000 2,424.500 625,000
1999:2000" 510.000 3.025.600 637,500 3.062.000 637,500
2oooAll" 520,000 2.895.600 650.000 3.712.000 650,000
. E.stim:ltcd. b:tscd on a 2 percent per year incn::asc in aj;en:r revenues.
.source.: A:rr;adia Redcuclopmcnl A&cnc.:>', Fiue )"co1' Jmplcmenlation Plar.for tbe Central Rcdeuelopmt!'fU
ProjeCl Mea, Adopted December '1994.
.
AHC.t!)!.t GEh"DW.. PLAN
A.27
r.L-::SO~::::'Dit::L,"=,!Tir..:d~ttDD.i:Jr"t1.
SeplCmb.r3, J 996
-~
"\
Appendix A - Population and Housing Assessment
.
Units at Risk of Conversion
There is currently one project in the City of Arcadia that is providing low income
housing and has the potential to be convened to non-low income use. Naomi
Gardens, located at 655 W. Naomi Street, provides 100 apartments to very low and
low income senior citizens and disabled adults through the federally funded Sec-
tion 8 rental assistance program. ConstrUction of this building was completed in
1986, and according to the statewide Inventory of Federally Subsidized Units at
Risk maintained by the California Housing Pannership Corporation, the earliest
possible expiration date of federol. funding would be May 2006, or 20 years from
the project's initiation. Because this date is outside the ten-year limit set by HCD,
the analysis of risk of conversion will need to be conducted as part of the City's
n~1: housing element update.
CONSIJlAINTS TO THE PROVISION OF HOUSING
In preparing a community's housing program, it is impOrtant to understand not
oniy housing needS and the !,-\'2ilabilit}' oHand for the production of new housing,
but also the constraints that must be overcome to meet the housing needs of all
economic segments of the community. These constraints are discussed in twO
contexts as fo11o'\\'s:
.
. Gcrvern:me11ta1 Constraints, including land USe controls, building codes and their
enforcement, sire improvements, fees and other e:xactions required of developers,
local processing and pennit p=dures, and governmental priorities
Nrm-Governmenta1 Constraints, including the availability ofIinancing, price and
availability of land, the cost of constrUction, and general market conditions.
When analyzing constraints on the production of housing, it is important to distin-
guish between (1) unreasonable and excessive constraints and requirements, and
(2) other, sometimes conflicting, mandates placed by the State and Federal govern-
ments on local municipalities, as well as legitimate requirements needed to protect
public health and safety and the need to maintain a fiscally sound co=unity. The
City of .Arcadia recognizes its mandate to facilitate the production of housing to
meet the needs of all economic segments of the community, but is also concerned
with maintaining the high quality of life demanded by its residents, protecting the
integrity of the natural environment, and ensuring that the impacts that new hous-
ing will have on the area's roadway and infrastrUctUre systems are mitigated.
GOlJernmenuzI Constraints
.
Governmental regulation, while necessatyto regulate the qualit}- of development,
can have a limiting effect on attempts to provide housing that is affordable to all
economic groups. In attempting to ensure a high quality of development, govern-
mental regulations sometimes unintentionally delay constrUction, and/or increase
,tRc..c!JIA.GENERA!. Pu,..'
A,28
r:lm02b:rroj:::\rzJl/ir.:Jl\.o:PDD-i:lC.U1'
S.pltmber 3. } 996
.-
..-~
Appendix A - Population and Housing Assessment
.
inf'r:1structure, l:md preparation, or overhead costs of development. These regula-
tions involve both direct constraints such as land use and development controls,
development standards, and building and housing codes, as well as indirect con-
straints such as permit processing times and permit processing and development
fees.
Before focusing on the governmental constraints that Arcadia as a municipal agency
can remove or'minimize in order to facilitate housing development in general and
affordable housing in particular, it is impOrtant to understand the governmental
policy context within which housing decisions are made.
Governmental Priorities
.
The emphasis 'placed by the federal and State governments on housing policies and
funding for housing programs has traditionally shifted with changing administra-
tions and priorities. However, there has been a clear trend to de-emphasize fund-
ing of federal and State housing programs in the face of poor budget outlooks and
inadequate resources to con~ue funding all federal and State housing programs.
In addition, in order to balaitce its budget, the State of California has shifted funds
away from cities, and has also tapped into redevelopment funds. This has left
California cities, such as Arcadia, with a mandate for providing programs to facili-
tlte housing development fox: all economic segments of the community, but with a
greatly reduced ability to fund such progtams.
The mandate that requires local governments to provide housing for all economic
segments of the community is but one of many, often conflicting, responsibilities
the government faces. In addition to dealing with issues of housing affordabilit}',
rehabilitation, and overcrowding, cities must provide municipal services and facili-
ties, protect the natural environment, and reflect the concerns of city residents
concerning the type and intensity of new devclopment. These responsibilities
must be met in a conto."! of increasingly tight budgets, as well as increasing reliance
on and competition for sales taX revenues. As a result of State 1av.'S relating to
municipal finance, reductions in State and federal financial suppon for infrastruc-
ture development, and changing public attitudes toward growth, local agencies
have had to require that development internalize many of the costs that were once
bt:lrne ,by 'rnrious public funds. .As a result, the cost of residential development
inevitably increases.
.
Often in contr:lSt to the mandate for local governments to pronde housing for all
economic segments of the community is the democratic principle that governments
reflect the will of the people. In many communities, new development and alter-
ations to the natural environment are perceived as threats to the area's quallty of
life, and "low and moderate income housing" is often perceived as a problem to be
avoided, rather than as a public responsibility. The result is that community accep-
t:\nce of development, particularly high densit)' development, is severel)' limited or
non-existent.
,{RCWJA GeNERAL P!."f}.'
A.29
r.:l.::d02it.troi::tl"P!..1inall.:%Do::.ju:.mo
SeJ1le",ber J, 1996
.-~
----
Appendix A - Population and Housing Assessment
.
Land Use Conrrols
Land use controls take a number of forms that can impact the rate and cost of
residential development. The two primary land use controls affecting residential
land development in Arcadia are the Arcadia General Plan, and the zoning regula..
tions of the Arcadia Municipal Code. The General Plan establishes the overaI1
character and development of the community, and identifies a range of permitted
residential and non-residential development, including maximum permitted devel-
opment intensity, throughout the City. The :z;oning Ordinance implements the
General Plan. The Zoning Ordinance provides .specific regulations for building
heights and setbacks, lot coverage, and parking. The Zoning Ordinance also sets
maximum limits on the m,tensity of residential development within mixed use
developments in non-residential zones.
Fees and Permit Processes
..
Residential develqpments in Arcadia do not normallv require all, or even manv of
the ,-arious orocessine applications. Most sin!,!le familv residential develooments
do not require anv discretioniuv actions bv the Citv. The two kev factors to exoedi-
tious orocessin~ of anv aoplication are compliance with at:'plicable rel!"Ulations and
timelv submittal of all necessarv documents. If the Planninl/ Deparnnent deter-
mines that an environmental impact reporris necessarv the oermit process will be
lonl/er.
Multiple familv developments. as well as subdivisions and Darcel maDs, require
review bv the Plannine Commission. All discretionarv applications are acted upon
in the minimum amount of time necessarY to ensure adequate review of the -om-
ject and within the time frames established bv the Srreamlinin!?: Act and CEOA.
The Citv continuallv reviev.-s its internal procedures for processin!1 discretionarv
develoomem oermits in order to ensure that processine time frames are minimal.
and that submittal reouirements are limited to what is necessarv to orotect the
public health. safetv. and welfare.
The September 1996 PIannine and BuiIdin!1 related fees and processinv times are .
included as Exhibit 1. Tn order to encout2l?:C the construction of low and moderate
income housin!,!, the Citv will consider W3ivine such fees 2S build;n&, permit fees
:and Dark and recreation fees.
On. and Off-Site Develotnnent Re9Uirements
.
Because the "''2St maioritv of new housin!?: that will be constructed within Arcadia
'tl.'iIJ be infill development (much of which will consist of reolacement of sin!?:le
fami!.. and low intensin' multi.famil-... units with hieher densin' deve!onmem) on-
and off~site reouirements are not Q'enerallv an issue in local housin~ deve.lopment.
In fact because Arcadia'~ ne"'.. housinl! development is orimarilv inl'ill on- and off-
ARc:.tDiA G.:\'EP.Al. f'LA~'
A.30
r:1::.:S01Izt",j:::bL-:r.aljQuD:;:.iur.r~v
S<pJer.:ber J, 1996
~
Appendix A .; Population and Housing Assessment
.
site reClUiremenrs are lower than those tvnicallvo:oenenced in !!rowinl! communities.
In terms of circulation imorovements the City's Circulation Element does not
identify any maior improvements which would be needed as the result of future
residential development. Thus_ the onlY circulation improvements which would
!!enerallv be needed for future residential develooment will be internal circulation:.
Because the City's street standards are similar to those of surroundin!! communi-
ties no unusual costs would be placed on future residential development.
General Plan and Zoning Land Use Designations, Policies, and Develop-
ment Requirements
.
General Plan Designations
The Arcadia Genernl Plan iSa statement of public policy defining the desire of the
City of Arcadia to manage its future and to cope with the complex dynamics of
long-range growth and change. The Plan establishes a framework within which
growth, development, and environmental protection activities may occur in accor-
dance with community goajs and aspirations. The General Plan is designed to
guide future development in a desirable and efficient manner, and to provide a
basis for public decision making regarding the use of community resources, expen-
diture of public funds, and _the allocation of land for ,'arious types and intensities of
use.
The General Plan defines-seven,categories of land use, as follows:
. Single Family Residential includes detached, single family residences at densi-
ties ranging from 2 to 6 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). This designation cov-
etS residential development within traditional single family detached housing
neighborhoods, with lot sizes ranging from 7!500 to 30,000 square feet.
. Multiple Family Residential pennits detached and anached residential develop-
ments with densities ranging from 7 to 24 du/ac. This category covers a broad
spectrum of anached and detached residential types ranging from duplexes to
townhouses to apartment projects, with the highest density designations (12 to
24 du/ac) located adjacent to major or secondary streets, shopping areas, or
other intense land uses south of the downtown area. Within these areas, the
Genernl Plan permits an extra density bonus for senior housing projects from
12 du/ac to 18 du/ac (50 percent), or from 24 du/ac to 30 du/ac (25 percent).
Mixed Use Commercial/Multiple Family areas allow the development of com-
mercial and residential miXed-use projects which promote community internc-
tion and economic vi!2lity by combining homes and appropriate commercial
set"ice providers, such as medical and professional offices, personal service
facilities, and retail Stores within selected neighborhoods. This land use desig-
nation was added to the General Plan in order to provide additional oppormni-
. ties for the construction of affordable housing in the City. The maximum
,ARCA.!>LC GWERAL PUN
A.31
r.lc:ciG2b:-01j:.'"t\r1'liinal~DD' .hsr.r!'\'
S.pt.rr:ber J. /996
,-j
.-
.
Appendix A - Population and Housing Assessment
development capacities under this land use ~esignation are 24 du/ac for resi-
dential uses, and 0.40 FAR9 for commercial uses.
. Commercial = designated in the General Plan are of two types. General
Commercial is characterized by a mix' of retail, wholesale, service, and office.
uses designed to serve the needs of area residents, workers, and visitors, and
has a maximum development intensity of 0.50 FAR. Commercial Entertainment
areas provide for a wide range of complementary commercial and entertain-
ment uses; such as specialty retail, restaurant, museums, conference &cUities,
cultural artS and entertainment uses, sports and recreation, health and fitness,
and lodging &cilities. Commercial Entertainment uses have a maximum devel-
opment intensity of 0.30 FAR.
. Mixed Use Commercial/Industrial areas provide an opportunity for the devel-
opment of office, light manufacturing services, and supponing retail &cilities
within a business park environment. The maximum development intensity in
this mixed use area is 0;30 FAR.
. Light Industrial = provide for manufactUring, large-scale warehousing and
distribution, research arid development, gravel e:nraction,and similar uses.
.
. Public Facility areas denote police, fire, school, library, parks, water, sewer,
flood control and other municipal and governmental &cilities, as well as other
publicly oriented uses such as churches and hospitals.
Zoning Ordinance Development Requirements
To implement the General Plan, Arcadia's Municipal Code includes zoning for all
properties within the City. The City's zoning districtS provide specific standards for
the uses ofland, buildings, and StrUctures under City jurisdiction, as well as specific
limitations on the development of land (e.g., building setbacks, height limits, lot
coverage limits, parking requirements). A summary of the standards contained in
the City's Municipal Code fot zones tbatpennit residential development is pro-
videdin TableA-19.
Arcadia's development regulations exist as a protection of the public health, safety,
and we.l.fare. Setbacks are necesSary for safetyre2Sons in case of.6re or earthquakes.
Height limitations and building separations are necessary to preserve Arcadia's
existing residential cha.-acter.
9
Floor Area R:Itio. This represents the maximum non.residential building square footage
that may be permined. F},Ris me:lSUred by dividing building squano footage by net lot area
existing prior (0 development.
.
ARCW:,t GElVE/UL fiLA).'
A'32
r.\::.dOljprDj~LI71lF.n.::liaD::.c::.i:sr.r:l'
S,pI<mb.rJ, /996
.-\
-..
Appendix A - Population and Housing Assessment
.
Table A.-19 - Zoning Restrictions for Residential Development
Minimum Bullcllng ltl1ni.mum Lot
Zone fioorD.re:l Hei~ht Setb:u:ks Parkln~ Covet2~c:
R-M 1.200...!. 2 stGries! Front = 25. 2 eoven:d, olr 45% max.
Residential ~5' max. Side = 10' street parlting
Mount:Llnous B.ck = 25' spaces mID.
Sinele Familv
RO 1,200 s.!. 2 storiesl Front = ~O' 2 coven:d, olr 45% max.'
First One 30' max. Side = 10' stn:ct parking
FamlIy Zone B.ck = 35' spaces mia.
R.} 1.200 s.t Z StOries! Front = 25' 2 covered, off 45% max.*
Second Oae- 30'= Side = ,. street parlting
Faml1y Zone B.ck = 25' spaces
R.2 1 bcdmGm =' 2 stories/ Font == 25' One garage Mia. 300 s.t 01 eGn-
"'Icdium De:Dw 800 s.t 35'= Side =: 5' with 2 parlting tiguous pm-ate
sily Multiple B.ck = 10' spaces per du open space for
Family Res;- -2 bedrooms each ground ..DOOT
de.ntial Zone = 1,100 d. Plus, one guest dUj 100 s.f. min.
parlting space private baleon)" lor
3 01" more for cvety twO du's without
bcdmGms = multl.famlly ground lloor living
1.300s.[ du's >=
. R.3 Smdio = 600 2 stories! Front = 25' Same :as R.2 200 51. open s~ee
Multiple s.L. '35'= Side = 10' per ground !Ioor
Faml1y Zone Back = 10' dn; otherwise same
1 or more llSR.2
Other requiJe. bedrooms =
mealS, 165' s:une .. R.2
= buUding
length; 20'
m.in.bctw:en
buUdin""
. For single StoI)' - 35% for tWO StOI)' dwelling
Source: Cit;)' of IlrCDdia Municipal Cod', 1995.
.
The only zoning regulations that might impede the development of affordable
bousingare density regulations. Although aI3Dge of densities allow for a ,'llriety of
residential land uses, over time the market cost of land has in=ed such that
"least cost housing" is no longer affordable to lower income groups. Least cOSt
housing is the least o."pensive, unsubsidi2ed housing that the private market can
provide. Reductions in residential densities means that high Imd cOSts must be
absorbed by f~er housing units than otherwise, thus increasing cost per unit.
Under current regulations, the highcst density pennined by the General Plan is 28
d't\'clling units per acre. Higher densities permit the pri,-ate market to develop
housing at a lower cost per unit.
AR::A!)IA GENElW. PUN
A.53
r.l"'tO02WJ"Dj:..-:~lF.n.allat7D:< .i:sr.r:"
ScpJcmbcr 3. J 996
~
,'7,:r'
~.~
~
'4('0 ......
"'0<1."."
.Appendix A - Population and Housing Assessment
.
However, density increases alone will not ensure that the private market will pro-
duce housing that is affordable to low income persons. The City has adopted a
density bonus ordinance pursuant to State law, and does allow increased density
and an additional incentive in return for price/rem controls for some of the units in
a development. Granting bonus density units to projects can reduce the per unit -
costs and allow the development of some of the units that are affordable to low
income households. Under State law, the City will gtant a density bonus of at least
25 percent to a development project providing affordable housing. Thus, up to 25
dwelling unit per acre can be achieved in a affordable ptoject (30 du/ac + 6 du/ac
density bonus).
Wed of Gen.eral Plan Policies on the Auailabilitv and Affordabilitv of Housiny
General Plan Policies CD-17 throu~h CD-20 address hillside development and are
focused on orovidin!!' a reasonable de!!ree of protection for environmental re-
sources Within remainin~ hillside areas and a[ ensuring that new hillside develop-
ment orotect the oublic health safety and welfare. These oolicies are not strin!!ent.
and do not constitute a constraint on housin\: opoonunitics when compared to
rvoical hillside develooment oolicies of other communities.
.
Policies CD-21 and CD-22 strive to ensure that new develooment fits in with exist.
in!! develooment and are focused On eliminating amaior C2USe of public protest
alPlinst new" residential develooment which will thus facilitate the review of pro-
posed residential development Policies CD-2'1 throu~h CD.28 soeak directlY to
encoura!!ing housing ooportunities for all economic segments of the communirv.
Policies CD-'I2 throu!!'h CD-::;'I address re!!'ional coooeranon and establish an equi.
table basis for addressin!!' the is.~ue of cross-iurisdictional impactS of proposed
development. The General Plan ensures that develooment within the Cirv of
Arcadia 'Will not unreasonablv impact adiacent communities and that adequate
measures 'Will be orovided bv surrounding communities to mitigate ootential
impactS in Arcadia that mi!!'ht result development in their communities. The net
effect of such a SYStem 'Will be to facilitate development bv eliminatin~ the inter-
iurisdictional squabblin!! that often occurs in development review.
,..
Chapter '1.0 ofrhe General Plan addresses municioal services.and facilities and is
desimed to ensure that services and facilities are made available to suooon
buildout of the General Plan inc1udin!! planned residential develooment. Thus.
the Municipal Services and Facilities Element removes potential constraint.. on [he
develooment of housin~ in Arcadia bv e\iminatin!! ootential shortfa1ls in services
and facilities.
.
Chaoter4.0 of the General Plan deals-with environmental re"Ources. A.< a orimarlly
built-out community future develooment is laTl!'eh- unaffected b,' en'.;ronmental
resource issues with th~ exceotion of air oualirv. The Environmental Re..!;j;ources
Element of the General Plan imolement.. the provisions of the West San Gabriel
Vall",' Air Oualirv Plan,
ARCADI. GWEIlALPU^,
A-34
r:k:ti02'ic1'Dit.."fl'"Ptin,21i.21JtJ;f.n:~.f'(1"
S.prembcd. J 996
..')
Appendix A - Population and Housing Assessment
.
Chaoter ';.0 of the General Plan orovides oolieies necessarY to protect ouhlic
health and safety. The Environmental Hazards Element addresses seismicilV and
l1eolol!V. floodint! noise hazardouswa.~te manal1ement. and wildland fire hazards
and establishes aoorooriate levels of orotection for existint! and future residents
from each ofthese h.""rds.
Chapter 6.0 of the General Plan provides for implemenrntion and monitorin~ of the
General Plan. and translates General Plan polieie.~ into implementable development
standards. This section establishes oerformance standards for oublic services and
facilities and is intended to ensure cen:ainlV in the review of discretionary develoo-
ment projects. It does not impose anv unreasonable requirements for future
residential development but does oroteet the oublic health safety and welfare
Buildinr Codes and Enforcement
.
The CilV has adooted the Uniform Buildin!1 Code. Uniform Mechanical Code,
National Electric Code. Uniform Plumbin? Code. and Uniform Housint! Code as
minimum construction standards. The Citv's Buildint! Division enforces these
codes. The State Deoanmeitt of Housint! and Communitv Development enforces
the mobile home reouirements in requirements in accordance with Title 2'; of the
California Administrntive Act.
,
In addition to the uniform codes the Citv has adooted a number of amendments.
The more sifplificant amendments involve provisions that imorove the structural
inte\!ritv. and tire wamin~ and tire suppression svstems of a buildint!. While the
inclusion of these orovisions mav mar2inallv increase construction costs thev mav
also result in lower insurance premiums and less frequent required maintenance.
Non-Governmental Ccmstraints
This section analyzes the non-governmental constraints to the production of afford-
able housing. These constraints do not result from governmental policy and regu-
lation, but from the forces of the housing market and the environment within
Y'
which Carpinteria is located. The City has a J.4nited ability to influence these fac-
tors.
Market oriented constraints consist of three major factors: land COSts, construction
COstS, and fin:mcing. l.3nd costs are affecred bi' a number of factors that are primar-
Hi' regional in scale, including the anractiVeness and desirability of an area for
residential use, its proximity to employment centers with high paying jobs, and the
level of high demand relative to the supply of housing and a\'2ilable development
parcels. Construction and financing costs are also detennined at the regional,
State, and nationalleve1s by a \'ariety of private and public actions not controlled br
the City.
.
I'l.It::..lDJA GEJ."EIW. PL...\"
A-35
r:L-..dO,:?u,mj:::L"1'lP.r.J:!Uz'DDII..hsr.TetJ
September 3. J 996
.-~
~
Appendix A - Population and Housing Assessment
.
1. Land Costs
The main detenninants of land value are location, zoning, and size, as well as
supply and demand. Land that is located on a beach front property zoned for
residential use will be more valuable and, therefore, more expensive, than a rem ore
piece of land that is zoned for agricultural use. Arcadia is located in a very desir-
able suburban area., which has displayed a high demand on housing regardless of
the o.."tent of local controls.
2. Construction Costs
Construction costs are those that are incurred in the actual construction of a hous-
ing unit, and are affecred by material costs, labor costs, the complexity of building
on the chosen site, and the level of amenities built into the unit. Construction
costs have increased sharply in the last ten years, and that has obviously increased
the cost of new housing. In panicular, the cost of lumber products has risen
precipitously. However, it is important to note that the increase in materials and
construction costs that has occurred in "Arcadia is similar to increases occurring
throughout the State. .
.
3. Financing Costs
The cost of borrowing money for the planning and construction of a development
is a major component of the selling price of a home, and is the largest component
of housing costs when both construction and long-tenD financing are considered.
Interest rates for construction loans, as well as mortgage rates, tend to be tied to
the prime rate. (The prime rate is the'interest rare at which banks loan money to
their best corporate clients.) As a general rule, cotlStruction loans are two percent-
age points above the prime rate. This was confirmed by the construction loan
division of Glendale Federal Bank in Arcadia. Though ir is subject to daily changes,
as of November 9, 1995, the prime rate '9\-'aS 8.75 percent. The cost of financing
development is, in general, controlled by events at the national or State level.
Federal credit regulations, recessions, and bank loan policies are just a few of the
factors that affect these financing costs. These are costs over which the City has no
controL
In the downturn of the early 19805, high inreresr rares were a significanr constraint
on the production and a.ffordabiliry of housing. Starting in the mid-1980s, interest
rares edged downv.oards, reaching 20 year 10\\'5 in the early 1990s. However, low
interest rates failed to overcome a general economic downturn, even though the
constraints caused by high inrerest rates are non-existent. In recent months, inter-
est rates have climbed as a result of actions taken by the federal reserve. As interest
r.ues increase, the, number of households that can afford to purchase new housing
will narrow.
.
AnC<!:lIA GENE:IIAL PU^'
A-36
r.\::d021D11l'jc:lr:l:F.rudIaDDa..r.sr.m'
Stpttmbtr 3, 1996
.-)
Appendix A - Population and Housing Assessment
.
4. Other Factors
Aside from the regulatory barriers that can delay and drive up the cost of new
consuuction or rehabilitation, community attitudes can also effectively prevent the
development of affordable housing. In many communities, residents call upon-
public officials to employ zoning or subdivision ordinances, building codes, and
permit procedures to prevent development or slow the rate of growth. In many
communities, concerns that new development will threaten the area's quality of life
are rel.ated to strains that new development has placed on roadways, public ser-
vices, and municipal facilities. Such concerns can sometimes be overcome through
infrasUUcture and public service improvements. However, in other communities,
such as Arcadia, residents are more concerned that new development will result in
a loss of the community character and high quality of life they sought in moving to
the community.
.
.
ARC<!l:A GEN!JW. PLAN
A.37
r.l-:t:.S0.2~",i:.::LI"tI\:1r..c:l!:;:DD:o.b:.r=I'
S.pltmbor 3. } 996
6~).
:sc-r.
.~
")
rLA~~IN" ,)I\"I~I01' FEE ~(,HEDULE
Fl~' 11m'!
Jrt.7TJ
. Gcner:>l rl:u\!\mendmenl
Ft~t.
Tc,.1. Amcndmc:nt
S l.:'1I11
s: :'.(1(10 ~uhdh'i!Oipn~
Zone Ch:mgc:
S::'lIllll
Zoning V:ui:u1cc or Conditional V5t." Permits
fee is based em the size of the pmjca-
I... than ~,OOO squan: feet S 700
from;.Doololcssthan 10.DIlD S ill
from 10.000 to II:SS.than 1;,000 S 925
from 15.000 10 less than 2!'.DIlO S I 1150
r;;,-;;;15:oiio;;;'j~'ib;,;'3s:oiiii"'--'-""-'s-ti'5'o
from 35,000 to It:ss than 45,000 S 1.175
from 45,000 to Jess than 55,000 S 1,400
from 55 000 to less than 6.5.000 S I 500
.._.._._.=._.._..._....__.______..._.l;..__
from 65,000 to less than 75,000 S 1,600
from 75,000 to less than 85,000 S 1,725
85,000 squan: /e:t and l~':r , J,825
"For prDp=ruts with multipJr lISts. th: = is base<!
on the c:umulari\'c an::a of. the us: aDd its r::quil""'...d
p:ukiD;;. Pmking ""'" is oomp~ at 350 squan:
fe:t per rcquiml spa::::.
.
E.:a.e:usiotl request
Rclision to aD appJtJ\-ed appJicatiCIl
App:al to the Cil)' Council
S 100
S 700
S SIlO
Tcntati"t'. Tr.ad Map S 1.46:: + ,Myno!
AppcollO the Cil)' Council :; SliD
Eo:":n.;o" Request S WD
Fin;:Jl Tract Map :; 1.'i<J
Tentative P=I Map :; Y65
Pan:cl Map Waiver :; 700
Appcol to the Cll)' Council S 500
Extension Request :; 100
-For n:sidcntial subdivisions of 4 or less Jots ar
units. and, for all commCltial and industri:lJ
subdivisions.
Oak Tree Permits
For remcn:al ofb:ahhy ue:s
FOT =0,'llI of diseas-..dIlw:anlous = NO FEE
S 350
I'D:" OII::roa:bmOllI ofbealthy =s
Appeal to the Planning Commisson
Appeal 10 th: CiIY COWIciI
:; 2JO
S 500
S SIlO
Adminisumivt Modiiicalion
S 150
Architectural Des:i!!Jl Revi~' 714-220..??oo...2278
Modifications.
....ppeallO the Mod. Commiuec S 500
....pp:al1D th. PianDins Commisson S 500
App::allD th. CiI)' Council S 500
MoliiiiC2lion CCltlID1iuec H<:minS S 500
PCbCllriJJ&or~ S 500
Appo2J to th. CiI)' Council S 500
T t:mPOl31)' Bmm:r :; 6'
.'
E:a.=sicm Rcqu::st S 100
R.~ & R-~ Modin::mon. PC H:arin; S J:I110
App::all\l til: CiI)' Council S 5(10
E..'Q.:n$icm Reques1 S ](10
HOA. ARB .-'nneal~
App:3l 10 tht Plannin= Commission
.o\pp-.JllIO w City Council
etlmr Occunation$
$. ::1(,
So :1(1
Hotnt O::up:::.ion P=rm.i~
HO-p:nni: \\rn::arin~
s. ~...
S. :,tl
.o\It=lionsladditions 10 =><istiDg bldgs,
N",,' Buildings
5'~
Appeal 10 th. P1anninS CD1\UIlisson
App::al to the PC in coDjlm:::ticm with
another.app:al for samt projea
....ppeal to the ~. Council
App""..al to the CC 'in conjunction with
81Jothzappeal for sam. projo::t
DbaJme:nts
Zonin;; lI: 2011S::aI. Plat Maps
G::n...-..J Plan Maps
G=I=ol Plan Dn=:nl
Copi:::s ifw: .-\.Me p:rpas= (pn:printcd)
Cop!.. iftil. AMC p:rp"!;er~' rcqu:st)
Mi$t:'eUanenu.~ fet'$
S 150
S 200
S 45
S 230
S 115
S 156
S 78
$1.75 pOT shc:t
S 2
S 15
S .10
S ~
;1~1~~~!;~
AlquiS'l Priolo Sp-..cial Swdies Zon: CP--aloic
S1ud~ D;posh S. 5Utl
Crw~: Pr:p.;J.."':31ion
So ~:-
Tn: te: to ~ro=u a:raDaNSDneC' a:1a:,--.ce :DnWlu:::! 0: djS:OhUD~.a;'lpii::ation will be d.::l=min::t b\ the Conununn,
:>:"\'CiDj)m:D1 4d.min.iS&'3IO: 111:1.: appli:aUOII fC:$ ar: cn:o.h-; :u. Dr D:=mh::.1. !~y(. b~ Cil~ CC?~i P.:soluucU1 !o"'::-:.
!....
"
PROCESSING TTh1E FOR APPLICA nONS
.
CUJ'. ZONE CHANCE CENERALPLAN
WEEK VARIANCE PARCEL MAP TRACl'MAP nxr AMEND. GlANCE
0 File Application File Application File Annlication File Annlication File Annlicalion
1 Public Hearing Public Hearing Public Hearing Public Hearing Public Hearing
thru Notice to Paper Notice to Paper Notice to Paper Notice to Paper Notice 10 Paper
4 and mailing list and mailing list and mailing list and mailing list and mailing list
21 days prior 21 days prior 21 days prior 21 days prior 21 days pri or
to hearin~ to hearine to hearine to hearine to hearinl!:
5 Planning Planning Planning Planning Planning
Commission Commission Commission. Conunission Conunission
Hearing Hearing Hearing Hearing Hearing
10 day appeal 10 day appeal
period period
6 City Council
hearing
scheduled
7 PC adopt Application Application r.c. Adopt
Resolution Effective Effective - may Resolution
5 working day proceed with
appeal period final map
8 Applicant may City Council Ci ty Council
proceed with Hearing hearing
project scheduled
9
]0 1st reading of City Council
Ordinance Hearing
]]
]2 . Adoption of Adoption of
Ordinance - Resolution
Effective 31
days after
adoption
.
TIiE ABOVE SCHEDULE REFLECTS TIiE MD>.'IM1JM PROCESSING TIME FOR EACH APPUCA nON A-",'D
DOES NOT TAKE lJ';"TO CONSIDERATION CO~"'11NUAnONS, TIME DELAYS, APPEALS, ErC
.
4/91
.
.
.
.~
EXHIBIT C
Environmental Documents
:
..
.
.
.
')
~,
File No.: GP.09-00J
CITY OF ARCADIA
240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE
ARCADIA, CA 91007
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
A. Title and Description of Project:
General Plan amendment to the Community Development Section and Appendix A of the
City's General Plan to incorporate statutory requirements into the City's Housing Element
B. Location of Project:
City-wide
C. Name of Applicant or Sponsor:
City of Arcadia - Development Services Department
240 West Huntington Drive
Arcadia, Ca 91007
D. Finding:
This project will have no significant effect upon the environment within the meaning of the
California Environmental Ouality Act of 1970 for the reasons set forth in the attached Initial
Study.
E. Mltigation measnres, if an)', included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects:
No impact
By,~L::-. "
v-
Donna Butler. Community Development Administrator
Date Prepared: July 2, 1998
Date Posted: July 2, 1998
..
.
.
'')
-,
,
file No,: GP98.00 I
CITY OF ARCADIA
240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE
ARCADIA, CA 91007
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project Title:
General Plan Amendment 98-001.
2. Project Address:
NA
3. Project Sponsor's Name, Address & Telephone Number:
City of Arcadia
240 West Huntington Drive
Arcadia. Ca 91007
(626) 574-5442
4. Lead Agency Name & Address:
City of Arcadia - Development Services Department
Community Development Division - Planning Services
240 W. Huntington Drive
Post Office Box'60021
Arcadia, CA 91066-6021
5. Lead Agency Contact Person & Telephone Number:
Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator (626) 574-5442
6. General Plan Designation: N/A
7. Zoning Classification: N/A
8. Description of Project:
(Descnl>e the whole action involved, including but not limited to 1ater phases of the project and any secondary,
support. or off-site featUres necessary for its"implemClltation. Attach additional sheets ifnecessary.)
Proposal to amend the Community Development Section and Appendix A of the City's
General Plan to incorporate statutory requirements into the City's Housing Element
-1-
CEQA Checklist 7/95
.
.
.
'\
File No.: GP98-00 1
9. Other public agencies whose appronl is required: None
]0.
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.
r J Land Use & Planning
[ ] Population & Housing
[ ] Geological Problems
[ ] Water
[ ] Air Quality
[ ] Transportation I Circulation
[ ] Biological Resources
[ ) Energy and Mineral Resources
[ ) Hazards
[ ] Noise
[ ) Public Services
[ ] Utilities and Service Systems
[ ) Aesthetics
[ ] Cultural Resources
[ ] Resources
[ ] Mandatory Finding of Significance
DETERMINATION
(To be completed b)' the Lead Agcnc)')
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
[X) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
[J I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the
mitigation measures described ,on an attached sheet have been added to the project.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
[J I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,
and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
[J I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,
but that at least one effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document
pursuant to applicable legal standards and has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on that earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, and if any
rem,,;ning effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant
Unless Mitigated," an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but
it only needs to analyze the effects that have not yet been addressed.
-2-
CEQA ChcckliSl 7/95
.
.
.
-,
- ~
,
,
File No.: GP9R-OO J
[J J find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environmeJlt, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all
potentially significant effects have been analyzed adequately in an earlier
Environmental Impact Report pursuant to applicable standards and have been
avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation
measures that are imposed upon the proposed project
By: Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator
F'4~~=D_oot
ure
Date: July 2, 1998
EV ALUATJON OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
I, A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by
the infonnation sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer
is. adequately supported if the referenced infonnation sources show that the impact simply does not apply to
projects such as the one involved (e.g., the project is not within a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer
should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project
will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as
well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction related as well as operational impacts.
3. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significanL If
there are one or more, "Potentially Significant Impact" ennies when the detennination is made, an
Environmental Impact Report is required.
4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation IncoIporated" applies where the incoIporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant ImpaCL"
The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a
less than significant level (mitigation measuresfrom Section 17 "Earlier Analyses" may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analyses may be used where. punuant to the tiering, progriun Environmental Impact Report, or other
CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlierEIR or Negative Declaration {Section
IS063(c)(3)(DJ}. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist, references to infonnation sources for potential
impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document
should. where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
-3-
CEQA CheckliSt 7/95
,
,
.
Would the proposal "",ult in potential impacts involving:
1. LAND USE & PLANNING - Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designations or zoning?
The proposed GP changes to the hausing element will bring the
general pion into compliance with State law.
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted
by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
The proposed GP changes to the housing element will bring the
general plan into compliance with State law.
c) Be compatible with existing land uses in the vicinity?
The proposed GP amendment wiD not affect any existing land
uses.
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g.,impaclS to soils or
fannlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)?
There are no agricultural resources or operations in the City.
e) DiSl1lpt or divide the physical arrangement of an established
community (including a low-income or minority community)?
The proposed GP changes to the housing element will bring the
general plan iff/o compliance with Slale law am/has not after on
the physical arrangement of the community..
.
2. POPULATION & HOUSING - Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population
projections?
The GP amendment does not aff/icipale any significiant increases
in populalion
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly
(e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of
major infrastructure)?
The GP amendment does not anticipate any significianJ increases
in population
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing?
The GP amendment does not propose displacement of any housing..
File NlI.: TPM Q8-007
P~lcntinll)'
Si~nificant
Potentially Unles.' Les., Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact locorporated Impacl Impacl
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[A1
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
['\1
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[X
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[X]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[A1
[ ]
[ ]
[] [A1
[ ]
[ ]
[J [X]
[ ]
[ ]
[] [X]
~
3. GEOWGIC PROBLEMS - Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impactS involving:
a) Fault rupture? [ ] [ ] [J [A1
The proposed GP changes to the housing element wiD bring the
general plan iTllo compliance wilh S1ale law. This is a policy
document only.
b) Seismic ground shaking? [ ] [ ] [] [X]
The proposed GP changes to the housing element will bring lhe
general plan iTllo compliance with Stale lav.-. This is a polic)'
document only.
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? [ ] [ ] [] (A1
.
-5-
CEQA Checklist 7/95
\
Filc No.: TPM 98-007
Potential!)'
. Significant
POlentially Unlc,," Lc<s Than
Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving: Significant Mitigation Significant Nn
Impacl Incorporated Impacl Impact
The proposed GP changes to the housing elemen/" will bring the
general plan into compliance with Slale law, This is a policy
documenlonly.
d) Landslides or mudflows? [ ] [ ] [ ] [~
The proposed GP changes 10 Ihe housing elemen/ will bring lhe
general plan infO compliance wilhSlale law. This Is a policy
documen/ onl)..
e) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from
excavation, grading, or fill? [ ] [ ] [ ] [~1
The proposed GP changes 10 Ihe housing element will bring the
general plan inlO compliance wilh Slale law. This is a policy
document on~v.
f) Subsidence of the land? [ ] [ ] [ ] [~1
The proposed GP changes to the housing element will bring the
general plan inlo compliance wilh Slate law. This is a palicy
document only.
g) Expansive soils? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
The proposed GP changes to the housing element will bring Ihe
general plan into compliance with Stale Iav.', This isa policy
. document only.
h) Unique geologic or physical features? [ ] [ ] [ ] [..\1
The proposed GP changes to lhe housing element will bring the
general plan into compliance wilh Slale law. This is a policy
documenlonly.
4. WATER - Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and
amount of surface nmoff? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
The proposed GP changes 10 Ihe housing element will bring Ihe
general plan inlo compliance wilh Slate law. This is a policy
document only.
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards sucb as
flooding? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
The. proposed GP changes 101M housing element will bring the
general plan imo compliance wilh Stale law. This Is a policy
aocument only.
c) Discharge into surface waters or other a1tenrtion of surface water
quality (e.g, temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
The proposed GPchanges 10 Ihe housing element will bring the
general plan in/o compliance with Stt1le law. This Is a policy
document only.
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
. The proposed GF changes 101M housing element will bring the
general plan in/o compliance with State law. This is 0 policy
document only.
e) Changes in CUtTenIS, or the course or direction of water movements? [ ] [ ] [ ] [~1
-6- CEQA Checklist 7195
.
.
'.
)
File No,: TPM 98-007
Potentiall)'
Si~niJicanl
Poteotiall)' Unle.. Le.. Than
Si~nilicant Miti~ation Si~niJjcant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Would thc proposal result in potential impacts involvin~:
The proposed GP changes to the housing element will bring the
general plan into compliance with State law, This is a policy
document only.
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct
additions or withdrawals. or through interception of any aquifer by
cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of ground water
recharge capability~ [ 1
The proposed GP changes to the. housing element will bring the
general plan into compliance with Slale law. This is a pqlicy
document only.
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of ground water? [ ]
The proposed GP changes 10 Ihe housing element will bring the
general pion into compliance wilh Slale law. This is 0 policy
document only.
b) Impacts to groWld water quality? [ 1
The proposed GP changes 10 Ihe housing element .will bring the
general plan inlO compliance wilh Slale law. This is a policy
document only.
i) Substantial reduction in the amoWlt of groWld water otherwise
available for public water supplies? [ 1
The proposed GP changes 10 Ihe housing element will bring the
general plan into compliance with Slale law; This is a policy
document only.
S. AIR QUALITY - Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or
projected air quality violation? [ 1
The proposed GP changes 10 Ihe housing elemenl will bring Ihe
general plan into compliance wilh Slale law. This is a policy
document only.
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? [ 1
The proposed GP changes 10 the housing element will bring the
general plan into compliance with Slale law. This is a policy
document only,
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temp. Or cause any cbange in climate? [l
The proposed GF changes 10 lhe housing element will bring lhe
general plan into compliance with Slale law. This is 0 policy
document only.
d) CreaJe objectionable odors? r ]
The proposed GP changes to Ihe housing element will bring the
general plan into compliance wilh State law. This is a policy
document on(}..
. 6. TRANSPORTATION & CIRCULATION-
Would the proposal result in:
0) Increased vehicle trips or lnlffie congestion?
[ 1
-7-
[ 1
[ ]
[ 1
[ 1
[ ]
[ 1
[ 1
[ ]
[ 1
[ 1
[ 1
[ ]
[ 1
[ ]
r ]
[ ]
CEQA CheckliSl 7195
[ 1
[~1
[ ]
[Al
[~l
[Al
[Xl
[X]
[X]
[X]
[Xl
)
.--'.
Filc No.: TPM 98-007
.
Potentially
Sigoificant
Potentially Unless LcssThun
Sil.!Tlilicant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorpomtcd Impact Impa,
Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving:
.
The proposed OP changes to the housing element will bring the
general plan into compliance with State law. This is a policy
docume1l1 on{v.
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.,.farm equipment)? I )
The proposed OP changes to the housing element will bring the
general plan into compliance with State law. This is a policy
document only.
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? I )
The proposed OP changes to the housing element will bring the
general plan into compliance with Slate law. This is a policy
document orily.
d) lnsufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? [ ]
The proposed OP changes 10 the hoUsing element will bring the
general plan Into compliance with Slate law. This is a policy
document orily.
e) Hazards or barriers fOTpedestrians or bicyclists? [ ]
The proposed OP changes to the housing element will bring the
general pIon into compliance with State law. This is a policy
documenl only.
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transponation
(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? [ ]
The proposed OP changes to the housing element will bring the
general plan into compliaru;e with State law. Th.is is a policy
document only.
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? [ ]
The proposed OP changes to the housing element wll/ bring the
general plan into compliance with Stale law. This is a policy
document only.
.
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the proposal result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or theirbabitats ('mcluding
but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds)? [ ]
The proposed OP changes to the housing eleme1l1 will bring lhe
general plan into compliance with Stme law. This is a policy
document only.
b) Locally designated species (e.g" heritage trees)? [ ]
The proposed OP changes 10 the housing element will bring lhe
general plan imo compliance wilh Slate law. This is a policy
document onl)..
c) Locally designated nanual communities (e.g., oak forest, coastal
habitat, etc.)? [ ]
The proposed OP changes 10 lhe housing element will bring the
general plan into compliance with Slale law. This is a policy
document orily.
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? [ ]
-8-
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
I ] [.\1
[] IX]
[] [.\1
[] [.\1
[] [.\1
[] [X]
[ ] '""[X]
[] [X]
[] [X]
[] [.\1
CEQA Checklist 7t95
.
.
.
.
"
)
t
~
File No.: TPM '18-007
Potentinlly
Significant
Potentially Unless Lcss Than
Signifieant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impacl Impaet
Would the proposal result in potential impaclS involving:
The proposed GP changes 10 Ihe housing element will bring the
general plan into compliance with Slale law. This is a policy
documenl on{l'.
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
The proposed GP changes 10 the housing element will bring Ihe
general plan into compliance .wilh Slale law. This is a policy
document only.
[ ]
8. ENERGY & MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conseJ:Vation plans? [ ]
The proposed GP changes to the housing element will bring the
general plan into compliance wilh Slate law, This is a policy
document only.
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient [ ]
The proposed GP changes 10 the housing element will bring the
general plan inlo compliance wilh Slale law. This is a policy
documenl only.
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that
would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? []
The proposed GP changes 10 Ihe housing elemenl will bring lhe
general plan into compllance with Slate law. This is a policy
documenl only.
9. HAZARDS - Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances
(including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation)? [ ]
The proposed GP changes 10 Ihe housing element will bring the
general plan into compliance wilh Slate law. This is a policy
document only.
b) Possible interference with an emergency -response plan or
emergency evacuation plan? [ J
The proposed GP changes to the housing element will bring .t~
general plan inlo compliance wilh Slale law. This is a policy
document only.
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? [ ]
The proposed GP changes 10 the- housing element will bring the
general plan in/a compliance with State law. This is a policy
document only.
d) E,,"posure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? []
The proposed GP changes 10 the housing element will bring the
general plan inlO compliance with S,a,e law. This is a policy
document only.
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass or trees? []
-9-
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ J
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[~'J
[] [~1
[] [~1
[] [X]
[] [~1
[] [X]
[] [X]
[] ['\1
[] [~1
CEQA Checklist 7/95
.
.
.
~
~
..:
File No.: TPM 08-007
Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving:
Potentially
Sil.'11ificnnt
Potentially Unless Less Thon
Significnnt Mitigation Signilienot No
Impact IncolJlomted Impact Impact
The proposed GP changer to lhe housing element will bring Ihe
general plan into compliance wilh Stale law, This is a policy
document only.
10. NOISE - Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels?
The proposed GP changes to Ihe housing element will bring the
general plan into compliance wilh Stale law. This is a policy
document only.
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
The proposed GP changes 10 the housing element will bring lhe
general plan inlO compliance wilh Stale law. This is a policy
documenlonly.
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[X]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[A1
11. PUBLIC SERVICES - Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas;
a) Fire protection? [ ] [ ] [] [X]
The proposed GP changes to lhe housing element will bring Ihe
general plan into compliance with StOle law. This is a policy
dDcument only.
b) Police proteetion? [ ] [ ] [] [J.1
The proposed GP changes 10 Ihe housing element will bring Ihe
general plan inlo compliance wilh Slate law. This is a policy
documenl only.
c) Schools? [ ] [ ] [] [X]
The proposed GP changes 10 Ihe housing element. will bring lhe
general plan ilUo compliance willt Slale law. This is a policy
document only.
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? [ ] [ ] [] [X]
The proposed GP changes 10 Ihe hausing element will bring Ihe
general plan into compliance wilh SIDle law. This is a policy
document only.
e) Other governmental services? [ J [ ] [] [X]
The proposed GP changes to lhe housing element will bring Ihe
general plan ilUO compliance wilh Stale lav., This is a policy
document only.
12. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSl'EMS - Would theproposaJ resuh in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natnnll gas? [ ) [ ) [) [X]
The proposal will nOI have any impacts
b) Communications systems? [ ) [ ) [) [X]
The proposal will not have any impacts
c) Local or regional water treaunent or distribution facilities? [ ) [ ) [) [J.1
The proposal will not have any impacts
-10-
CEQA Checklist 7/95
':-:1
~
.'
.
Would the proposal result in,polential impacL~ involving:
d) Sewer or septic tanks?
The proposal will not have airy impacts
e) Stonn water drainage?
The proposa/will not have 01(1' impacts
f) Solid waste disposal?
The proposal will not have ony impacts
g) Local or regional water supplieS?
The proposal will not have any impacts
13. AESTHETICS - Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?
The proposal will not have 01(1' impacts
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetics effect?
The proposal will not have 01(1' impacts
c) Create light or glare?
The proposal will not have a1(ldmpacts
.
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the proposal:
a) DistUrb paleontological resources?
The proposal will not have airy impacts
b) DistUrb archaeological resources?
The proposal will not have airy impacts
c) Affect historical resources?
The proposal will not have aI!)' impacts
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values?
The proposal will not have airy impacts
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential
impact area?
The proposal will not have airy impacts
15. RECREATION - Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other
recreational facilities?
The proposal will not have 01ry impacts
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
The proposal will not have 01ry impacts
.
Hi. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment. substantially reduce the habitat of a fISh or wildlife
species, cause a fISh or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminale a plant or animal
-11-
~
File No.: TPM 9R-007
Potcnti,Dlly
Si~nificant
Potentially Uoless Lcss Than
Significanl Mitigalion Si~nificanl No
ImpaCl Incorporaled Impact Impacl
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
CEQA Chccl:IiSl 7/95
[ ]
["\1
[ ]
["-1
["\1
[Xl
[Xl
["-1
[Xl
["\1
[Xl
[Xl
[Xl
[Xl
["\1
[Xl
.
.
.
-)
~
rile No.: TI'M 98-007
I'nlcnLial1y
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorpomtcd Impact Impact
Would the propoSal re.",llin potential impllClS involving:
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory? [ ]
The proposed GP changes to the housing element will bring the
general plan into compliance with State law. This is a policy
documenl only.
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of/ong-term, environmental goals? [ ]
The proposed GP changes 10 the housing element will bring the
general plan into compliance with State law. This is a policy
document only.
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means
that the incremental effects of a- project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of probable future project.) [ ]
The proposed GP changes 10 the housing element will bring the
general plan into compliance with Stale law. This is a policy
document only_
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly? . [ ]
The proposed GP changes 10 the housing element will bring Ihe
general plan into compliance with State law. This is a policy
document only.
17. EARLIER ANALYSES
General Plan ElR certified in 1996
-12-
[ )
[ ]
[.\1
>
[ ]
[ J
[).1
[ J
[ ]
[).1
[ ]
[ ]
[.\1
CEQA CheckliSl 7/95
.
.5.
6.
'"
"
File No. GP9B-001
CITY OF ARCADIA
240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE
ARCADIA, CA 91007
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM
General Information
1. Applicant's Name: City of Arcadia
Address: 240 West Huntington Drive, Arcadia, CA 91007
'-
2.
3.
Property Address (Location): NIA
Name, address and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project:
Donna L Butler
240 West Huntington Drive
Arcadia, CA 91007
(818) 574-5442
4.
List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for
this project, including those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies:
Approval from Department of Housing and Community Development
Zone Classification: N/A
General Plan Designation: N/A
~ect Description
7. Proposed use of site (project description):
Proposal 10 amend the Community Development Section and Appendfr A of the City's
General Plan to incorporate statutory requirements into the City's Housing Element
8. Site size: N/A
9. Square footage per building: N1A
10. Number of floors of construction: N/A
11. Amount of off-street parking provided: N1A
12. Proposed scheduling of project: N/A
13. Anticipated incremental development N/A
14. If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or
rents, and type of household sizes expected: N/A
.
.'
-16.
)
,
If commercial, indicate the type, i.e. neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square
footage of sales area, and loading facilities, hours of operation: N/A
If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities: N/A
19.
Change in existing features of any hills, or substantial alteration of ground
contours.
r'
15.
17.
If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated
occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project: N/A
18.
If the project involves a variance, conditional use permit or zoning application, state this and
indicate clearly why the application is required: N/A
Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked
yes (attach additional sheets as necessary).
20.
.21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
2B.
29.
.0.
Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public
lands or roads.
Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project.
Significant amounts of solid waste or litter.
Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity,
Change in ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing
drainage patterns.
Substantial change in existing noise or vib(ation levels in the vicinity.
Is site on filled land or on any slopes of 10 percent or .more.
Use or disposal of potentia fly hazardous materials, such as toxic substances,
flammable or explosives.
Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water,
sewage, etc.).
Substantial increase in fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.
Relationship to a larger project or series of projects.
-2,
YES NO
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
E.I.R.
3/95
/)
~
,""\
,
Environmental Setting
.31.
Describe (on a separate sheet) the project site as it exists before the project, including
information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, any cultural, historical or
scenic aspects, any existing structures on the site, and the use of the structures. Attach
photographs of the site. Snapshots or Polaroid photos will be accepted.
N/A
32. Describe (on a separate sheet) the surrounding properties, including information on plants,
animals, any cultural, historical .or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land uses
(residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one-family, apartment houses, shops,
department stores, etc.), and scale of development (height, frontage, set-backs, rear yards,
etc.). Attach photographs of the vicinity. Snapshots or Polaroid photos will be accepted.
N/A
Certification
I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data
and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts,
statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowled nd
~~ '.
.JUIY 2, 1998
Date
,
.
E.I.R.
3195
-3-