The City’s current Housing Element covers the planni ng period extending from 2014 to 2021, which is referred to as the “5 th Housing Element cycle” in reference to the five required updates that have occurred since the comprehensive revision to State law in 1980. All cities in the Southern California Associa tion of Governments (“SCAG”) region are required to prepare a Housing Element Update for the 6th planning cycle, which spans over the 2021-2029 period. The SCAG region includes Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, and Imperial counties.
The 6th Cycle Update requires a review of the current Housing Element, which was adopted in 2013, to evaluate the effectiveness of the current housing programs, existing goals and policies, and to identify the revisions that must be made to bring the Housing Element into compliance with current State law and HCD requirements. The Update will also need to be internally consistent with the City’s General Plan, which was adopted in 2010, and with the Development Code, which underwent a comprehensive update in 2016. The Housi ng Elements in the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) were due by October 15, 2021. HCD provides a 120-grace period after the deadline for local adoption, and given the complexity of the 6th Cycle Update, many cities are utilizing this additional time.
HOUSING ELEMENT 2021-2029
The Housing Element consists of three components , each of which can be found in Attachment 2 in redlined form, showing responses to the comments received from HCD.
1. The Housing Element itself (Chapter 5 of the General Plan) , which sets forth the City’s housing goals and policies to address identified housing needs
2. The General Plan Implementation Plan (Chapter 10) , which identifies specific programs to be pursued to achieve Housing Element goals and policies
3. The Housing Element Technical Background Report, which includes the following:
• An analysis of the City’s population, household and employment base, and characteristics of the housing stock.
• A review of potential market, governmental, and environmental constraints on production, maintenance, and affordability of housing. • An analysis of fair housing issues and actions to foster inclusive communities to achieve racial equity, fair housing choice, and opportunity for all.
• An evaluation of th e land and financial resources available to address the City’s identified housing needs.
• An analysis of strategies for housing sites identified by income category to meet the City’s RHNA allocation.
Housing Element Update
January 25, 2022
• A summary of the community outreach efforts undertaken th at focused on issues relating to residential land uses and housing needs. • A review of past accomplishments under the previously adopted Housing Element.
The d evelopment of the 2021–2029 Housing Element is guided by the following principles:
▪ Balanced Growth and Development
The General Plan establishes a balance and mix of land uses that promote economic growth and maintain a high quality of life for Arcadia residents. Our development decisions reflect Smart Growth principles and strategies that move us toward enhanced mobil ity, more efficient use of resources and infrastructure, and healthier lifestyles.
▪ Neighborhood Character
Arcadia’s single-family and multifamily residential neighborhoods have given the City its identity as a “Community of Homes.” The City protects and preserves the character and quality of its neighborhoods by requiring harmonious design, careful planning, and the integration of sustainable principles.
▪ Changing Housing Needs
The City encourages the retention, rehabilitation, and development of diverse housing that meets the people’s needs in all stages of their lives.
This Housing Element is an integral component of the General Plan; it builds upon other Elements and is consistent with the vision and guiding principles that shape the General Plan goals and policies. As the General Plan is updated over time, the City will ensure consistency among General Plan Elements, so policies introduced in one Element are consistent with other elements.
The Housing Element is unique because it requires review and c ertification by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). State law requires Housing Elements to be updated on a regular basis to reflect a community’s changing housing needs. This Housing Element is an eight -year plan covering 2021 – 2029, unlike other General Plan Elements, which typically cover a ten-year or longer planning horizon. This Housing Element identifies goals, policies, and programs that work toward:
▪ Providing adequate housing sites to achieve a variety of housing ▪ Preserving and improving housing and neighborhoods
▪ Assisting in the provision of affordable housing
▪ Removing governmental constraints to housing developments ▪ Promoting fair and equal housing opportunities
Housing Element Update
January 25, 2022
Another component of the Housing Element is the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). RHNA is the process by which each city is assigned a share of the region’s need for additional housing units during the next Housing Element planning period (2021 - 2029). RHNA allocations are determined for the City by SCAG based on criteria established by State law. The City’s allocation is as follows:
Income Category Number of Units Percentage
Very Low Income Units 1,102 34%
Low Income Units 570 18%
Moderate Income Units 605 19%
Above-Moderate Income Units 937 29%
Total 3,214 100%
For the 2014 -2021 planning period (5 th cycle), the City was allocated a total of 1,054 housing units. Between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2019, the City issued permits for a total of 412 housing units towards meeting the City’s RHNA allocation for the 2014- 2021 planning period. The 2014 -2021 RHNA allocation was as follows and nearly all of the 412 units provided fall into the “above-moderate” category:
Income Category Number of Units Percentage
Very Low Income Units 276 26%
Low Income Units 167 16%
Moderate Income Units 177 17%
Above-Moderate Income Units 434 41%
Total 1,054 100%
The City’s RHNA allocation of 3,2 14 units for the 2021 -2029 planning period is approximately three times higher than the previous allocation of 1,054 units for the 2014- 2021 planning period. This is a result of the significant increase in HCD’s projected housing need for the Southern California Region. The regional housing need for the 2021- 2029 planning period is 1,341,827 housing units, compared to 412,137 housing units for the 2014 -2021 planning period. Given the significant increase in regional need, cities received much higher allocatio ns through SCAG’s distribution process. In addition, Arcadia received a much higher percentage of Very Low Income Units, the result of SCAG’s methodology to allocate these units to areas with good transportation options and transit corridors, among other criteria.
The Housing Element Update must demonstrate site development capacity to facilitate the construction of a variety of housing types for all income levels. It is important to note that the City is not responsible for the production of these units; rather, th e City is obligated to provide adequate sites for the development of units through either appropriate General Plan land use and zoning designations , or through future zoning changes to accommodate these units. Whether or not housing actually gets built, an d
Housing Element Update
January 25, 2022
what type of housing gets built, is largely up to the landowner and the housing market.
However, as mentioned, the City is responsible to provide programs and policies to facilitate new housing development, especially for low and very-low income housing.
In order to react to the City’s RHNA numbers, the first consideration is to account for projects that are either: 1) entitled; 2) issued building permits; or 3) in the application stage with Planning, that will count towards the RHNA after July 2021. These projects within the “pipeline” are considered the City’s baseline unit count. Within this baseline, the City also receives credit for underutilized properties that allow residential uses, and existing and potential Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) throughout the City. Along these lines, it has been determined based on past performance that it is appropriate to anticipate the development of 296 accessory dwelling units during the 6th planning cycle.
Based on the projects within the pipeline and ADUs, the baseline analysis results in a total of 2,545 housing units that could potentially be constructed in the City. This satisfies the housing units for above moderate-income level, but for not for the moderate, low, and very low income categories. As a result, to make up this shortfall, there are seven (7) housing strategies that are being proposed to meet the City’s RHNA allocation, as discussed below under the Analysis section of the report.
Baseline Analysis Summary Table
ANALYSIS
As discussed above, i n order to meet the City’s RHNA requirement, additional housing programs and strategies are needed beyond the units in the pipeline expected to be built.
The City’s General Plan Implementation Plan (Chapter 10) lists and describes what policies and programs will need to be implemented over the next few years to meet the State’s requirements. In addition, the Technical Background Report also provides detailed analysis and description of re-zoning strategies needed to meet the RHNA allocation of 3,214 units. It is the City’s goal is to implement most of these changes within the first three (3) years after the Housing Element Update has been adopted, with the exception of the Inclusionary Housing Policy. Each of the primary re commended strategies is described below, along with an analysis of the potential number of units that could potentially result
Housing Element Update
January 25, 2022
following the implementation of the strategy. It is important to remember that all of these strategies are continuations or expan sions of existing zoning designations that already exist in Arcadia. In some cases, it is recommended to expand existing zoning or apply a higher density to certain areas, but the overall strategy is to focus additional units and density into areas that can support it, and to protect single-family neighborhoods.
1. Strategy No. 1 - Downtown Mixed Use (DMU) Expansion
The City has identified General Commercial and Commercial Manufacturing zoned properties in and adjacent to Downtown Arcadia as an opportunity to introduce high density residential flex overlays to expand existing Downtown Mixed-Use zoning.
Expanding the opportunity for high density residential in the downtown area is compatible with adjacent Central Business District and Downtown Mixed -Use zoned parcels which will allow up to the maximum density of 80 du per/acre.
Downtown Mixed Use Expansion
The City has identified 30 sites that are currently commercially zoned to be rezoned to Downtown Mixed-Use at 80 du/acre with a 1.0 floor area ratio for non-residential uses. Of the 39.22 acres of land identified as part of this strategy, 37.36 acres met the c riteria required by the State for sites projected to accommodate Low and Very Low income units.
An assumed density of 64 du/acre was applied to calculate the theoretical capacity of each site. The theoretical capacity of these sites is projected at 2,405 u nits. However, a planning-level redevelopment percentage of 50 percent has been applied to project a more feasible assumption of future housing development on Mixed -Use sites. This assumes that only half of the potential parcels will redevelop in this manner. The realistic capacity of these sites is projected at 1,214 units, 305 of which are projected to be affordable to Low and Very Low income households.
Downtown Mixed-Use Overlay
The City has identified 75 sites that are currently commercially zoned to implement a Downtown Mixed -Use Overlay that will allow for residential uses in a mixed -use development format at a maximum density of 80 du/acre with a 1.0 floor area ratio for non-residential uses. Of the 18.19 acres of land identified as part of this strategy, 2.69 acres met the criteria required by the State for sites projected to accommodate Low and Very Low income units. An assumed density of 64 du/acre was applied to calculate the theoretical capacity of each site. The theoretical capacity of these sites is projected at 352 units. However, it is assumed that only 50 percent of the properties will redevelop in this manner to project a more feasible assumption of future housing development on Mixed-Use sites. The realistic capacity of these sites is projected at 266 units, 69 of which are projected to be affordable to Low and Very Low income households.
Housing Element Update
January 25, 2022
The map and table below show the area of proposed changes, and a total of 1,480 new net units are possible from the DMU Expansion and DMU Overlay. The implementation of these zone changes will occur within 3 years of the adoption of the HEU.
Income Category Capacity to Accommodate RHNA
Low and Very Low 374
Moderate 148
Above Moderate 958
Total New Net Units 1,480
2. Strategy No. 2 – Mixed-Use Upzone
The City has identified the Mixed -Use zone as an opportunity to increase density to promote the development of more residential units which could be supported by adjacent uses. The proposal is to increase the maximum density from 30 du/acre to 50 du/acre.
There are 106 sites or 36.15 acres that are within the Mixed-Use zone. Of the 36.15 acres of land, approximately 17.26 acres met the criteria required by the State for sites projected to accommodate Low and Very Low income units. An assumed density of 40 du/acre was applied to calculate the theoretical capacity of each site. The theoretical capacity of these sites is projected at 817 units. Again, a redevelopment percentage of 50 percent has been applied to project a more feasible assumption of future housing deve lopment on Mixed-
Housing Element Update
January 25, 2022
Use sites. The realistic capacity of these sites is projected at 477 units, 124 of which are projected to be affordable to Low and Very Low income households.
The map and table below show the area of proposed changes, and a total of 477 new net units are possible following the Mixed-Use Upzone. The implementation of these zone changes will occur within 3 years of the adoption of the HEU.
Income Category Capacity to Accommodate RHNA
Low and Very Low 124
Moderate 51
Above Moderate 302
Total New Net Units 477
3. Strategy No. 3 – Las Tunas/Live Oak Residential Flex Overlay
The Las Tunas and Live Oak Corridor has an opportunity to both increase density and introduce residential density on viable commercial properties. The adjacent Mixed -Use zoning and access to transit supports the increase of residential uses in the corridor. The City identified two areas along the corridor with opportunities based on adjacent use and densities to introduce Residential Flex Overlays within.
Housing Element Update
January 25, 2022
Las Tunas Residential Flex Overlay
There are 31 sites on Las Tunas Dr. that are currently commercially zoned to implement a Residential Flex Overlay that will allow for residential uses at a maximum density of 60 du/acre. Of the 15.92 acres of land identified as part of this strategy, 12.07 acres met the criteria to accommodate Low and Very Low income units. Parcels within the Las Tunas corridor have the capacity to accommodate 609 units of development at an assumed density of 48 du/acre, 155 of which are projected to accommodate housing affordable to Low and Very Low income households.
Live Oak Residential Flex Overlay
There are 26 sites on Live Oak Ave that are currently commercially zoned to implement a Residential Flex Overlay that will allow for residential uses at a maximum density of 50 du/acre. Of the 10.60 acres of land identified as part of this strategy, 3.65 a cres met the criteria to accommodate Low and Very Low income units. Parcels within the Las Tunas corridor have the capacity to accommodate 185 units of development at an assumed density of 40 du/acre, 48 of which are projected to accommodate housing affordable to low and very low income households.
The map and table below show the area of proposed changes, and a total of 794 new net units are possible from both Overlays. The implementation of these zone changes will occur within 3 years of the adoption of the HEU.
Income Category Capacity to Accommodate RHNA
Housing Element Update
January 25, 2022
Low and Very Low 203
Moderate 82
Above Moderate 509
Total New Net Units 794
4. Strategy No. 4 – General Commercial (C-G) Flex Overlay
The General Commercial zoned properties are another area for redevelopment opportunity where underutilized, smaller scale commercial development can transition to support residential development in cases where it is more desirable than a struggling commercial use.
The City identified 76 sites (84.38 acres) as part of the C -G Residential Flex Overlay Focus Area that will allow for residential uses at maximum density of 30 du/acre. However, an assumed density of 24 du/acre was applied to calculate the theoretical capacity of each site. The theoretical capacity of these sites is projected at 1,983 units. It was further assumed that only 50 percent of the area would redevelop over time to project a more feasible assumption of future housing development in this Focus Area. The realistic capacity of these sites is project ed at 992 units, 252 of which are projected to be affordable to Low and Very Low income households.
The map and table below show the area of proposed changes , and the implementation of these zone changes will occur within 3 years of the adoption of the HEU.
Housing Element Update
January 25, 2022
Income Category Capacity to Accommodate RHNA
Low and Very Low 252
Moderate 100
Above Moderate 640
Total New Net Units 992
5. Strategy No. 5 – R-3 Upzone
The R-3 Zone has been identified by the City as an area with the opportunity to support increased density from 30 du/acre to 40 du/acre that is compatible with adjacent higher density residential uses and other uses that support residential development. Higher density within this Focus Area can be expected to accommodate lower income units.
There are 355 sites or 236.28 acres that are within the R-3 zone. Of the 236.28 acres of land, approximately 177.21 acres met the criteria to accommodate Low and Very Low income units. An assumed density of 32 du/acre was applied to calculate the theoretical capacity of each site. The theoretical capacity of these sites is projected at 2,715 units.
Through the history of redevelopment of R -3 sites, additional incentives for affordable housing, and inclusionary pol icy programs, a reasonable redevelopment of 25 percent has been applied. This redevelopment percentage will project a more feasible assumption of future housing development on non-vacant sites with existing multi-family housing. The realistic capacity of these sites is projected at 810 units, 213 of which are projected to be affordable to Low and Very Low-income households.
The map and table below shows the area of proposed changes, and the implementation of these zone changes will occur within 3 years of the adoption of the HEU.
Housing Element Update
January 25, 2022
Income Category Capacity to Accommodate RHNA
Low and Very Low 213
Moderate 84
Above Moderate 513
Total New Net Units 810
6. Strategy No. 6 – Arcadia Golf Course (Par 3)
Through a Specific Plan or similar zoning tool, the Arcadia Golf Course can accommodate approximately 192 units. The City owns the Arcadia Par 3 Golf Course and is currently negotiating with development teams to evaluate the future sale of the property and/or redevelopment of the site. It is anticipated that the City will enter into a Purchase and Sale Agreement and a Development Agreement with a selected Development Team on the entitlement of the site at some point during this housing cycle. Per the requirements of the SLA, a portion of the project will be dedicated to affordable housing units (between 15% and 25% of all units developed). In addition, the resulting project will also likely retain a substantial open space component and provide market -rate units in a Specific Plan format. The projected number of units in this area reflect the current proposals under evaluation, not the number of units the final approved development will include. The table below displays the projected assumptions for net unit yield based on expressed developer interest.
Housing Element Update
January 25, 2022
Income Category Capacity to Accommodate RHNA
Low and Very Low 48
Moderate 72
Above Moderate 72
Total Units – Specific Plan 192
7. Strategy No. 7 - Inclusionary Housing Policy
The City has a substantial RHNA obligation to provide affordable housing during this next planning cycle to encourage and facilitate construction for housing that is below market - rate. As part of this H ousing Element Update , the Planning Division will investigate inclusionary housing policy options as an additional means to provide a variety of housing types and opportunities for very low, low - and moderate-income households in Arcadia.
This will include analysis of a variety of inclusionary housin g policy options, standards, requirements and regulations to determine the best course of action. Based upon this initial assessment, the City Council will determine the appropriateness and application of inclusionary policies, and adopt policies, programs or regulations that will produce housing opportunities affordable to very low, low and moderate -income households .
According to the Implementation Plan, this will be approved within 9 months after the adoption of the Housing Element Update.
Housing Element Update
January 25, 2022
With adoption of the primary strategies listed above within the next three years, along with the natural development of units within the pipeline, the City of Arcadia will meet its RHNA obligations. These strategies have been detailed in the draft documents created to date, and have been presented to both the community and HCD over time. The public outreach efforts are detailed in the section below.
PUBLIC OUTREACH EFFORTS AND COMMENTS FROM HCD
During the ongoing pandemic, public outreach efforts for Planning projects is challenging.
Nevertheless, a number of outreach efforts have been conducted for the Housing Element Project to engage the public, provide feedback loops, and provide timely infor mation.
Each of the public outreach components of the Housing Element Update are described below, and all the summaries can be found on the City’s website , a link to which is provided in the first bullet below.
• Dedicated website for the Housing Element Update
(ArcadiaCA.gov/housing) with all project materials, including summaries from community workshops and the draft public review documents
• Frequently Asked Questions Page/Fact Sheet including detailed answers to commonly asked questions
• Community Survey, in English and Chinese (June 21 – August 6, 2021):
The City launched an online community in June, where participants were asked to consider potential policies and programs to include in the Housing Element. A total of 759 persons that participated in the survey.
• Postcard mailer to all property owners & residential tenants in the City, with information on the Update and a link to the Community Survey.
• Community Workshop No. 1 (June 14, 2021):
Outreach presentation and informational videos (English and Chinese) consisting of an overview of the RHNA process, the tentative schedule of the Housing Element Update and information on understating of the RHNA process, and how to get informed about future opportunities for community participation.
• Community Workshop No. 2 (September 23, 2021):
Participants learned about the Housing Element Update process and the City’s progress, heard an overview of the community survey results, and learned about potential strategies to accommodate the new housing u nits required by the State
Housing Element Update
January 25, 2022
through the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). The meeting was presented in English and Chinese.
• Release of Draft Housing Element (September 30, 2021 & December 21, 2021):
Notification of the availability of the Draft Housing Element (September 30, 2021), and the Revised Draft Housing Element (December 21, 2021), was emailed to interested parties, community stakeholders, and shared via the City’s social media channels.
• Social Media and Digital Media Engagement, in English and Chinese:
Staff engaged with the community throughout the Update process and posted updates on the City website and across four separate social media channels including Twitter and WeChat. Posts were m ade weekly and/or bi -weekly during major Update-related events.
• City Newsletters and Print Publications:
Through the planning process, the City posted information related to the Housing Element update in the City’s 2021 Spring and Summer newsletters, an d five monthly “Hot Sheet” publications.
Comments from HCD on Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element
The public draft Housing Element was submitted to HCD on September 30, 2021, and it was released for public review from September 30, 2021 to November 1, 2021 to give community members and stakeholders an opportunity to provide input. .
On November 29, 2021, the City received comments from HCD in response to submittal of the Draft Housing Element – refer to Attachment No. 3. This letter outlines the changes and/or additions that HCD has raised to ensure certification of the element. Below is a summary of the primary changes that were made to the draft Housing Element based on the comment letter from HCD.
• Added additional detail on Special Needs populations in Arcadia and how the Housing Element Programs can serve Special Needs Populations.
• Further review of land-use controls, permitting procedures, local ordinances, and housing for persons with disabilities.
• Added additional examples of past performance to justify sites inventory.
Housing Element Update
January 25, 2022
• Increase affordability assumption based on increase in programs to incentivize the development of affordable housing.
• Revised timelines and added programs to support a variety of housing types.
• Refined maps and included additional comparative analysis between region and City.
A complete response to the HCD comments was provided in a matrix – refer to Attachment No. 3 of this report. The matrix outlines the entirety of the changes that were made to the Draft Housing Element in response to the comments received from HCD during their review. The redlined versions of the various sections of the Housing Element includes the revisions made to the documents in response to HCD comments – refer to Attachment No. 2. These draft documents were resubmitted back to HCD on December 21, 2021. Both the original and redlined version are on the Cit y’s website at www.arcadiaca.gov/housing. The proposed Strategies under the Analysis reflect all the recent changes.
FINDINGS
The following findings are recommended to be made in support of the amendments to the General Plan for the Housing Element and Implementation Plan.
1. The proposed action is consistent with the goals, policies, and actions of the General Plan.
The Housing Element would make the General Plan consistent with state law requirements per Government Code Section 65580 that requires the Housing Element to be updated every eight years upon the adoption of a region’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The Housing Element Update identifies goals, policies, and implementation programs add ressing housing opportunities, removal of governmental constraints, improving the condition of existing housing and providing equal housing opportunities for all Arcadia residents. These goals, policies and program actions further the City’s overall policy goal to inspire a more diverse, sustainable, and balanced community by implementing strategies and programs that contribute to economic and socially diverse housing opportunities that preserve and enhance Arcadia’s character.
2. The proposed action would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City.
The proposed amendments are in the public interest and reflect the input of residents, decision makers, and other stakeholders in the community. No zone changes are proposed under the Housing Element Update that would reduce or compromise existing standards that protect the health, safety or general welfare of the City.
Housing Element Update
January 25, 2022
The Initial Study/Negative Declaration for the Housing Element Update analyzed all the significant environmental impacts of all candidate housing sites associated with the proposed 6th Cycle Housing Element Update, and it was determined that all the potential impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed General Plan amendment for the Housing Element Update would not be detrimental to the public health and welfare.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The proposed project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines. An Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) has been prepared for the project for the City, as the lead agency. The IS/ND was prepared consistent with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) on the basis that there was no substantial evidence that there may be significant environmental impacts on specific environmental areas – refer to Attachment No. 4.
The IS/ND was made available for public review from September 30, 2021 to November 1, 2021. A Notice of Intent to adopt the MND was published in the newspaper on September 29, 2021, posted on the City’s webpage, and posted at the L.A. County Clerk’s office on September 30, 2021 . A copy of the IS/ND was made available on the City’s webpage, at the Planning Division office, and at the library. During this time period, public agencies, organizations, and the public in general were afforded the opportunity to review the Draft IS/MND, and submit written comments regarding the documents and the proposed project.
The City received three comment letters from the following agencies – refer to Attachment No. 4.
1. Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning, dated December 23, 2021.
The comments and their responses do not change the conclusion of the IS/ND.
2. Los Angeles County Sanitation District, dated January 4, 2022. The comments and their responses do not change the conclusion of the IS/ND.
3. California Fish & Wildlife, dated January 18, 2022. In their letter, the California Fish & Wildlife recommended measures and comments to the City to ensure the Project will not create any significant impacts to specifically the golf course since it could impact an endangered species, known as Bell’s Vireo. Given that there is no real project proposed at the Arcadia Golf Course, and the City is not proposing to rezone that property as part of this Housing Element Update effort at this time, the City intends to acknowledge the information that has been provided within the
Housing Element Update
January 25, 2022
Response to Comments, as part of the IS/ND. Any future housing projects on any of the candidate sites will undergo a complete environmental review under CEQA
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2087 recommending that the City Council adopt a Negative Declaration and approve General Plan Amendment No. GPA 21-02, updating the General Plan’s Housing Element.
The City Council is sche duled to consider this item at its February 15, 2022 meeting.
Should the Council adopt the Housing Element Update, it will be sent to HCD for certification. If HCD has further substantive comments and does not certify the Housing Element, it will return to the Planning Commission and City Council for further review.
Approved:
Lisa Flores
Planning & Community Development Administrator
Attachment No. 1: Resolution No. 2087
Attachment No. 2: Redlined versions of the Draft HE U, Implementation Plan, and Technical Background Report
Attachment No. 3: Comment letter from HCD and Matrix with all the proposed changes Attachment No. 4: Comment letters from Agencies and Draft Initial Study/MND
ARCADIA PLANNING COMMISSION
EXCERPT OF THE REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
AGENDA ITEM NO. 2 – HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
TUESDAY, JANUARY 25, 2022
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection in the City’s Planning Services Office located at 240 W. Huntington Drive, Arcadia, Californi a, during normal business hours.
CALL TO ORDER Chair Lin called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. on Zoom.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Chair Lin, Thompson, Wilander
ABSENT: Vice Chair Chan, Tsoi
It was moved by Commissioner Thompson , seconded by Commissioner Wilander to excuse Commissioner Tsoi from the meeting. Without objection, the motion was approved.
Vice Chair Chan joined the meeting at 7:06 p.m.
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS
Planning & Community Development Administrator Lisa Flores informed the Commissioners that three late correspondences were received for Agenda Item No. 2 – Housing Element Update. All of the correspondences were distributed to the Commission through email earlier in the day.
PUBLIC COMMENTS (5 minute time limit per person)
There were none.
PUBLIC HEARING
1. Resolution No. 2087 – Recommending that the City Council Approve General Plan Amendment No. GPA 21 -02 with a Negative Declaration under the California Environmental Quality Act updating the General Plan’s Housing Element for the 2021-2029 housing cycle
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 2087
Chair Lin introduced the item and Ms. Flores , Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director Jason Kruckeberg, and consultant Matt Horton of Kimley Horn presented the report.
Mr. Kruckeberg answered several questions from the Commissioners regarding the requirements of the proposed programs, policies, rezone strategies, affordable housing, impact of new housing units on existing fire and police resources, and the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA).
Chair Lin opened the public hearing and asked if there were any speakers for the item.
Four speakers provided comments:
1. Carolyn Iga, Business Owner: The Housing Element reflects the community’s values well; supports the preservation of single-family housing as well as the mixed-use expansion and
2 1/25/2022
R-3 rezone strategies, supports affordable housing policies particularly for low and very low income, and inclusionary housing policy especially for those who live and work in Arcadia.
2. Allison Henry, LA Forward & San Gabriel Val ley Tenants Alliance : Supportive of the proposed inclusionary housing policy; offered a list of several potential community partnerships; offered ways to strengthen Element regarding to tenant protections.
3. Mike Veerman, Resident: Strongly supports the 20% inclusionary housing policy; supports affordable housing for growing population which can also have a positive environm ental impact.
4. Ted Jimenez, Southcoast Regional Council of Carpenters: New projects will be generated as a result of the Housing Element; suggested that language should be added to the Element to support the local hiring of a skilled and trained workforce.
MOTION- PUBLIC HEARING
It was moved by Commissioner Thompson, seconded by Vice Chair Chan , to close the public hearing. Without objection, the motion was approved.
DISCUSSION
Commissioner Thompson critiqued the State RHNA mandates and the recent State limits to local land use control. Arcadia is a built -out city , and g iven the burden of the State requirements, staff and consultants have done a good job with the Housing Element . He had some concerns with the 80 -unit densities and the inclusion of the Par 3 golf course as one of the proposed strategies to meet RHNA. He cited the General Plan Parks and Recreation Element regarding the goals that promotes the maintenance of existing parks and recreation facilities and to preserve park acreage within the City (Policies PR-1.1 and PR-1.2). The loss of the Par 3 golf course site decreases the City’s overall park acreage and would be a loss to the City in terms of available recreational facilities and park space.
Commissioner Wilander was also concerned about a permanent loss of park acreage and recreational green space because of the sale and development of the Par 3 golf course. The Inclusionary Housing policy makes sense, but she would like the option of projects that allow for priority of affordable housing units for City residents.
Mr. Kruckeberg responded and stated that in order for the City to prioritize units for City residents, the City would need to fund or be involved with the funding of such projects. Generally, restrictions cannot be placed on privately funded projects.
Vice Chair Chan also would like to see the Par 3 golf course used as a family-oriented recreation space, and for family use rather than as a golf course use alone . Also, he urged the City Council to appoint a representative in District 5 to the City Council to allow for equal representation of all districts when this item comes before the Council.
Chair Lin understands the perspective of those who want to move to Arcadia and raise their families here, but he also understands the desire to preserve the quality of life for existing residents and property owners. Staff has done a good job with the Housing Element, despite the State mandates. He also understands the concerns regarding the Par 3 golf course, and more conversations should occur to see if there is a way to achieve housing goals while retaining the golf course site, and if this makes the most sense economically. He recalls that discussions to sell the golf course have occurred prior to this process.
He would not encourage the Commission to pursue an action that would result in State sanctions or negative actions against the City.
3 1/25/2022
Mr. Kruckeberg confirmed that the discussions of the Par 3 site were discussed prior to the Housing Element Update, and that the current proposals do include preservation of substantial open space.
Lastly, based upon a statement from Commissioner Chan, Commissioner Thompson stated that the Par 3 offers recreational opportunities/activities aside from golf.
MOTION
It was moved by Vice Chair Lin, seconded by Commissioner T hompson to adopt Resolution No. 2087, recommending that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment No. GPA 21-02 with a Negative Declaration under the California Environmental Quality Act updating the General Plan’s Housing Element for the 2021 -2029 housing cycle, and forward their individual comments to the City Council
ROLL CALL
AYES: Chair Lin, Vice Chair Chan, Thompson, and Wilander NOES: None
ABSENT: Tsoi
Attachment No. 6
Attachment No.6
Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration,
Comment Letters, and Response to
Comments
City of Arcadia 6th Cycle Housing Element Update
(2021-2029)
Final
INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION
February 2022
Prepared By:
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
3880 Lemon Street, Suite 420
Riverside, CA 92501
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Final Initial Study/Negative Declaration
Page i February 2022
Table of Contents
Section 1.0: Introduction ..................................................................................................... ...............1 Section 2.0: Affidavit of Distribution ........................................................................................ ...........3 Section 3.0: Negative Declaration Comments and Responses ..............................................................5 Comment Letter S1 – California Department of Fish and Wildlife ......................................................... 7 Comment Letter L1 – Los Angeles Department of Regional Planning ................................................. 29 Comment Letter L2 – Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts ............................................................ 37 Section 4.0: Errata to the City of Arcadia 6th Cycle Housing Element (2021-2029) IS/ND ...................... 41
Section 5.0: Public Draft IS/ND ............................................................................................... .......... 43
List of Tables
Table 1: Comment Letters Received ............................................................................................. .......5
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Final Initial Study/Negative Declaration
Page ii February 2022
This page intentionally left blank.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Final Initial Study/Negative Declaration
SECTION 1.0: INTRODUCTION
This Final Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ ND) has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code [PRC] 21000 et. seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations [CCR] 15000 et. seq.). This document, together with the Public Draft IS/ND circulated to the public from December 17, 2021 to January 19, 2022 (Section 5.0), comprises the “Final” IS/ND for the development of the Palm and Kendall Travel Center Project (the Project), pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15074. The Final IS/ND is organized in the following sections:
• Section 1.0 Introduction
• Section 2.0 Affidavit of Distribution
• Section 3.0 Comment Letters and Response to Comments
• Section 4.0 Errata to the City of Arcadia 6 th Cycle Housing Element Update (2021-2029) • Section 5.0 Public Draft IS/ND
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Final Initial Study/Negative Declaration
This page intentionally left blank
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Final Initial Study/Negative Declaration
SECTION 2.0: AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION
This section provides a record of all notices for the Public Draft IS/ND. Provided as Appendix A, Affidavit of Distribution, of this Final IS/ND.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Final Initial Study/Negative Declaration
This page intentionally left blank.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Final Initial Study/Negative Declaration
SECTION 3.0: NEGATIVE DECLARATION COMMENTS AND RESPONSES This section provides a list of agencies and organizations that commented on the IS/ND; copies of the written comments received during the Draft IS/ND public review period; and the Lead Agency responses to those comments. Table 1 Comment Letters Received, provides a breakdown of the commenting agencies/organizations.
Table 1: Comment Letters Received
Reference Commenter Date
State
S1 California Department of Fish and Wildlife January 18, 2022 Local
L1 Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning December 23, 2021 L2 Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts January 4, 2022
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Final Initial Study/Negative Declaration
This page intentionally left blank.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Final Initial Study/Negative Declaration
CComment Letter S1 – California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Final Initial Study/Negative Declaration
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Final Initial Study/Negative Declaration
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Final Initial Study/Negative Declaration
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Final Initial Study/Negative Declaration
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Final Initial Study/Negative Declaration
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Final Initial Study/Negative Declaration
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Final Initial Study/Negative Declaration
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Final Initial Study/Negative Declaration
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Final Initial Study/Negative Declaration
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Final Initial Study/Negative Declaration
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Final Initial Study/Negative Declaration
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Final Initial Study/Negative Declaration
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Final Initial Study/Negative Declaration
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Final Initial Study/Negative Declaration
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Final Initial Study/Negative Declaration
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Final Initial Study/Negative Declaration
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Final Initial Study/Negative Declaration
This page intentionally left blank.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Final Initial Study/Negative Declaration
Response to Comment Letter S1
Response S1-a: The California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW’s) reception of the IS/ND is noted for the record.
Response S1-b: The description of CDFW’s responsibili ties as a responsible agency is noted for the record.
Response S1-c: CDFW’s description of the Project is noted for the record.
Response S1-d: The Arcadia Golf Course focus area is not intended to achieve full development of the potential 192 units that it can accommodate. As discussed in Section 2.4(d) of the IS/ND, a portion of the Arcadia Golf Course focus area is intended to remain viable for open space and recreation uses.
Furthermore, the Project’s lack of proposed physical modifications or direct proposal of additional development would limit the Project’s ability to directly affect least Bell’s vireo habitats and populations. Future development, including those occurring in the Arcadia Golf Course focus area would be required to undergo environmental review and approval subject to CEQA. This would include conducting biological assessments and coordination with CDFW.
Response S1-e: Future projects undergoing CEQA review and compliance will be required to coordinate with CDFW for approvals and review. Any permits relevant to future projects would be sought out by future applicants as required by CDFW and CEQA. As well, coordination with USFWS would conducted by future applicants as applicable during their individual project approvals.
Response S1-f: Future housing development applicants would be required to conduct biological assessments as required by both CEQA and the City’s General Plan Policy RS-8.2. This assessment would include the identification of suitable habitat for sensitive species including least Bell’s vireo. If it is concluded that further mitigation is required, then future applicants would be required to implement those measures. Furthermore, the City’s General Plan EIR currently includes mitigation that requires projects to hire a qualified biologist to assess the necessity of a habitat assessment. In a case where suitable habitat is found, then further surveys would be required to be performed.
Response S1-g: See Response S1-f above. Additionally, the City’s General Plan EIR includes Standard Condition (SC) 4.4-1 which requires a qualified biologist to conduct nesting bird surveys in areas with suitable habitat prior to all construction or site preparation activities that would occur during the nesting and breeding season of native bird species. A buffer area would also be created around the Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Final Initial Study/Negative Declaration
identified nesting area with clearing and/or construction within temporarily fenced areas shall be postponed or halted until juveniles have fledged and there is no evidence of a second nesting attempt. The biologist shall serve as a construction monitor during those periods when disturbance activities will occur near active nest areas to ensure that no inadvertent impacts on these nests will occur.
Response S1-h: The Project does not propose the physical renovation of lands within the City. Instead, the Project acts as a required policy document in compliance with State law which identifies opportunities for housing growth within the City. The Project does not promote or enable the further degradation of the environment and does not remove any safeguards in place to protect environmental resources. Existing environmental policies and regulations would continue to apply to future residential developments.
Future developments may affect the environment through the removal of trees, shrubs and other vegetation. However, these actions would continue to be required to comply with any applicable code and regulation, including the City’s tree removal ordinance. See Response S1-f and Response S1-g above. Additionally, the City General Plan includes Goals N-1 and N-2 which contain policies directly requiring the preparation of noise studies in order to assess and minimize noise impacts on sensitive areas. Future project applicants would be required to comply with these policies as well.
Response S1-i: See Response S1-g above. Biological assessments are required for projects within the City. Further, the City’s General Plan EIR Table 4.4-2 lists bat species as having limited to no suitable roosting habitat within the City.
Response S1-j: See Response S1-g and S1-I above. Furthermore, future projects conducting biological surveys and CEQA review would also be required to coordinate with CDFW which would include implementing any future recommendations made by CDFW on a case by case basis.
Response S1-k: See response S1-j above. Future projects conducting biological surveys and CEQA review would also be required to coordinate with CDFW which would include implementing any future recommendations made by CDFW on a case by case basis.
Response S1-l: See Response S1-f and Response S1-h above. Furthermore, the City General Plan EIR concluded on page 4.4-8 that while the Santa Anita wash may provide a connection to habitat areas, the City’s developed state and its proximity to other, largely developed areas allow for limited regional wildlife movement and do not contain significant biological resources to shelter or support most wildlife species.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Final Initial Study/Negative Declaration
Response S1-m: Evaluation under CEQA requires the assessment of hydrological and geological impacts to surrounding environments. This would include the assessment of impacts to water bodies and potential effects due to erosion.
Future project applicants would be required to comply with all applicable policies and regulations, including those instituted through CEQA.
Response S1-n: The Project area is City-wide. See Re sponse S1-f and S1-g above. Biological assessments are required for future projects.
Response S1-o: See Response S1-f and S1-g above. Biological surveys and CEQA analyses would include the assessment of the existing environment of each future project site and the identification of potential flora and fauna species and habitats, including those on sensitive species lists.
Response S1-p: Future project applicants would be re quired to comply with all applicable CEQA measures, including Public Resources Code (PRC) §21003(e). As well, future projects would be required to coordinate with CDFW as a responsible agency.
Response S1-q: The City has reviewed and acknowledged the mitigation proposed in this comment letter. However, the City has found that the analysis contained within the IS/ND is suitable and does not require further mitigation at this time.
Response S1-r: A Notice of Determination (NOD) will be filed for the IS/ND as well as the CDFW filing fee. The City thanks CDFW for their review of the Project and their included recommendations. CDFW will be included in future notices and notifications.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Final Initial Study/Negative Declaration
This page intentionally left blank.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Final Initial Study/Negative Declaration
CComment Letter L1 – Los Angeles Department of Regional Planning
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Final Initial Study/Negative Declaration
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Final Initial Study/Negative Declaration
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Final Initial Study/Negative Declaration
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Final Initial Study/Negative Declaration
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Final Initial Study/Negative Declaration
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Final Initial Study/Negative Declaration
This page intentionally left blank.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Final Initial Study/Negative Declaration
Response to Comment Letter L1
Response L1-a: The City thanks the Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning for including them in the noticing for the upcoming Draft 2045 Climate Action Plan. The City will review documents as they are available and provide applicable commentary. As the Climate Action Plan is not incorporated in this Project, no further commentary is required.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Final Initial Study/Negative Declaration
CComment Letter L2 – Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Final Initial Study/Negative Declaration
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Final Initial Study/Negative Declaration
Response to Comment L2
Response L2-a: Future development projects would be required to assess their utility demands with utility operators and franchises contracted within the City.
This includes the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts. As well, through CEQA review future projects will be required to ascertain whether their individual projects will require the expansion of utility facilities. Any identified significant impact would require coordination with utility providers, including the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Final Initial Study/Negative Declaration
This page intentionally left blank.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Final Initial Study/Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.0: ERRATA TO THE CITY OF ARCADIA 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT (2021-2029) IS/ND
This section includes minor edits to the Public Draft IS/ND in response to comments from the public (deleted text is shown in “strikeout” text [example], and new text is shown as underlined/italics. These modifications represent minor corrections or clarify or amplify information in the IS/ND. Revisions herein do not result in new significant environmental impacts, do not constitute significant new information, nor do they alter the conclusions of the environmental analysis.
PPage 2, bullet 1), second line.
Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by the applicant before the proposed mitigated negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and…
This IS/ND was prepared consistent with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) on the basis that there was no substantial evidence that there may have significant environmental impacts on specific en vironmental areas. If a potentially significant impact may occur, the most appropriate mitigation measure(s) would have been identified and would be applied to avoid or mitigate the potential impact to a level of less than significant.
The Environmental Checklist indicates that the proposed Project would not result in significant impacts with the implementation of mitigation measures, as identified where applicable throughout this document.
Less Than Significant with Mitigation. Pursuant to Government Code §21080.3.2(b) and §21074(a)(1)(A) -(B) (AB 52] the City has provided formal notification to California Native American tribal representatives that have previously requested notification from the City regarding projects within the geographic area traditionally and culturally affiliated with tribe(s).
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Final Initial Study/Negative Declaration
This page intentionally left blank.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Final Initial Study/Negative Declaration
SECTION 5.0: PUBLIC DRAFT IS/ND
This portion of the document includes the Public Draft IS/ND in its entirety, as was circulated during the public review period, which ran from December 17, 2021 through January 19, 2022.
The Public Draft IS/ND is provided as Appendix B, Public Draft IS/ND.
APPENDIX A: AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION
AAffidavit of Distribution
NNOI – Los Angeles County Clerk Filing Copy
DDistribution List
Agency/Organization Contact Street Address City, State, Zip Code Tracking # Southern California Gas Company 950 N. Todd Avenue Azusa, CA 91702 775510582782 Southern California Edison Attn: Environmental Review, Karen Cadavona 2244 Walnut Grove Ave, Quad 4C 472A Rosemead, CA 91770 775510 613362 City of Monrovia Attn: Craig Jimenez 415 S. Ivy Avenue Monrovia, CA 91016 775510801868 Native American Heritage Commission 1550 Harbor Blvd, Suite 100 West Sacramento, CA 95691 775510815154 City of El Monte Attn: Betty Donavanik 11333 Valley Blvd. El Monte, CA 91731 775510827592 LA County Sanitation District 15 P.O. Box 4998 Whittier, CA 90607-4998 9414811899561373844955 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation AutDevelopment Review One Gateway Plaza—Mail Stop 99-23-4 Los Angeles, CA 90012-2952 775510844025 Arcadia School District 234 Campus Drive Arcadia, CA 91007 775510854611 SCAQMD Attn: CEQA Section 21865 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 775510869810 Southern California Edison Attn: Ahmad Soloman, Region Manager 1440 S. California Avenue Monrovia, CA 91016 775510879898 Southern California Association of Governments Attn: IGR/CEQA 900 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90017 775510890425 City of Pasadena Attn: David Reyes Planning & Community Development Department 175 N. Garfield Avenue Pasadena, CA 91101 7755109001 21 Foothill Transit 100 S. Vincent Avenue., Suite 200 West Covina, CA 91790 775510911313 L.A. Metro Development Review 1 Gateway Plaza Los Angeles, CA 90012 775510920513
PProof of Delivery Confirmations
7775510582782 AZUSA, CA
775510613362 ROSEMEAD, CA
775510801868 MONROVIA, CA
775510815154 WEST SACRAMENTO, CA
775510827592 EL MONTE, CA
775510844025 LOS ANGELES, CA
775510854611 ARCADIA, CA
775510869810 DIAMOND BAR, CA
775510879898 MONROVIA, CA
775510890425 LOS ANGELES, CA
775510900121 PASADENA, CA
775510911313 WEST COVINA, CA
775510920513 LOS ANGELES, CA
You may save or print this Batch Signature Proof of Delivery file for your records.
Thank You For Choosing Fedex.
FedEx
1.800.GoFedEx 1.800.463.3339
Proof-of-delivery letters are being provided for the following shipments:
February 01, 2022
Dear Customer:
RRecipient: Shipper:
AZUSA, CA, US, Riverside, CA, US,
Reference 194343001.3.700
The following is the proof-of-delivery for tracking number: 775510582782 Thank you for choosing FedEx
Status:
Signed for by:
Service type:
Special Handling:
Delivered To:
Delivery Location:
Delivery date:
Delivery Information:
Shipping Information:
Tracking number: Ship Date:
Weight:
Deliver Weekday
FedEx Priority Overnight
Signature release on file
775510582782
Dec 16, 2021 11:08
0.5 LB/0.23 KG
Delivered
February 01, 2022
Dear Customer,
Dec 15, 2021
AZUSA, CA,
RRecipient: Shipper:
ROSEMEAD, CA, US, Riverside, CA, US,
Reference 194343001.3.700
The following is the proof-of-delivery for tracking number: 775510613362 Thank you for choosing FedEx
Status:
Signed for by:
Service type:
Special Handling:
Delivered To:
Delivery Location:
Delivery date:
Delivery Information:
Shipping Information:
Tracking number: Ship Date:
Weight:
Deliver Weekday
Shipping/Receiving
FedEx Priority Overnight
S.SAL
775510613362
Dec 16, 2021 16:27
0.5 LB/0.23 KG
Delivered
February 01, 2022
Dear Customer,
Dec 15, 2021
ROSEMEAD, CA,
RRecipient: Shipper:
MONROVIA, CA, US, Riverside, CA, US,
Reference 194343001.3.700
The following is the proof-of-delivery for tracking number: 775510801868 Thank you for choosing FedEx
Status:
Signed for by:
Service type:
Special Handling:
Delivered To:
Delivery Location:
Delivery date:
Delivery Information:
Shipping Information:
Tracking number: Ship Date:
Weight:
Deliver Weekday
FedEx Priority Overnight
Signature release on file
775510801868
Dec 16, 2021 11:54
0.5 LB/0.23 KG
Delivered
February 01, 2022
Dear Customer,
Dec 15, 2021
MONROVIA, CA,
RRecipient: Shipper:
WEST SACRAMENTO, CA, US, Riverside, CA, US,
Reference 194343001.3.700
The following is the proof-of-delivery for tracking number: 775510815154 Thank you for choosing FedEx
Status:
Signed for by:
Service type:
Special Handling:
Delivered To:
Delivery Location:
Delivery date:
Delivery Information:
Shipping Information:
Tracking number: Ship Date:
Weight:
Deliver Weekday
Receptionist/Front Desk
FedEx Priority Overnight
E.ARCHER
775510815154
Dec 16, 2021 10:12
0.5 LB/0.23 KG
Delivered
February 01, 2022
Dear Customer,
Dec 15, 2021
WEST SACRAMENTO, CA,
RRecipient: Shipper:
EL MONTE, CA, US, Riverside, CA, US,
Reference 194343001.3.700
The following is the proof-of-delivery for tracking number: 775510827592 Thank you for choosing FedEx
Status:
Signed for by:
Service type:
Special Handling:
Delivered To:
Delivery Location:
Delivery date:
Delivery Information:
Shipping Information:
Tracking number: Ship Date:
Weight:
Deliver Weekday
Receptionist/Front Desk
FedEx Priority Overnight
C.HALL
775510827592
Dec 16, 2021 13:18
0.5 LB/0.23 KG
Delivered
February 01, 2022
Dear Customer,
Dec 15, 2021
EL MONTE, CA,
RRecipient: Shipper:
LOS ANGELES, CA, US, Riverside, CA, US,
Reference 194343001.3.700
The following is the proof-of-delivery for tracking number: 775510844025 Thank you for choosing FedEx
Status:
Signed for by:
Service type:
Special Handling:
Delivered To:
Delivery Location:
Delivery date:
Delivery Information:
Shipping Information:
Tracking number: Ship Date:
Weight:
Deliver Weekday
Shipping/Receiving
FedEx Priority Overnight
D.YOUNG
775510844025
Dec 16, 2021 10:40
0.5 LB/0.23 KG
Delivered
February 01, 2022
Dear Customer,
Dec 15, 2021
LOS ANGELES, CA,
RRecipient: Shipper:
ARCADIA, CA, US, Riverside, CA, US,
Reference 194343001.3.700
The following is the proof-of-delivery for tracking number: 775510854611 Thank you for choosing FedEx
Status:
Signed for by:
Service type:
Special Handling:
Delivered To:
Delivery Location:
Delivery date:
Delivery Information:
Shipping Information:
Tracking number: Ship Date:
Weight:
Deliver Weekday
FedEx Priority Overnight
Signature release on file
775510854611
Dec 17, 2021 13:08
0.5 LB/0.23 KG
Delivered
February 01, 2022
Dear Customer,
Dec 15, 2021
ARCADIA, CA,
RRecipient: Shipper:
DIAMOND BAR, CA, US, Riverside, CA, US,
Reference 194343001.3.700
The following is the proof-of-delivery for tracking number: 775510869810 Thank you for choosing FedEx
Status:
Signed for by:
Service type:
Special Handling:
Delivered To:
Delivery Location:
Delivery date:
Delivery Information:
Shipping Information:
Tracking number: Ship Date:
Weight:
Deliver Weekday
Mailroom
FedEx Priority Overnight
N.TEJADA
775510869810
Dec 16, 2021 11:33
0.5 LB/0.23 KG
Delivered
February 01, 2022
Dear Customer,
Dec 15, 2021
DIAMOND BAR, CA,
RRecipient: Shipper:
MONROVIA, CA, US, Riverside, CA, US,
Reference 194343001.3.700
The following is the proof-of-delivery for tracking number: 775510879898 Thank you for choosing FedEx
Status:
Signed for by:
Service type:
Special Handling:
Delivered To:
Delivery Location:
Delivery date:
Delivery Information:
Shipping Information:
Tracking number: Ship Date:
Weight:
Deliver Weekday
FedEx Priority Overnight
Signature release on file
775510879898
Dec 16, 2021 10:13
0.5 LB/0.23 KG
Delivered
February 01, 2022
Dear Customer,
Dec 15, 2021
MONROVIA, CA,
RRecipient: Shipper:
LOS ANGELES, CA, US, Riverside, CA, US,
Reference 194343001.3.700
The following is the proof-of-delivery for tracking number: 775510890425 Thank you for choosing FedEx
Status:
Signed for by:
Service type:
Special Handling:
Delivered To:
Delivery Location:
Delivery date:
Delivery Information:
Shipping Information:
Tracking number: Ship Date:
Weight:
Deliver Weekday
FedEx Priority Overnight
Signature release on file
775510890425
Dec 16, 2021 10:02
0.5 LB/0.23 KG
Delivered
February 01, 2022
Dear Customer,
Dec 15, 2021
LOS ANGELES, CA,
RRecipient: Shipper:
PASADENA, CA, US, Riverside, CA, US,
Reference 194343001.3.700
The following is the proof-of-delivery for tracking number: 775510900121 Thank you for choosing FedEx
Status:
Signed for by:
Service type:
Special Handling:
Delivered To:
Delivery Location:
Delivery date:
Delivery Information:
Shipping Information:
Tracking number: Ship Date:
Weight:
Deliver Weekday
Receptionist/Front Desk
FedEx Priority Overnight
M.SHAYLA
775510900121
Dec 16, 2021 10:42
0.5 LB/0.23 KG
Delivered
February 01, 2022
Dear Customer,
Dec 15, 2021
PASADENA, CA,
RRecipient: Shipper:
WEST COVINA, CA, US, Riverside, CA, US,
Reference 194343001.3.700
The following is the proof-of-delivery for tracking number: 775510911313 Thank you for choosing FedEx
Status:
Signed for by:
Service type:
Special Handling:
Delivered To:
Delivery Location:
Delivery date:
Delivery Information:
Shipping Information:
Tracking number: Ship Date:
Weight:
Deliver Weekday
Receptionist/Front Desk
FedEx Priority Overnight
C.VARIOS
775510911313
Dec 16, 2021 12:25
0.5 LB/0.23 KG
Delivered
February 01, 2022
Dear Customer,
Dec 15, 2021
WEST COVINA, CA,
RRecipient: Shipper:
LOS ANGELES, CA, US, Riverside, CA, US,
Reference 194343001.3.700
The following is the proof-of-delivery for tracking number: 775510920513 Thank you for choosing FedEx
Status:
Signed for by:
Service type:
Special Handling:
Delivered To:
Delivery Location:
Delivery date:
Delivery Information:
Shipping Information:
Tracking number: Ship Date:
Weight:
Deliver Weekday
Shipping/Receiving
FedEx Priority Overnight
D.YOUNG
775510920513
Dec 16, 2021 10:40
0.5 LB/0.23 KG
Delivered
February 01, 2022
Dear Customer,
Dec 15, 2021
LOS ANGELES, CA,
From: [email protected]
To: FyneNsofor, John
Subject: USPS® Item Delivered 9414811899561373844955
Date: Tuesday, February 1, 2022 2:09:05 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important Hello John,
Your item was delivered at 9:31
am on December 17, 2021 in
WHITTIER, CA 90607.
Tracking Number:
9414811899561373844955
Delivered
Tracking & Delivery Options
My Account
Visit USPS Tracking® to check the most up-to-date
status of your package. Sign up for Informed
Delivery® to digitally preview the address side of your incoming letter-sized mail and manage your packages
scheduled to arrive soon! To update how frequently
you receive emails from USPS, log in to your
USPS.com
account.
Want regular updates on your package? Set up text
alerts.
Download USPS Mobile
®
USPS.com | Privacy Policy | Customer Service | FAQs
Delivery date and time depends on origin, destination and Post Office™ acceptance time and is subject to change. Delivery options are subject to restrictions and may not be available for your item.
This is an automated email; please do not reply to this message.
This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information.
If you have received it in error, please delete. Any other use of the email by you is prohibited.
Copyright © 2022. All rights reserved.
APPENDIX B: PUBLIC DRAFT IS/ND
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft
INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION
December 2021
Prepared By:
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
3880 Lemon Street, Suite 420
Riverside, CA 92501
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Initial Study/Negative Declaration
Page i December 2021
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Project Overview .......................................................................................................... ..... 1
1.2 Lead Agency ............................................................................................................... ....... 2
1.3 Purpose and Scope of the Initial Study ............................................................................. 2
1.4 Environmental Resource Topics ........................................................................................ 3
1.5 Document Organization .................................................................................................... 3
1.6 Permits and Approvals ..................................................................................................... . 3
1.7 Summary of Findings ....................................................................................................... .. 4
1.8 Initial Study Review Process .............................................................................................. 4
1.9 Project Applicant(s)/Sponsor(s) ........................................................................................ 4
2.0 Project Description ................................................................................................. 5
2.1 Location .................................................................................................................. ........... 5
2.2 Environmental Setting ....................................................................................................... 5
2.3 Background ................................................................................................................ ..... 11
2.4 Project Characteristics ................................................................................................... . 15
2.5 Development Capacity Projections for Future Site Development .................................. 22
2.6 Project Approvals ......................................................................................................... ... 23
3.0 INITIAL STUDY ...................................................................................................... 37 I. Aesthetics ........................................................................................................................ 54 II. Agriculture and Forestry ................................................................................................. 57 III. Air Quality........................................................................................................................ 58 IV. Biological Resources ........................................................................................................ 64 V. Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................... 68 VI. Energy .............................................................................................................................. 70 VII. Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................ 72 VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................. 76 IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................................................................... 79 X. Hydrology and Water Quality.......................................................................................... 83 XI. Land Use and Planning .................................................................................................... 89 XII. Mineral Resources ........................................................................................................... 91 XIII. Noise ................................................................................................................................ 92 XIV. Population and Housing .................................................................................................. 96 Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Initial Study/Negative Declaration
Page ii December 2021
XV. Public Services ............................................................................................................... 100 XVI. Recreation ..................................................................................................................... 103 XVII. Transportation............................................................................................................... 105 XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources .............................................................................................. 108 XIX. Utilities and Service Systems ......................................................................................... 109 XX. Wildfire .......................................................................................................................... 114 XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance .............................................................................. 117 XXII. References ..................................................................................................................... 119
List of Tables
Table 1: Population Growth (2010 – 2045) ................................................................................................... 6 Table 2: Housing Units (2010-2020).............................................................................................................. 7 Table 3: Candidate Housing Sites - Existing General Plan Land Use Designations ....................................... 8 Table 4: Candidate Housing Sites - Existing Zoning .................................................................................... 10 Table 5: Households by Income Category in Arcadia.................................................................................. 13 Table 6: City of Arcadia 2021-2029 RHNA Allocation ................................................................................. 15 Table 7: Summary of RHNA Status and Sites Inventory (Housing Units) .................................................... 17 Table 8: Maximum Noise Levels Generated by Construction Equipment .................................................. 92 Table 9: Population Increase from Housing Element ................................................................................. 96
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1: Regional Map .............................................................................................................................. 24 Exhibit 2: Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................................ 25 Exhibit 3: Map of Candidate Housing Sites ................................................................................................. 26 Exhibit 4: Map of Downtown Mixed-Use Expansion .................................................................................. 27 Exhibit 5: Map of Downtown Mixed-Use Overlay ...................................................................................... 28 Exhibit 6: Map Site Inventory – Mixed-Use Upzone (1) .............................................................................. 29 Exhibit 7: Map of Site Inventory – Mixed-Use Upzone (2) .......................................................................... 30 Exhibit 8: Map of Site Inventory – (Live Oak Corridor) Residential Flex Overlays ...................................... 31 Exhibit 9: Map of Site Inventory – C-G Residential Flex Overlay ................................................................ 32 Exhibit 10: Map of Site Inventory – R-3 Upzone (1) .................................................................................... 33 Exhibit 11: Map of Site Inventory – R-3 Upzone (2) .................................................................................... 34 Exhibit 12: Map of Site Inventory – R-3 Upzone (3) .................................................................................... 35 Exhibit 13: Map of Site Inventory – Arcadia Golf Course ............................................................................ 36 Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Initial Study/Negative Declaration
1.0 INTRODUCTION
11.1 Project Overview
This Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) was prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates (Kimley-Horn) for the City of Arcadia (City) to assess whether there may be significant environmental impacts of future housing development on the candidate housing sites and of the other Project components described in Section 2.0 Project Description, associated with the proposed 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (HEU) Project (Project). The Project includes 7,222 candidate housing units within the City’s boundaries; see Appendix A: Candidate Housing Sites Inventory. The candidate housing units are located with in 751 sites, totaling approximately 512 acres. The Project area and candidate housing site locations are illustrated on Exhibit 3: Map of Candidate Housing Sites.
Per California Government Code (CGC) §§65580 – 65589.11, also referred to as the California Housing Law, jurisdictions are required to mainta in and update Housing Elements within their General Plans. Furthermore, CGC §§65580–65589.8 require that jurisdictions evaluate their Housing Elements every eight (8) years. Currently, this regulation requires jurisdictions to update their Housing Element for the 2021 to 2029 6t h Cycle Housing Element Update. The City is preparing an update for its Housing Element, which will include updated goals and policies intended to increase the City’s housing potential to combat the growing housing scarcity in the State.
The HEU will provide the City with a coordinated and comprehensive strategy for promoting the production of safe, decent, and affordable housing for all within the City. The HEU will be prepared to ensure the City establishes policie s, procedures, and incentives in its land use planning and development activities that result in maintenance and expansion of the housing supply to adequately accommodate households currently living and expected to live in the City.
The Arcadia’s HEU consists of four (4) sections, Chapters 5 and 10 of the Arcadia General Plan (2010), a Technical Background Section, and associated appendices. The HEU is intended to summarize the existing status of the City’s communities, the City’s existing housing strategy, and provide updated policies to be implemented for the 6th Cycle. To assist the State in mitigating its current housing crisis, in which residents are facing a shortage of housing units, the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) Determines Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) for all the metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) statewide.
HCD approves and the Southern California Associ ation of Governments (SCAG) adopts SCAG’s RHNA allocation methodology for 196 jurisdictions in the SCAG region, which includes the City of Arcadia.
Based on SCAG’s final adopted RHNA allocation in March 20201, the City’s RHNA allocation was finalized as 3,214 dwelling units (DUs). This is broken down between each income category as:
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Initial Study/Negative Declaration
• 1,102 units for very low-income households;
• 570 units for low-income households;
• 605 units for moderate-income households; and
• 937 units for above moderate-income households
This IS/ND was prepared consistent with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) on the basis that there was no substantial evidence that there may have significant environmental impacts on specific envi ronmental areas. If a potentially significant impact may occur, the most appropriate mitigati on measure(s) have been identified and would be applied to avoid or mitigate the potential impact to a level of less than significant.
11.2 LLead Agency
The lead agency is the public agency with prim ary responsibility for a proposed project. Where two or more public agencies will be involved with a project, CEQA Guidelines §15051 establishes criteria for identifying the lead agency. In accord ance with CEQA Guidelines §15051(b) (1), “the lead agency will normally be the agency with ge neral governmental powers, such as a city or county, rather than an agency with a single or limited purpose.” Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines §15367 and based on the criterion above, the City of Arcadia is the lead agency for the proposed Project.
1.3 Purpose and Scope of the Initial Study
In accordance with CEQA (Ca lifornia Public Resources Code [PRC] §21000 et seq.) and its Guidelines (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 14, §15000 et seq.), this IS/ND has been prepared to evaluate the potential environmenta l effects associated with the construction and operation of the Project.
Per State CEQA Guidelines, §15070, a public agency shall prepare or have prepared a proposed negative declaration or ND for a project subject to CEQA when:
a) The initial study shows no substantial evidence , in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, or b) The initial study identifies potentially significant effects, but:
1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by the applicant before the proposed mitigated negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and
2) There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Initial Study/Negative Declaration
11.4 Environmental Resource Topics
This IS/ND evaluates the proposed Project’s impacts on the following resource topics:
• Aesthetics
• Agricultural and Forestry Resources
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Energy
• Geology and Soils
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use and Planning
• Mineral Resources
• Noise
• Population and Housing
• Public Services
• Recreation
• Transportation
• Tribal Cultural Resources
• Utilities and Service Systems
• Wildfire
• Mandatory Findings of Significance
1.5 Document Organization
This IS/ND is divided into the following sections:
Section 1.0: Introduction – This section describes the purpose and organization of the document.
Section 2.0: Project Description describes the whole of the Project in detail. It also identifies any other public agencies whose review, approval, and/or permits may be required.
Section 3.0: Initial Study Environmental Checklist and Evaluation – This section describes the environmental setting and overview for each of the environmental resource topics, using the City of Arcadia’s Form J: Initial Study. It evaluates a range of impacts classified as “no impact,” “less than significant impact,” “less than significan t impact with mitigation incorporated,” and “potentially significant impact” in response to the CEQA Appendix G: Environmental Checklist Form (Environmental Checklist).
Section 4.0: References: The section identifies resources used to prepare the initial study.
1.6 Permits and Approvals
Upon its adoption by the Arcadia City Council, the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update would serve as a comprehensive statement of City’s housing policy and program of actions to support those policies. The Project involves approval of the following City of Arcadia entitlement:
General Plan Amendment for Housing Element adoption (GPA 21-02) to include the 6 th Cycle Housing Element.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
11.7 Summary of Findings
Section 3.0 of this document contains the Environmental Checklist (Arcadia Form J – Initial Study) that was prepared for the proposed Project pursuant to Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines.
The Environmental Checklist indicates that the pr oposed Project would not result in significant impacts with the implementation of mitigation measures, as identified where applicable throughout this document.
1.8 Initial Study Review Process
The IS and a Notice of Intent (NOI) to adopt an ND will be distributed to responsible and trustee agencies, other affected agencies, and other parties for a 30-day public review period.
Written comments regarding this ND should be addressed to:
Lisa Flores – Planning & Community Development Administrator 240 West Huntington Drive
P.O. Box 60021
Arcadia, CA 91066-6021
626-574-5445
[email protected]
Comments submitted to the City during the 30-d ay public review period will be considered and addressed prior to the adoption of the ND by the City.
1.9 Project Applicant(s)/Sponsor(s)
City of Arcadia
240 West Huntington Drive
P.O. Box 60021
Arcadia, CA 91066-6021
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
22.1 Location
The City of Arcadia (City) is located in cent ral Los Angeles County (Co unty) in the northwest portion of the San Gabriel Valley (Valley). The City is bounded by the San Gabriel Mountains, the Angeles National Forest, and the City of Sierra Ma dre to the north, the City of Pasadena to the northwest, the City of Monrovia to the east and northeast, Temple City to the southwest, and unincorporated County communities to the west an d southeast. Regional access to the City is provided via the Interstate 210 Freeway (I-210), which runs in an east-west direction through the northern portion of the City. The Interstate 605 Freeway (I-605), known as the San Gabriel River Freeway), runs in a north-south direction, is approximately 0.18 miles east of the City’s southeastern edge. Exhibit 1: Regional Map depicts the City’s location in a regional context, while Exhibit 2: Local Vicinity Map depicts the City in a local context.
This Initial Study considers candidate housing sites to accommodate 7,222 units within the City’s boundaries. The proposed number of available candidate housing units exceeds the City’s RHNA allocation of 3,214 by 4,008 units.; see Appendix A: Candidate Housing Sites Inventory . The candidate housing sites are comprised of 751 parcels totaling approximately 512 acres. The Project area and candidate housing site locations are illustrated in Exhibit 3: Map of Candidate Housing Sites. Solely for analysis purposes, the candidate housing sites identified in Appendix A have been assigned a numeric label, as depicted on Exhibits 3 through 13.
2.2 Environmental Setting
Physical Setting
Arcadia is located in the northwest portion of the Valley and in the central portion of Los Angeles County. The County covers an approximately 4,084- square-mile area in th e Southern California region and the Valley covers approximately 400-square-mile area.1 The Valley is bounded on the north by the San Gabriel Mountains, on the west by the Repetto and Merced Hills, on the south by the Puente Hills, and on the east by the San Jose Hills.2 The City encompasses approximately 7,109 acres of land area or 11.1 square miles.3 As described above, the City is bordered by the San Gabriel Mountains, the Angeles National Forest, and the City of Sierra Madre to the north, the City of Pasadena to the northwest, the City of Monrovia to the east and northeast, Temple City to the southwest, and unincorporated County communities to the west and southeast.
1 City of Arcadia. General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, November 2010 . Available at https://www.arcadiaca.gov/shape/development_services_department/planning___zoning/general_plan.php#outer-708. Accessed on October 15, 2021.
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
The City is predominantly comprised of resident ial land uses, with other notable land uses including the Los Angeles Arboretum, Santa Anit a Racetrack, Arcadia County Park, Westfield Santa Anita Mall, and Santa Anita Golf Course; as well as various commercial and industrial areas throughout the City.
Population
The 2010 Census reported the total population for the City to be 56,364 persons, which is higher than the neighboring City of Monrovia (to th e east), but significantly lower than nearby jurisdictions, such as Pasadena (to the west ) and El Monte (to the south); as shown in Table 1:
Population Growth (2010 – 2045) . In addition to the data shown in Table 1 , the California Department of Finance (DOF) estimated the tota l population for Arcadia to be approximately 57,660 persons in 2020. 4 Therefore, from 2010 to 2020, the City’s population increased by approximately 2.58 percent (or 1,456 persons) . The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) compiled a Regional Growth Forecast using data and direction from multiple state entities to produce socio-econ omic estimates and projections at multiple geographic levels and in multiple years. The SCAG’s 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities (RTP/SCS) projected Arcadia’s population to be 62,200 persons by 2045.5 Therefore, from 2020 to 2045, the City is expected to see an increase in population of 7.58 percent (or 4,380 persons), simila r to the City of Pasadena’s pr ojected increase, but less than Cities of Monrovia and El Monte. Table 1 shows the projected growth for Arcadia, the Cities of Monrovia, Pasadena, and El Monte, and the County of Los Angeles.
Table 1: Population Growth (2010 – 2045)
Jurisdictions
Population Percent Change
2010
Actual1
2020
Estimate2
2045
Projected3 2010-2020 2020-2045
Monrovia 36,590 37,964 42,100 3.76% 10.90%
Pasadena 137,122 145,061 155,500 5.79% 7.20%
Arcadia 56,364 57,820 62,200 2.58% 7.58%
El Monte 113,475 116,876 137,500 3.00% 17.65%
Los Angeles County 9,818,605 10,135,614 11,674,000 3.23% 15.18% Sources:
1 U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census of Population and Housing 2 DOF E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates 1/1/2020. 3 SCAG Connect SoCal 2020-2045 Demographics and Growth Forecast (September 3, 2020).
Housing
In 2020, the California Department of Finance (DOF) estimated a total of 21,237 housing units in the City. According to the DOF, the City’s housing stock increased by 2.66 percent (551 housing units) between 2010 and 2020. Single-family de tached housing units were the most common
4 California Department of Finance. E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates with 2010 Census Benchmark, 1/1/2020. Available at https://dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/e-5/. Accessed on October 17, 2021. 5 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Retrieved from 2016-2040 RTP/SCS Final Growth Forecast by Jurisdiction. Accessed on October 6, 2021.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
housing type in Arcadia in 2020, comprising approximately 70.34 percent (or 14,939 units).
Table 2: Housing Units (2010-2020) shows the increase in the number of housing unit comparison between the City of Arcadia and neighboring Cities of Monrovia, Pasadena, and El Monte, and the County of Los Angeles. Arcadia experienced a smaller increase when compared to Monrovia, Pasadena, and the County. However, the City had a higher increase in the number of housing units when compared to the City of El Monte.
Table 2: Housing Units (2010-2020)
Jurisdictions Housing Units Percent Change
2010 2020 Estimate 2010-2020
Monrovia 14,473 15,084 4.22%
Pasadena 59,551 62,753 5.38%
Arcadia 20,686 21,237 2.66%
El Monte 29,069 29,588 1.79%
Los Angeles County 3,443,087 3,590,574 4.28%
Source: Department of Finance. May 2021. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2021 with 2010 Census Benchmark. https://www.dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5/.
Candidate Housing Sites
Every eight (8) years, SCAG prepares and designates Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for each local jurisdiction. For the 2021-2029 pl anning period, Arcadia is required to meet the RHNA number of 3,214 housing units. The Housin g Element is required to identify potential candidate housing sites by income category to meet the City’s RHNA Allocation. The sites identified within the Housing Element represent the City’s plan for housing at the designated income levels within the 6th housing cycle pla nning period. The identified sites are either residentially zoned at a minimum of 30 dwelling un its per acre (du/ac) or within areas of focus identified by the City with supporting strategies to stimulate future housing growth.
To select the sites, the City evaluated candidate housing sites based on surrounding and existing on-site development to determine the extent to which on-site uses have the potential to redevelop within the planning period (2021-2029). The City identified 751 parcels within a variety of different residentially and non-residentially zoned areas. These 751 parcels have the capacity to accommodate up to approximated 7,222 total housing units, which includes 1,087 units under pipeline projects, 1,091 units within existing residentially zoned land, 385 projected accessory dwelling units (ADUs), and 4,748 units under rezone strategies. The candidate housing site inventory in Appendix A provides a breakdown of these housing sites.
General Plan
The Arcadia General Plan (Arcadia GP) and th e Arcadia GP Environmental Impact Report (Arcadia GP EIR) were adopted and certified in November 2010. The Arcadia GP provides the City’s long-range planning goals and policies for development within the City. The Arcadia GP is the City’s vision for growth to 2035. Arcadia GP Chapters 2 through 9 include the necessary GP elements: Land Use and Community Design, Economic Development, Circulation and Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
Infrastructure, Housing, Resources Sustainability, Parks, Recreation, and Community Resources, Safety, and Noise.
The Land Use and Community Design Element establishes land use designations for the City. The existing land use designations for the identified candidate housing sites are described in Table 3:
Candidate Housing Sites - Existing General Plan Land Use Designations.
Table 3: Candidate Housing Sites - Existing General Plan Land Use Designations Land Use Designation Description
Commercial (C) The Commercial designation with a 0.5 Floor Area Ratio (FAR ) is intended to permit a wide range of commercial us es which serve both neighborhood and citywide markets. The designation a llows a broad array of commercial enterprises, including restaurants, durable goods sales, fo od stores, lodging, professional offices, specialty shops, indoor and outdoor recreational facilities, and entertainment uses. Adjacent to Do wntown, the Commercial designation is intended to encourage small-scale office and neighborhood-serving commercial uses that complement develo pment in the Downtown Mixed -Use areas. While the land use designation provides th e general parameters within which development must take place, the Zoning Code or other land use regulatory document specifies the type and intensit y of uses that will be permitted in a given area. In the Downtown area, for example, where properties are designated Commercial, land use regulations might specify that restaurants and cafes are permitted, but secondhand stores are not. The Zoning Code and other regulatory documents also indicate permitted buildin g height limits for specific properties.
Maximum FAR – 0.50 (0.30 FAR for Santa Anita Park) Higher intensity overlays are applied to portions of Downtown along Santa Anita Avenue, Colorado Place, and Huntington Drive (1.0 FAR).
Building Height: up to 48 feet in the Do wntown area (including Santa Anita Avenue, Colorado Place, and Huntington Drive); up to 40 feet for commercial uses outside of Downtown
Commercial (C 1.0) The Commercial designation that allows mixed-use development with a density of 80 du/acre and a 1.0 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is within the City’s Downtown area.
This Commercial designation is intended to encourage a strong pedestrian- oriented environ ment that provides a variety of retai l and service uses, restaurants, and neighborhood -serving commercial uses that complement development in the Downtown Mixed -Use areas. In order to provide the residential population that is required to support the uses in the downtown and around the Metro Gold Line transit station, residential uses in a mixed- use development are permitted above ground floor commercial or adjacent to a commercial use. The Development Code and other regulatory documents also indicate permitted building height limits for specific properties. Maximum FAR –
1.0 (only commercial square footage is counted in calculation of FAR) Unit Density: Up to 80 du/ac - Maximum Height: Up to 60 feet Downtown Mixed Use (DMU) The Downtown Mixed-Use designation provides opportunities for complementary service and retail commercial businesses, professional offices, and residential uses to locate within the City's downtown. Downtown Mixed Use encourages the inclusion of a ground
-floor, street- frontage commercial
component, but is not required. Resi dential uses in a mixed- use development are permitted above ground floor commercial or adjacent to a commercial use.
Mixed commercial/office and residential tenancies and standalone commercial or office uses are allowed . However, exclusively residential bu ildings are not allowed. Development approaches encourage shared use of parking areas and Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
Land Use Designation Description
public open spaces, pedestrian travel ways, and interaction of uses within the district. Particular features that will define Downtown include public open space as an integral component of the Gold Line station, as well as any larger mixed- use or commercial developments. Guided by the policies and vision of the General Plan, a specific pl an or subsequent zoning changes for Downtown will contain detailed development standards, infrastructure requirements, land use regulations, and implementation measures for coordinated development.
Maximum FAR: 1.0 (only commercial square footage is counted in calculation of FAR) Unit Density: Up to 80 du/ac - Maximum Height: up to 60 feet Mixed Use (MU) The Mixed-Use designation provides opportunities for commercial and residential mixed-use development that takes advantage of easy access to transit and proximity to employment centers, and that provide complementary mixes of uses that support and encourage pedestrian activity. Mixed- use districts support commercial uses that integrate well with residential activity without creating conflicts. Development approaches encourage shared use of parking areas and public open spaces, pedestrian movement, and inter action of uses within a mixed -use district. Design approaches should minimize or limit curb cuts/driveways at the front of the development when rear or side egress options are available. Residential uses in a mixed-use development are permitted above ground floor commercial or adjacent to a commercial use. Mixed commercial/office and residential tenancies and stand -alone commercial or office uses are allowed. However, exclusively residential buildings are not.
Maximum FAR – 1.0 (only commercial square foota ge is counted in calculation of FAR) Unit Density: 22 -30 du/ac - Maximum Height: up to 40 feet Medium Density Residential
(MDR)
The Medium Density Residential desi gnation accommodates varied housing types and sizes within a suburban neighborhood context. Permitted residential uses include detached and attached residences with private and/or shared yards and open space areas. Other uses that may be appropriate, consistent with zoning regulations, include public and private schools, pub lic parks, and other open space uses.
Unit Density: 6 to 12 du/ac Typical Population Density: 17-35 persons per acre High Density Residential (HDR) The High-Density Residential design ation accommodates higher-density attached housing types for both rente r and owner households within a neighborhood context. Such housing ty pes generally are located near transit stops, along arterials and transit corridors , and within easy walking distance of shops and services. Appropriate transition to adjacent lower -density neighborhoods is required through the us e of yards, other open areas, and building heights. Other uses that may be appropriate, consistent with zoning regulations, include public and private schools, public parks, and other open space uses. Unit Density : 12 to 30 du/ac - Typical Population Density: 34- 86 persons per acre
Commercial/ Light Industrial
(C/LI)
The Commercial/Light Industrial designation provides areas for a complementary mix of light manufacturing businesse s, limited auto service and repai r, and support office and retail uses. The desi gnation recognizes the importance of small-scale industrial and quasi-industrial businesses for the community in terms of business start -ups/entrepreneurship, job provision, residents’ access to needed goods a nd services, and revenue from point-of- sales operations. Such uses are low scale, with development an d operating conditions built into the development to minimize impact on surrounding uses. Permitted retail uses are limited to those that support the indus trial businesses. Larger-scale commercial uses will be considered on a case -by-case basis in the Lower Azusa Road Reclamation area. Maximum FAR: 0.50
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
Land Use Designation Description
Open Space – Outdoor
Recreation (OS-OR)
The Open Space–Outdoor Recreation desi gnation encompasses all City, county, state, and federal parks and associated fa cilities, including private facilities on leased public lands. The designation identi fies public lands intended to be used for active and passive recreational activities, such as parks, golf courses, tr ails, and the Arboretum. Public lands used as detention basins may also be designated Open Space – Outdoor Recreation when co-located with active recreational uses or when open spaces serve two uses, such as a sports field and a detention basin.
Maximum FAR: N/A
Source: City of Arcadia. (2010). City of Arcadia General Plan. Chapter 2: Land Use and Community Design Element. Retrieved from:
https://www.arcadiaca.gov/Shape%20Arcadia/Development%20Services/general%20plan/Land%20Use%20Element%20Update%20Final.pdf.
Accessed on October 15, 2021.
Zoning
The City’s Zoning Code/Development Code (Arcadia DC) can be found in City of Arcadia Municipal Code (Arcadia MC) Article IX Chapter 1. The Arcadia DC’s intent is to regulate the use and development of land within the City, consistent with the Arcadia GP.6 The existing zoning for each of the candidate housing sites is specified in Appendix A and each zone is described below in Table 4: Existing Zoning.
Table 4: Candidate Housing Sites - Existing Zoning
Zone Description
Commercial Manufacturing (C-M) The C-M zone is intended to provid e areas for a complementary mix of light manufacturing businesses, mino r vehicle service and repairs, and support office and retail uses. A wide range of small-scale industrial and quasi-industrial uses with minimal impact to surrounding uses are appropriate. Retail use s are limited to business services, food service, and convenience goods for those who work in the area. Residential uses are not permitted in this zone. This zone implements the General Plan Commercial/Light Industrial designation.
Downtown Mixed Use (DMU) The Downtown Mixed-Use zone is intended to provide opportunities for complementary service and retail commercial businesses, professional offices, and residential uses located within the City’s downtown. A wide range of commercial and residential uses are appropriate, oriented towards pedestrians to encourage shared use of parking, public open space, and interaction of uses with in the zone. Residential uses are permitted above ground floor commercial or adjacent to a commercial development. Both uses must be located on the same lot or on the same project site, and exclusive residentia l structures are not allowed. This zone implements the General Plan Downtown Mixed-Use designation.
General Commercial (C-G) The C-G zone is intended to provid e areas for retail and service uses, offices, restaurants, public uses, and similar and compatible uses. This zone implements the General Plan Commercial designation.
Specific Plan-Arroyo Pacific (SP-AP) The purpose of the Arroyo Pacific Academy Specific Plan is to create an educational campus that is pe destrian-oriented and integrated with the surrounding area. More specifically, the Specific Plan creates a zone for a high school use on N. Santa Anit a Avenue at the ed ge of Downtown Arcadia.
6 City of Arcadia. Municipal Code Article IX Chapter 1 – Development Code. Available at https://library.municode.com/ca/arcadia/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=ARTIXDIUSLA_CH1DECO_DIV1ENAPEN_S9101.01PUAPDECOAc cessed on October 15, 2021.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
Zone Description
Commercial Business District (CBD)
The Commercial Business District zone is intended to promote a strong pedestrian-oriented environment and to serve community and regional needs for retail and service uses, professional offices, restaurants, public uses, and other similar and compat ible uses. Residential uses are permitted above ground floor commerci al or adjacent to a commercial development. Both uses must be located on the same lot or on the same project site. This zone implemen ts the General Plan Commercial designation.
Medium Density Residential (R-2)
The R-2 zone is intended to provide areas for a variety of dwelling types and accessory uses compatible with the residential use of the zone.
Types of dwelling units include attached or detached single - unit and multi-unit homes and duplexes at a density of six to 12 dwelling units per acre. This zone implements is the General Plan Medium Density Residential designation.
High Density Residential Zone (R-3)
The R-3 zone is intended to provid e areas for a variety of medium- to high-density residential development and a ccessory uses compatible with the residential use of the zone. Types of dwelling units include single unit attached, townhomes, condominiums, and apartment structures at a density of 12 to 30 units per acre. This zone implements the General Plan High Density Residential designation.
Mixed Use (MU)
The Mixed-Use zone is intended to provide opportunities for commercial and residential mixed -use development that takes advantage of easy access to transit and proximity to employment centers and encourages pedestrian activity. A wide range of integrated commercial and residential uses are appropriate. Residential uses are permitted above ground floor commercial or adjacent to a commercial development. Both uses must be lo cated on the same lot or on the same proje ct site, and exclusive residential structures are not allowed. This zone implements the General Plan Mixed Use designation.
Professional Commercial (C-O)
The C-O zone is intended to pr ovide sites for development as administrative, financial, business, professional, medical and governmental offices. This zone implements the General Plan Commercial designation.
Open Space – Outdoor Recreation
(OS-OR)
The OS-OR zone is intended to provide areas to be used for active and passive recreational activities, such as parks, golf courses, trails, and the Los Angeles County Arboretum. This zone implements the General Plan Open Space-Outdoor Recreation designation.
Source: City of Arcadia. (2016). City of Arcadia Development Code Title IX, Division 2. Available at https://www.arcadiaca.gov/Shape%20Arcadia/Development%20Services/development%20code/2021%20Update/Arcadia%20DevCode%20 -%20Division%202%20Zones,%20Uses,%20and%20Standards%20-TA%207-19-2021.pdf. Accessed on October 15, 2021.
22.3 Background
State Policy and Authorization
California State Housing Element Law (California Government Code Article 10.6), enacted in 1969, establishes the requirements for Housing Elemen ts. California Government Code (CGC) §65583 requires that local governments review and revise the Housing Element of their comprehensive General Plans not less than once every eight years. Additionally, the California Legislature identifies overall housing goals for the state to ensure every resident has access to housing and a suitable living environment.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
Housing Element
Through the Housing Element, all California jurisdictions (cities and counties) are mandated to adequately plan to meet the housing needs of everyone in the community, regardless of economic status.7 State law requires each city and county to adopt a General Plan as a “blueprint” for its physical development. A General Plan is a key tool that addresses a variety of subject areas and expresses the community's development goals related to the jurisdiction’s future land uses.
The Housing Element, one of seven State-mandated General Plan elements (i.e., Land Use, Housing, Circulation, Noise, Safety, Open Space, and Conservation), is prepared according to CGC §65583 requirements. California Government Co de §65583 sets forth the specific content requirements of a jurisdiction’s housing element. Included in these requirements are obligations on the part of local jurisdictions to provide their “fair share” of regional housing needs.
The City’s Housing Element is designated as Arcadia GP Chapter 5. Arcadia’s Housing Element was last adopted in 2013 for the 5th Cycle Update – 2013-2021 planning period. The City of Arcadia 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 2021-2029 (HEU or Project) is a comprehensive update to the 5th Cycle Update. The HEU is part of a new update cycle for jurisdictions within the SCAG region to allow for synchronization with SC AG’s Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). The Housing Element sets forth an eight (8) -year strategy to address the City’s identified housing needs, including specific implementing programs and activities. Some amendments have been made to Housing Element law since adoption of the City’s 5th Cycle Housing Element 2013-2021. These new statutory provisions change the Housing Element’s analysis reporting and policy requ irements. The Project complies with these amendments to state housing law and all other federal, state, and local requirements.
Household Income
The California State Department of Housing an d Community Development (HCD) has identified the following income categories based on the County of Los Angeles’ Area Median Income (AMI):
• Extremely Low-income: households earning up to 30 percent of the AMI • Very Low-income: households earning between 31 and 50 percent of the AMI • Low-income: households earning between 51 percent and 80 percent of the AMI • Moderate Income: households earning between 81 percent and 120 percent of the AMI • Above Moderate Income: households earning over 120 percent of the AMI Lower income groups refer to extremely low, very low, and low-income groups. Arcadia’s household income characteristics can help identify housing types that would be affordable to the City’s population. Income characteristics a ssist in determining what housing types and
7 California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Available at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community- development/housing-element/index.shtml. Accessed on October 6, 2021.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
characteristics are required to meet the population’s needs. Table 5: Households by Income Category in Arcadia shows that lower income categories represent 28.74 percent of Arcadia’s households, while moderate to above moderate-income households represent 71.26 percent.
Table 5: Households by Income Category in Arcadia
Income Category (Percent of County MFI) Households Percent Extremely Low (30% AMI or less) 2,515 8.48%
Very Low (31 to 50% AMI) 2,115 7.63%
Low (51 to 80% AMI) 2,455 12.63%
Moderate or Above (over 80% AMI) 14,245 71.26%
Total 19,990 100.0%
Source: Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), 2013-2017.
Regional Housing Needs Assessment
As previously noted, CGC §65583 sets forth the specific content requirements of a jurisdiction’s housing element. Included in these requirements are obligations on the part of local jurisdictions to provide their “fair share” of regional housing needs. Local governments and Councils of Governments (COGs) are required to determin e existing and future housing need and the allocation of this need must be approved by HCD.
The City is a member agency of SCAG, who is responsible for preparing the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) for all jurisdictions with in the SCAG region and therefore acts as the COG for San Bernardino County in this case. The RHNA is mandated by State Housing Law as part of the periodic process of updating local General Plan Housing Elements. 8 It quantifies the
housing need within each jurisdiction for all economic segments of the community (known as RHNA allocation plan) in four (4) income categories: very low, low, moderate, and above moderate.
Per CGC §65584(d), the RHNA allocation plan determines existing and projected housing need with the following objectives:
• Increasing the housing supply and the mix of housing types, tenure, and affordability in all cities and counties within the region in an equitable manner, which shall result in each jurisdiction receiving an allocation of units for low- and very low-income households. • Promoting infill development and socioeconomic equity, the protection of environmental and agricultural resources, the encouragem ent of efficient development patterns, and the achievement of the region’s greenhouse gas reductions targets provided by the State Air Resources Board pursuant to CGC §65080.
8 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). What is RHNA? Available at https://scag.ca.gov/rhna. Accessed on August 10, 2021 Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
• Promoting an improved intraregional relationship between jobs and housing, including an improved balance between the number of low-wage jobs and the number of housing units affordable to low-wage workers in each jurisdiction. • Allocating a lower proportion of housing need to an income category when a jurisdiction already has a disproportionately high share of households in that income category, as compared to the countywide distribution of households in that category from the most recent American Community Survey.
• Affirmatively furthering fair housing.
Each jurisdiction must demonstrate within its Housing Element that it can accommodate its RHNA allocation at all income levels. The California Department of Finance (DOF)’s population estimates and RHNA are also used for regional transportation planning purposes. Senate Bill (SB) 375 integrates RHNA with SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS). In the past, the RHNA was undertaken independently from the RTP.
However, in 2008, the California Legislature pa ssed SB 375 as the land use and transportation planning component of the State’s effort to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) to achieve the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembl y Bill [AB] 32) GHG emission reduction. The law recognizes the importance of planning for ho using and land use in creating sustainable communities where residents of all income levels have access to jobs, services, and housing by using transit, walking, or bicycling.
In addition, SB 166 ensures that jurisdictions at all times have si tes available and identified in their Housing Elements to meet their RHNA alloca tion if unmet. In the event that at any time during the 6th Cycle planning period, the City does not have sufficient sites to meet their RHNA need, the City will be required to take remedial action by identifying and if necessary, rezoning, alternative sites to replace the ones not developed at the affordability or densities projected in the candidate housing sites inventory so that there is no net loss of residential unit capacity.
RHNA Allocation
As previously mentioned, RHNA allocates housing need based on future estimates of housing unit growth need over the RHNA planning period (2 021-2029). The RHNA allocation plan identifies the projected number of housing units that wi ll be needed to accommodate estimated future growth need during the planning period at specified levels of affordability.
On March 4, 2021, SCAG adopted the final RHNA allocations and distributed the RHNA allocation to all local jurisdictions. Table 6: City of Arcadia 2021-2029 RHNA Allocation provides the final RHNA allocation to the City. The City’s projected housing need for the 6 th Cycle planning period
is 3,214 housing units, including 1,102 very low-income units and 570 low-income units.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
Table 6: City of Arcadia 2021-2029 RHNA Allocation
Income Level % of Average Median Income (AMI) RHNA Allocation (Housing Units) Very Low Income <50% 1,102
Low-income 50-80% 570
Moderate Income 80-120% 605
Above Moderate Income >120% 937
Total 3,214
Source: SCAG, 2021
In accordance with State Housing law, local governments must be accountable for ensuring that projected housing needs can be fully accommodat ed at all times during the Housing Element planning period. The HEU provides a framework for evaluating the adequacy of local zoning and regulatory actions to ensure each local government is providing sufficient appropriately designated land throughout the planning period. The Housing Element must identify and analyze the City’s housing needs and establish reasonable goals, objectives, and policies based on those needs. The HEU must also identify candidate housing sites with the potential to accommodate housing at higher densities to meet the City’s assigned low-income RHNA (extremely low, very low and low-income) category need.
22.4 Project Characteristics
Housing Element Overview and Organization
The City of Arcadia is proposing the 6th Cycle Housing Element (2021–2029 planning period) as a comprehensive update to the City’s 5 th Cycle (2013-2021) Housing Element. The City’s goal for the HEU Project is to achieve HCD certification of its 6 th Cycle Housing Element. The Housing Element includes the City’s Housing Policy Plan in Chapter 10 of the Arcadia GP, which addresses the City’s identified housing needs, and includ es goals, policies, and programs concerning housing and housing-related services, and the City ’s approach to addressing its share of the regional housing need.
The City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element (2021-2029) has be en prepared in compliance with State Housing Element law, contains the following components:
• City of Arcadia General Plan Chapter 5: Housing Element • City of Arcadia General Plan Chapter 10: Implementation Plan • Technical Background Report:
o Section 1: Introduction contains a summary of the Housing Element’s content, organization, and statutory considerations;
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
o Section 2: City of Arcadia Community Profile contains analysis of the City’s population, household and employment base, and the characteristics of the housing stock;
o Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resource s, and Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) examines governmental and non-governmental constraints on housing production, maintenance, an d affordability and summarizes housing resources, including identification of housing sites, and funding and financial considerations
o Section 4: Review of Past Performance reviews and evaluations the City’s housing project and program performance from the 5th Cycle (2013-2020 Planning Period). o Appendices:
Appendix A: Adequate Sites
Appendix B: Community Engagement Summary
Appendix C: Glossary of Housing Terms
Candidate Housing Sites Inventory
To demonstrate the availability of sites, the City completed a land inventory that identifies potential candidate housing sites with capacity to accommodate the 2021-2029 RHNA allocation.
These sites represent the City’s plan for housing at the designated income levels within the 6th housing cycle planning period (2021 – 2029) and are either residentially zoned at a minimum of 30 du/ac or are within areas of focus identified by the City with supporting strategies to stimulate future housing growth. It should be noted that while all the candidate sites were found to be suitable for future housing development, the HEU does not necessitate or directly propose the full development of the identified candidate sites, especially those beyond the established RHNA allocation for the City.
Through the analysis of existing residentially zoned sites and non-residentially zoned sites, the City has identified the following categories of properties to accommodate the 6th Cycle RHNA:
• 23 existing residentially zoned parcels at their existing densities • 30 parcels as part of the Downtown Mixed Use expansion strategy • 75 parcels as part of the Downtown Mixed Us e residential flex overlay implementation strategy
• 106 parcels as part of the Mixed Use Upzone strategy
• 31 parcels as part of the Las Tunas Residential flex overlay implementation strategy • 26 parcels as part of the Live Oak residential flex overlay implementation strategy Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
• 76 parcels as part of the C-G residential flex overlay implementation strategy • 355 parcels as part of the High Density Residential (R-3) Upzone strategy • The Arcadia Golf Course site
The City has identified a total of 751 parcels wi thin a variety of different residentially and non- residentially zoned areas that have the capacity to accommodate up to approximately 7,222 total housing units. Appendix A provides a comprehensive inventor y of the candidate housing sites.
Each site is identified by assessor parcel number (APN) and a unique identifier. Table 7: Summary of RHNA Status and Sites Inventory identifies the City’s 2021-2029 RHNA by income category that meet the RHNA allocation.
Table 7: Summary of RHNA Status and Sites Inventory (Housing Units) Very Low
Income Low Income Moderate
Income*
Above
Moderate
Income
Total
RHNA (2021-2029)
1,102 570
605 937 3,214
1,672
Unit Capacity on Site Inventory
Pipeline Projects 26 80 981 1,087
Existing Residentially Zoned
Land 277 112 702 1,091
Accessory Dwelling Unit
Projection 202 6 88 296
Total Existing Capacity 303 192 1,683 2,178
Total Existing Capacity plus
ADUs 443 198 1,771 2,474
Remaining Unmet RHNA 1,167 407 -- 1,5741
Focus Areas
Downtown Mixed-Use 375 148 960 1,483
Mixed-Use Upzone 124 51 302 477
Live Oak Residential Flex 203 82 509 794
C-G Residential Flex 252 100 640 992
R-3 Upzone 213 84 513 810
Arcadia Golf Course 48 72 72 192
Total Potential Development
Capacity with Focus Areas 1,215 669 4,184 4,748
Total Potential Development
Capacity 1,658 866 5,979 7,222
Sites Surplus/Shortfall 48 130 3,830 +4,008
Percentage Buffer 3% 22% 409% 125%
1 The total remaining unmet RHNA is calculated from the remaining unmet Very Low, Low, and Moderate income units. Above Moderate Income inventory was not included in this calculation.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
Table 7 demonstrates the capacity to accommodate up to a total of 7,222 candidate housing units through existing capacity, which includes 1,087 units under pipeline projects and 1,091 units within existing residentially zoned land, 296 projected ADUs, and 4,748 units within Focus Areas. Exhibit 3 depicts the candidate housing sites identified for future housing development, as facilitated by Project implementation. The City has identified candidate sites that yield 7,222 potential housing units within the City, which ex ceed the total required RHNA growth need of 3,214 housing units and results in a surplus of 4,008 housing units or 125 percent.
Projects in the Pipeline
The City has identified a number of projects currently in, or that have completed the entitlement process. These projects are likel y to be developed and/or first occupied during the planning period and count as credit towards the 2021-2029 RHNA allocation. As shown in Table 7, the City has currently identified 28 parcels with a planned development of 1,087 units, 26 of 1,087 units will be affordable to Low and Very Low-income households.
Redevelopment of Nonvacant Sites for Residential Use
The City of Arcadia does not have sufficient vacant land available to accommodate 50 percent of the low/very-low income RHNA. To accommodate the need at all income levels, the City has analyzed sites that currently permit residential development. As part of the candidate housing sites analysis, the City has evaluated recent projects that have redeveloped on non-vacant sites to include residential units. The City has also conducted a parcel specific analysis of existing uses for each of the identified sites. This analysis is based on existing use data and other information that can be found through online research. As part of the site selection process, the City identified 23 parcels to accommodate a total of 1,091 units, 277 of 1,091 units can accommodate Low and Very Low-income households.
Accessory Dwelling Units
Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) are housing units which may be developed in addition to an existing single- or multi-family residential use. These housing units can be free-standing or attached to a primary structure and provide additional housing on an existing residential lot.
Other ADUs provide housing for family members or are rented to members of the community. In accordance with State Law, ADUs are allowed in all zones that allow single dwelling unit or multiple dwelling unit development. Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs) are permitted only in single dwelling unit zones.
The City of Arcadia has determined based on past performance that it is appropriate to anticipate the development of 296 accessory dwelling uni ts from 2021 to 2029. To facilitate the development of ADUs available for lower income households, the City has developed relevant policies and programs as contained in Arcadia GP Chapter 10: Implementation Plan. The City has allocated 202 ADUs to Low- and Very-Low Income, 88 ADUs to Above Moderate Income, and six Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
ADUs to Moderate Income categories. To assist the City’s ADU development projections, Arcadia has included Housing Program 5-12, which explores actions the City will take to promote and monitor the development of ADUs during the planning period.
Selection of Sites to Accommodate Remaining Need
In addition to sites that can accommodate housing at their existing capacity, the City identified six (6) Focus Areas that would benefit from reside ntial development to apply strategies such as upzoning and rezoning to achieve the remaining unmet RHNA. These six (6) Focus Areas are (1) Downtown Mixed-Use Expansion and Overlay, (2) Mixed-Use Upzone, (3) Li ve Oak Corridor, (4) C-G Residential Flex Overlay, (5) R-3 Upzone, and (6) Arcadia Golf Course. (a) Downtown Mixed-Use Expansion & Overlay
The City has identified properties zoned as General Commercial and Commercial Manufacturing in and adjacent to Downtown Arcadia. These properties provide an opportunity to introduce high density residential flex overlays and Downtown Mixed-Use zoning that are compatible with adjacent Central Business District and Downtown Mixed-Use zoned parcels. The existing Central Business District and Downtown Mixed-Use zoned currently allow up to 80 units per acre in conjunction with a commercial development and other uses that will support residential development.
These parcels were identified due to dilapidated commercial uses and at an assumed density of 64 du/ac, the assumed capacity of these sites is projected at 1,480 units, 374 of which are projected to develop affordably for Low and Very Low-income households. Exhibit 4: Downtown Mixed-Use Expansion and Exhibit 5: Downtown Mixed-Use Overlay show the candidate housing sites identified within the Downtown Mixed-Use Focus Area which can help accommodate a portion of the City’s RHNA allocation.
Mixed-Use Upzone
The City has identified parcels in the Mixed-Use zone that have the potential to accommodate 477 units of development at an assumed density of 50 du/acre, 124 of which are projected to develop affordably. Exhibit 6: Map of Site Inventory - Mixed Use Upzone (1) and Exhibit 7: Map of Site Inventory - Mixed Use Upzone (2) show the candidate housing sites identified within the Mixed-Use Focus Area.
(b) Live Oak Corridor
The City has identified the Live Oak Corridor as an opportunity to both increase density and introduce residential density on viable commerci al properties. The adjacent Mixed-Use zoning and access to transit supports the increase of residential uses in the corridor. The City identified two opportunities based on adjacent use and densities to introduce Residential Flex Overlays on Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
commercial properties within the corridor. The two opportunity areas, referred to as Las Tunas Residential Flex Overlay and Live Oak Residentia l Flex Overlay, have the total capacity to accommodate up to 794 units, as shown on Exhibit 8: Map of Site Inventory – (Live Oak Corridor) Residential Flex Overlay.
(i) Las Tunas Residential Flex Overlay
The City identified parcels west of Santa Anita Avenue, along Las Tunas suitable for higher density development. The identified parcels within th e Las Tunas Residential Flex Overlay have the capacity to accommodate up to 609 units of development at an assumed density of 48 du/acre. (ii) Live Oak Residential Flex Overlay
The City identified parcels east of Santa Anita Avenue, along Live Oak Avenue suitable for higher density development. The identified parcels within the Live Oak Residential Flex Overlay have the capacity to accommodate up to 118 units of development at an assumed density of 40 du/acre. (c) C-G Residential Flex Overlay
The City has identified General Commercial zo ned properties as a redevelopment opportunity where underutilized, smaller scale commercial development can transition to support residential development. The identified parcels have the capacity to accommodate 992 units of development at an assumed density of 24 du/acre, as shown on Exhibit 9: Map of Site Inventory – C-G Residential Flex Overlay. An assumption of approximately 50% redevelopment has been applied considering development history, economic factors, and AFFH requirements. In addition, the 80% redevelopment limit would preserve commercial zoned parcels to maintain a commercial base throughout the City.
(d) R-3 Upzone
The R-3 Zone has been identified by the City as an area with the opportunity to support increased density that is compatible with adjacent higher density residential uses and other uses that support residential development. Higher density within this Focus Area can be expected to accommodate lower income units. The identified parcels within the Sites Inventory have the capacity to accommodate 810 units of developmen t at an assumed density of 32 du/acre, as shown on Exhibit 10: Map of Site Inventory – R-3 Upzone (1), Exhibit 11: Map of Site Inventory – R-3 Upzone (2), and Exhibit 12: Map of Site Inventory – R-3 Upzone (3). An assumption of approximately 25% redevelopment has been applied considering development history, economic factors, and AFFH requirements.
Arcadia Golf Course
The City has identified the Arcadia Golf Course as a site to accommodate residential units across all of the income categories. As shown on Exhibit 13 : Map of Site Inventory – Arcadia Golf Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
Course, the Arcadia Golf Course is approximately 25.86 acres in size and has the capacity to accommodate up to 192 units. However, future development of the Arcadia Golf Course may not generate the full 192 units due to the intention of retaining a portion of the site for open space and recreation uses.
(e) Goals and Policies
As required by State Housing Element law, the proposed Project includes a Housing Plan to facilitate and encourage the provision of housin g consistent with the RHNA. The plan would implement strategies and programs intended to address the City’s housing needs and meet the City’s current housing goals, which are:
Housing Goal #1 : Preservation, conservation, and enhanc ement of existing housing stock and residential neighborhoods within Arcadia.
Housing Goal #2: Provide suitable sites for housing development to accommodate a range of housing for residential use that meet the City’s RHNA growth needs for all income levels.
Housing Goal #3 : A range of housing choices for all social and economic segments of the community, including housing for persons with special needs.
Housing Goal #4: Mitigated governmental and non-governmental constraints to housing production and affordability.
Housing Goal #5: Equitable and fair housing opportunity in the City’s housing market.
The goals listed above are described throughout the Arcadia GP Chapter 5: Housing Element with accompanying policies and programs to achieve them. The goals and policies are provided in their entirety in Plan to The Housing Element Update (see Appendix A). (f) Implementation Programs
The Implementation Programs proposed to implement each goal and policy are included in their entirety in the Arcadia GP Chapter 10: Implementation Plan and Housing Element.
Housing Program 5-1: Home Rehabilitation
Housing Program 5-2: Code Enforcement
Housing Program 5-3: Residential Design Guidelines
Housing Program 5-4: Prevention of At-Risk Units
Housing Program 5-5: Preservation of Middle-Income Housing through New Housing Authorities Housing Program 5-6: Residential Sites Inventory
Housing Program 5-7: Establish and Overlay to Permit Residential Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
Housing Program 5-8: Expansion of the Downtown Mixed-Use Area to Permit Residential Use Housing Program 5-9: Expand and Update the Residential Flex Mixed Use Overly in the Live Oak Corridor
Housing Program 5-10: Encourage Development of Housing Sites Listed in Inventory Housing Program 5-11: Housing Density Bonus
Housing Program 5-12: ADU and JADU Incentive and Monitoring Housing Program 5-13: Candidate Sites Used in Prior Housing Element Planning Cycle Housing Program 5-14: Inclusionary Housing Policy
Housing Program 5-15: Lot Consolidation Incentives
Housing Program 5-16: Preservation of Rental Opportunities Housing Program 5-17: Public Information About Affordable Housing Housing Program 5-18: Emergency Shelters, Transitional, and Supportive Housing Housing Program 5-19: Participation in the San Gabriel Valley Housing Trust Housing Program 5-20: SB 35 Streamlining
Housing Program 5-21: Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program Housing Program 5-22: Affordable Housing for Families and Persons with Special Needs Housing Program 5-23: Homeless Program Assistance
Housing Program 5-24: Housing Sustainability
Housing Program 5-25: Fair Housing
Housing Program 5-26: Fair Housing Assistance
Housing Program 5-27: Supportive Housing/Low Barrier Navigation Centers Housing Program 5-28: Water and Sewer Service Providers
22.5 Development Capacity Projections for Future Site Development State CEQA Guidelines § 15378(a) defines a “pro ject” as “the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.” The proposed HEU Project does not propose new residential or other development on the 751 candidate sites evaluated in this IS/ND; rather, it provides capacity for future development consistent with State law. Future development would occur on these sites in in cremental phases over time depending upon Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
numerous factors such as market conditions, and economic and planning considerations, and at the individual property owners’ discretion. Addi tionally, future development facilitated by the proposed HEU Project would be required to undergo environmental review and evaluation under CEQA and other applicable federal, state and local regulations as each project is proposed.
22.6 Project Approvals
The City is the Lead Agency under CEQA and is responsible for reviewing, approving, and adopting this IS/ND. The City will consider the following discretionary approvals for the Project:
• Adoption of the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (2021-2029) The Project additionally requires the following approval from HCD following the City’s final adoption of the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update:
• Review of the draft 2021-2029 Housing Element Update to determ ine compliance with state law and submittal of written findings to the City.
No discretionary approvals from other agencies are required.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
Exhibit 1: Regional Map
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
Exhibit 2: Vicinity Map
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration
Exhibit 3: Map of Candidate Housing Sites
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
Exhibit 4: Map of Downtown Mixed-Use Expansion
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
Exhibit 5: Map of Downtown Mixed-Use Overlay
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
Exhibit 6: Map Site Inventory – Mixed-Use Upzone (1)
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
Exhibit 7: Map of Site Inventory – Mixed-Use Upzone (2)
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
Exhibit 8: Map of Site Inventory – (Live Oak Corridor) Residential Flex Overlays
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
Exhibit 9: Map of Site Inventory – C-G Residential Flex Overlay
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
Exhibit 10: Map of Site Inventory – R-3 Upzone (1)
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
Exhibit 11: Map of Site Inventory – R-3 Upzone (2)
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
Exhibit 12: Map of Site Inventory – R-3 Upzone (3)
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
Exhibit 13: Map of Site Inventory – Arcadia Golf Course
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
3.0 INITIAL STUDY
1. Project Title: City of Arcadia 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (2021-2029)
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Arcadia
240 West Huntington Drive
Arcadia, CA 91007
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Lisa Flores at 626-574-5445
4. Project Location: City of Arcadia
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
City of Arcadia
240 West Huntington Drive
Arcadia, CA 91007
6. General Plan Designation: City-Wide 7. Zoning: City-Wide
8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off- site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary.) See Section 2.0 Project Description.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) The Project encompasses the entire City.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement):
California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
11. Have California Native American tribes tr aditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursua nt to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consul tation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.?
Note: Conducting consu ltation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process. (See Public Resources Code section 21080.3.2.) Information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per Public Resources Code section 5097.96 and th e California Historical Resources Information System administered by the Califor nia Office of Historic Preservation.
Please also note that Public Resources Code secti on 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.
On June 1, 2021, the City received the negative result of the Sacred Lands File (SFL) from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). On June 10, 2021, the City initiated tribal consultation with interested California Native American tribes consistent with Assembly Bill (AB) 52 and Senate Bill (SB) 18. No resp onses were received from any of the California Native American tribe representatives regarding AB 52 and SB 18.
EENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Signif icant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Agriculture/Forestry
Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology / Soils Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology / Water Quality
Land Use / Planning Mineral Resources Noise
Population / Housing Public Services Recreation
Transportation Utilities / Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance
Tribal Cultural Resources Wildfire Energy
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
EEVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a Lead Agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-sp ecific 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 acti on involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) Once the Lead Agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than sign ificant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significan t Impact." The Lead Agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross- referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.
Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequate ly analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
7) Supporting Information Sources. A source list should be attached, and other sources used, or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead ag encies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
IIssues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. AESTHETICS. Except as provided in Public
Resources Code section 21099, would the
project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not limited
to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic
highway?
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character
or quality of public views of the site
and its surroundings? (Public views
are those that are experienced from
publicly accessible vantage point). If
the project is in an urbanized area,
would the project conflict with
applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?)
d) Create a new source of substantial
light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES -- In
determining whether impacts to agricultural
resources are significant environmental
effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the
California Dept. of Conservation as an optional
model to use in assessing impacts on
agriculture and farmland. In determining
whether impacts to forest resources, including
timberland, are significant environmental
effects, lead agencies may refer to information
compiled by the California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the
state’s inventory of forest land, including the
Forest and Range Assessment Project and the
Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest
carbon measurement methodology provided in
Forest protocols adopted by the California Air
Resources Board.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on
the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or
cause rezoning of, forest land (as
defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220(g)), timberland (as
defined by Public Resources Code
section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-
forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their
location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-
agricultural use or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
III. AIR QUALITY -- Where available, the
significance criteria established by the
applicable air quality management district or
air pollution control district may be relied upon
to make the following determinations. Would
the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any criteria pollutant
for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality
standard?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations?
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d) Result in other emissions (such as
those leading to odors adversely
affecting a substantial number of
people?
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on
any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local
or regional plans, policies, regulations
or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
state or federally protected wetlands
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation
plan?
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical
resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of dedicated
cemeteries?
VI. ENERGY. Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources,
during project construction or
operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or
local plan for renewable energy or
energy efficiency?
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer
to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or
the loss of topsoil?
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil
that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on-
or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code, creating substantial
direct or indirect risks to life or
property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of
wastewater?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature?
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS -- Would the
project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the
environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy
or regulation adopted for the purpose
of reducing the emission of
greenhouse gases?
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS --
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
the routine transport, use, or disposal
of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into
the environment?
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included
on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government
Code section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan
has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard or excessive noise for
people residing or working in the
project area?
f) Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires?
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would
the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade
surface or ground water quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the
basin?
c) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river or through
the addition of impervious surfaces, in
a manner which would:
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
i) result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site;
ii) substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in
flooding on- or offsite;
iii) create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity
of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche
zones, risk release of pollutants due to
project inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING -- Would the
project:
a) Physically divide an established
community?
b) Cause a significant environmental
impact due to a conflict with any land
use plan, policy, or regulation adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would
be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
locally-important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other
land use plan?
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIII. NOISE -- Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary
or permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the vicinity of the
project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
b) Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise
levels?
c) For a project located within the
vicinity of a private airstrip or an
airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public
use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the
project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned
population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through
extension of road or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of
existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES -- Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision
of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new
or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response
times or other performance objectives
for any of the public services:
Fire protection?
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
XVI. RECREATION --
a) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational facilities
such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities
which have an adverse physical effect
on the environment?
XVII. TRANSPORTATION -- Would the project:
a) Conflict with program plan, ordinance
or policy addressing the circulation
system, including transit, roadway,
bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines section 15064.39 or will
conflict with an applicable congestion
management program, including, but
not limited to, level of service
standards and travel demand
measures, or other standards
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated
roads or highways?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to
a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency
access?
9 CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3(c) provides that a lead agency “may elect to be governed by the provisions” of the section immediately; otherwise, the section’s provisions apply July 1, 2020. Here, the District has not elected to be governed by Section 15064.3. Accordingly, an analysis of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is not necessary to determine whether a proposed project will have a significant transportation impact.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the
project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources
Code section 21074 as either a site,
feature, place, cultural landscape that
is geographically defined in terms of
the size and scope of the landscape,
sacred place, or object with cultural
value to a California Native American
tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in
the California Register of
Historical Resources, or in a
local register of historical
resources as defined in Public
Resources Code section
5020.1(k), or
ii) A resource determined by
the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be
significant pursuant to
criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code section
5024.1. In applying the
criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code section
5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of
the resource to a California
Native American tribe.
XVIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -- Would the
project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded
water, wastewater treatment or
storm water drainage, electric power,
natural gas, or telecommunications
facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project and
reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry, and
multiple dry years?
c) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the
project's projected demand in
addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
d) Generate solid waste in excess of
State or local standards, or in excess
of the capacity of local infrastructure,
or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes
and regulations related to solid
waste?
XIX. WILDFIRE – If located in or near state
responsibility areas or lands classified as very
high fire hazard severity zones, would the
project:
a) Substantially impair an
adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds,
and other factors, exacerbate
wildfire risks, and thereby
expose project occupants to,
pollutant concentrations from
a wildfire or the uncontrolled
spread of a wildfire?
c) Require the installation or
maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads,
fuel breaks, emergency water
sources, power lines or other
utilities) that may exacerbate
fire risk or that may result in
temporary or ongoing impacts
to the environment?
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d) Expose people or structures to
significant risks, including
downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a
result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage
changes?
XX. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE --
a) Does the project have the potential to
substantially degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, substantially
reduce the number, or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that
are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means
that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed
in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current
project, and the effects of probable
future projects.)
c) Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Note: Authority cited: Public Resources Code sections 21083, 21083.05, 21083.09.
Reference: Gov. Code section 65088.4; Public Resources Code sections 21073, 21074, 21080(c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3, 21083, 21083.3, 21083.5, 21084.2, 21084.3, 21093, 21094, 21095 and 21151; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296; Leonoff v. Monterey Board of Supervisors (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1337; Eureka Citizens for Responsible Govt. v. City of Eureka (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 357; Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1109; San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City and County of San Francisco (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 656.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
EENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DISCUSSION
A brief discussion of each impact conclusion is included below based on the environmental issues listed above and in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines.
I. Aesthetics
Would the Project:
a. Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista? Less Than Significant Impact. According to the Arcadia GP, the City’s scenic resources and vistas include the San Gabriel Mountains and San Gabriel Mountains foothills located to the north of the City. A substantial adverse effect to visual resources could result in situations in which a development project introduces physical features that are not characteristic of current development, obstructs an identified public scenic vista, impairs views from other properties, or has a substantial change to the natural landscape.
The project would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate and provide a policy framework for future housing development throughout the City. The proposed HEU would not result in a significant adverse effect on a scenic vista. All future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject en vironmental review under CEQA, the City’s development review process, and required to demonstrate consistency with Arcadia GP policies and compliance with Arcadia Municipal Code (Arc adia MC), including Article IX, Chapter 1 - Development Code (Arcadia DC) standards. The City contains policies within the Arcadia GP which focus on the preservation of scenic vistas. These scenic vistas are visible mainly from the Hillside area of the City and are the focus of the policies within the Arcadia GP. The Project, however, does not identify any candidate sites within the Hillside area of the City, as shown in Exhibit 3.
Furthermore, the Arcadia GP EIR notes that the City does not contain any scenic vistas.10 Although the Project would not result in direct housing construction, any future housing developments would be required to de monstrate consistency with the above General Plan policies and ensuring that any proposed building heights would be consistent with the scale of surrounding and existing development. The pr oposed HEU would not result in a significant adverse effect on a scenic vista. Therefore, impacts to scenic vistas would be less than significant. b. Substantially damage scenic resources, in cluding, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? Less Than Significant Impact. There are no officially designated State scenic highways within the City. The nearest officially designated highway is a portion of SR 2 transition from Los Angeles
10 City of Arcadia. (2010). City of Arcadia General Plan EIR. Page 4.1-5.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
County into San Bernardino C ounty through the San Gabriel Mountains, starting at and Los Angeles Post Mile (PM) 27.2 and finishing at PM 82.265. 11 The final location of the SR 2 is approximately 2.7 miles north of Route 210 in the City of La Canada Flintridge, approximately 8.4 miles northwest of the City. 12 This scenic highway is approximat ely 6.4 miles north of the City’s northernmost boundary. There are no highways wi thin the City which are eligible for scenic highway classification.
Despite the lack of officially designated and elig ible highways within the City, all future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subj ect to the City’s development review process and required to demonstrate consistency with Ar cadia GP policies and compliance with Arcadia MC standards, including those intended to pr otect scenic resources. Therefore, project implementation would not substa ntially damage scenic resources associated with a scenic highway, historic building, or scenic resource. A less than significant impact would occur. c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? Less Than Significant Impact. As previously noted, the project would not result in direct housing construction, but would facilitate future housing development, which is anticipated to occur in urbanized areas throughout the City. The Arcadia GP contains goals and policies that govern scenic quality. However, these goals apply to the Hillside area which has not been identified with any candidate sites.
All future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to the City’s development review process, which may include review pursuant to CEQA, and be required to comply with Arcadia GP policies, Arcadia MC standards, as well as be required to adhere to all federal, State, and local regulations for avoiding impacts to existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings., including those that protect against degradation of visual resources by requiring project modifica tions, conditions of approval or mitigation measures, as needed. Because future housing development consistency with General Plan policies and compliance with Arcadia MC standards would be verified through the City’s development review process, the project would not conflict with applicable policies or standards governing scenic quality. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
11 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). (2021). California State Scenic Highway System Map. Retrieved from:
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa. Accessed October 12, 2021 12 Ibid.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less Than Significant Impact. As previously noted, the Project would not result in direct housing construction, but would facilitate future housing development throughout the City. Future housing development could add a new source of su bstantial light and glare. Potential new light sources include exterior nighttime lighting fixtures, parking area lighting, light glow from windows, doors and skylights, and accent lighting. The introduction of concentrated or multiple sources of nighttime lighting near low-density areas could result in potential impacts.
All future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to the City’s development review process, which may include review pursuant to CEQA and be required to comply with all applicable requirements concerning light and glare, including the California Green Building Standards Code (Title 24 Part 11) and Arcadia MC §9103.01.120 – Exterior Lighting, which control light emissions in the City, and requires that lighting fixtures be shielded appropriately to eliminate light directed above the horizontal. Therefore, the HEU would not create a new source of substantial light or glare. Impacts would be less than significant.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
II. Agriculture and Forestry
Would the Project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause re zoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
d. Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
e. Would the project involve other changes in th e existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversi on of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest land?
No Impact. The Project would not result in direct hous ing construction but would facilitate and provide a policy framework for future ho using development throughout the City. The City is predominantly categorized as urban and build-up and there are no properties within or near the candidate housing sites designated Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as classified by the State Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP). 13 Therefore, Project implementation would not conflict with existing agricultural zoning or a Williamson Ac t contract, or result in the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use, or conversion or loss of forest land. Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would allow for residential development on vacant and developed sites that are zoned for residential development and sites zoned for non-residential development that would be amended through prospective discretionary actions to allow future residential development. Future discretionary actions would be implemented in a case-by-case basis for future housing developments facilitated by the Project. Consequently, the HE U would not conflict with existing zoning nor would it cause rezoning of forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production.
Project implementation would not rezone or conv ert forest land or timberland. Therefore, the HEU would result in no impact to agricultural or forest resources.
13 California Department of Conservation, California Important Farmland Finder. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/, Accessed October 7, 2021.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
III. Air Quality
Would the Project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less Than Significant Impact. The City is located in the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB). The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and SCAG are responsible for developing and implementing the clean air plans for attainme nt and maintenance of ambient air quality standards in the SoCAB - specifically, the State Implementation Plan (SIP) and SCAG’s Connect SoCal RTP/SCS, which includes the urbanized portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, Orange, and San Bernardino Counties.
The SCAQMD develops rules and regulations; establishes permitting requirements for stationary sources; inspects emissions sources; and enforces such measures through educational programs or fines, when necessary. In 2016, the SCAQMD adopted the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) that integrated strategies and measures needed to meet the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and the California ambient ai r quality standards (CAAQS). The 2016 AQMP establishes a program of rules and regulations di rected at reducing air pollutant emissions and achieving State and national air quality standards. The primary purpose of an air quality plan is to bring an area that does not attain federal and State air quality standards into compliance with the requirements of the federal Clean Air Act and California Clean Air Act. In addition, air quality plans are developed to ensure that an area maintains a healthful level of air quality based on the NAAQS and CAAQS.
Air quality impacts were assessed in accordance with methodologies recommended by California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the SCAQMD. Wh ere criteria air pollutant quantification was required, emissions were modeled using the Cali fornia Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod).
The CARB mobile source emission projections and SCAG growth projections are based on population forecasts, vehicle trends, and land use plans developed by SCAG and the member counties, cities, as part of their general plan development.
As previously discussed, the HEU Project would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate and provide a policy framework for future housing development throughout the City. Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would allow for residential development on vacant and developed sites that are zoned for residential development and sites zoned for non-residential development that would be amended through prospective discretionary actions to allow future residential development. Future discretionary actions would be limited to the candidate housing sites.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
Additionally, all future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to environmental review under CEQA, the City’s development review process, and required to adhere to all federal, State, and local regulati ons for minimizing construction and operational pollutant emissions, including the SCAQMD Rules listed below:
• Rule 402 (Nuisance) – This rule prohibits the discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. This rule does not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals.
• Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) – This rule requires fugitive dust sources to implement best available control measures for all sources, an d all forms of visible particulate matter are prohibited from crossing any property line. This rule is intended to reduce PM10 emissions from any transportation, handling, construction, or storage activity that has the potential to generate fugitive dust. PM10 suppression techniques are summarized below. o Portions of a construction site to remain inactive longer than a period of three months will be seeded and watered until grass cover is grown or otherwise stabilized.
o All on-site roads are paved as soon as feasible, watered regularly, or chemically stabilized.
o All material transported off-site will be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
o The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations will be minimized at all times.
o Where vehicles leave a construction site and enter adjacent public streets, the streets will be swept daily or washed down following the workday to remove soil from pavement.
• Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings) – This rule requires manufacturers, distributors, and end-users of architectural and industrial maintenance coatings to reduce VOC emissions from the use of these coatings, primarily by placing limits on the VOC content of various coating categories.
Future housing development would be required to be consistent with the Arcadia GP, including Goals RS-1, RS-2, and RS-3 which encourages the reduction of toxic emissions and carbon Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
footprint. Therefore, air quality impacts from future development on candidate housing sites would be less than significant following compliance with the existing regulatory framework.
It is noted, the City’s goal for the Project is to achieve Housing and Community Development (HCD) HEU certification; therefore, the project must comply with applicable federal, State, regional, and local housing laws, and policies. As a result, it is not anticipated that future housing development facilitated by the HEU would interfere with SCAQMD goals for improving air quality in the SoCAB or conflict with or obstruct im plementation of applicable air quality plans.
Therefore, anticipated air quality impacts would be less than significant. b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net incr ease of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard?
Less Than Significant Impact. As previously noted, the project would not result in direct housing construction, but would facilitate future housing development throughout the City, which would occur as market conditions allow and at the discretion of the individual property owners. Future housing development could result in temporary, short-term pollutants from construction-related soil disturbance, fugitive dust emissions, and co mbustion pollutants from on-site construction equipment, as well as from off-site trucks hauling construction materials. Construction emissions would be temporary, with construction activities and associated emissions ceasing once housing development is complete. Further, construction emissions can vary substantially from day to day depending on activity level, the specific oper ation type, and, for dust, prevailing weather conditions.
California has 35 specific air districts, which are each responsible for ensuring that the criteria pollutants are below the NAAQS and CAAQS. Air basins that exceed either the NAAQS or the CAAQS for any criteria pollutants for set periods are designated as “non-attainment areas” for that pollutant. The cumulative setting for air quality includes Arcadia and the SoCAB. The SoCAB is designated as a nonattainment area for State standards of ozone, PM10, and PM2.5. Cumulative growth in population and vehicle use could inhibit efforts to improve regional air quality and attain the ambient air quality standards.
The SCAQMD’s approach to assessing cumulative impacts is based on the AQMP forecasts of attainment of ambient air quality standards in ac cordance with the requirements of the federal and California Clean Air Acts. The AQMP is designed to assist the region in attaining the applicable State and national ambient air quality standard s and is intended to bring the SoCAB into attainment for all criteria pollutants.
All future housing development facilitated by th e HEU would be subject the City’s development review process and required to demonstrate compliance with federal, State, and local regulations in effect at the time of development, including the Arcadia GP policies and Arcadia MC standards.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
The City’s Environmental Assessment process ou tlined in the Arcadia MC §9107.03.070 and development process may require future housing development conduct air quality (and other technical) studies to demonstrate compliance with SCAQMD air quality construction thresholds.
SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 (e.g., prohibition of nuisances, watering of inactive and perimeter areas, track out requirements, etc.) would be a pplied to future developments on a project-by- project basis in order to minimize those potential negative air quality effects. Emissions resulting from construction would be temporary and constr uction activities and associated emissions would cease following completion of each housing development.
Concerning operational thresholds, future hous ing development facilitated by the HEU would likely generate VOC, NO X, CO, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5 operational emissions from mobile sources (i.e., vehicle trips), use of consumer products, architectural coatings for repainting, and landscape maintenance equipment; and energy sources (i.e., combustion of fuels used for space and water heating and cooking appliances). In analyz ing cumulative impacts for future housing development facilitated by the HEU, an analysis must specifically evaluate a development’s contribution to the cumulative increase in poll utants for which the SoCAB is designated as nonattainment for the CAAQS and NAAQS. The nonattainment status is the result of cumulative emissions from all sources of these air pollutants and their precursors within the SoCAB. Future housing developments would be required to demonstrate that VOC, NO X, CO, SO X, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions would be below the significance thresholds for both construction and operational activities.
All future housing development would require further evaluation under this criterion to demonstrate that both daily construction emissions and operations would not exceed SCAQMD’s significance thresholds for any criteria air po llutant. Additionally, future housing development construction activities would be subject to SCAQMD Rule 403: Fugitive Dust, which requires actions to restrict visible emissions of fugitive dust beyond the property line. Compliance with Rule 403 would limit fugitive dust (i.e., PM 10 and PM 2.5) that may be generated during grading and construction activities.
Future housing developments would also be subject to SCAQMD Rule 1113: Architectural Coatings, which establishes maximum VOC contents . All future development facilitated by the HEU would also be subject to environmental review under CEQA, the City’s development review process, and required to adhere to relevant fe deral, State, and local regulations for minimizing construction and operational pollutant emissions. Future housing development, at a minimum, would be required to meet California Green Bu ilding Standards Code (CALGreen) and Energy Code (Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations) mandatory energy requirements in effect at the time of the development application. Projects would benefit from the efficiencies associated with these regulations as they relate to building heating, ventilating, and air conditioning mechanical systems, water heatin g systems, and lighting. Considering these Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
requirements, future development housing development facilitated by the HEU would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the SoCAB is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed above, the Project does not propose any development; however, the Project facilitates future housing development consistent with State Housing laws. The candidate housing sites were evaluated in this IS/ND at a programmatic level, as discussed above. Future housing development would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. As a result, no air modeling was conducted for this analysis Toxic Air Contaminants
Future housing development facilitated by the Project could include emissions of pollutants identified by the State and federal government as toxic air contaminants (TACs) or hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). The greatest potential for TAC emissions during construction would be diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions from heavy equipment operations and heavy-duty trucks and the associated health impacts to sensitive receptors. Compliance with various measures (e.g., 13 California Code of Regulations (CCR) 2449 and 13 CCR 2485) would be required by State law to reduce DPM emissions. It is unlikely that futu re housing development facilitated by the HEU would require the extensive operation of heavy- duty construction equipment, or extensive use of diesel trucks, which would be subject to a CARB Airborne Toxics Control Measure for in-use diesel construction equipment to reduce diesel particulate emissions. The following measures are required by State law to reduce DPM emissions:
• Fleet owners of mobile construction equipm ent are subject to the CARB Regulation for in-use off-road diesel vehicles (13 CCR 2449), the purpose of which is to reduce DPM and criteria pollutant emissions from in-use (existing) off-road diesel-fueled vehicles. • All commercial diesel vehicles are subject to Title 13, Section 2485 of the California Code of Regulations, limiting engine idling time. Idling of heavy-duty diesel construction equipment and trucks during loading and unloading shall be limited to five minutes; electric auxiliary power units should be used whenever possible.
Carbon Monoxide Hot Spots
Mobile-source impacts, including those related to CO, occur essentially on two scales. Regionally, construction travel associated with future housing development would add to regional trip generation and increase the vehicle miles travelled (VMT) within the local airshed and the SoCAB.
Locally, construction traffic would be added to the roadway system in the vicinity of future housing development sites. There is a potential for the formation of microscale CO “hotspots” to Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
occur immediately around points of congested traffi c. Hotspots can form if traffic occurs during periods of poor atmospheric ventilation that is composed of a large number of vehicles cold- started and operating at pollution-inefficient sp eeds, and/or is operating on roadways already congested with existing traffic.
Typically, high CO concentrations are associated with congested roadways. Traffic associated with future housing development facilitated by the HEU could contribute to traffic congestion that could result in the formation of CO hotspots. Because of continued improvement in vehicular emissions at a rate faster than the rate of vehicle growth and/or congestion, the potential for CO hotspots in the SoCAB is steadily decreasing.
All future housing development facilitated by the HEU would require further evaluation under this criterion through the City’s development review process to demonstrate that both daily construction emissions and operations would not exceed SCAQMD’s significance thresholds for any criteria air pollutant.
Future construction activities would be subject to environmental review under CEQA and comply with SCAQMD Rules. Therefore, future housing development facilitated by the HEU would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less than Significant. The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook identifies certain land uses as sources of odors. These land uses include ag riculture (farming and livestock), wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemic al plants, composting facilities, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The Project would not include any of the land uses that have been identified by the SCAQMD as odor sources.
However, future housing development facilitated by the Project could result in odors generated from vehicles and/or equipment exhaust emis sions during construction. These odors are a temporary short-term impact that is typical of construction projects and would disperse rapidly.
The HEU Project does not propose any development nor include any of the land uses that have been identified by the SCAQMD as odor sour ces. Therefore, the Project would not create objectionable odors and a less than significant impact would occur.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
IV. Biological Resources
Would the Project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either direct ly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the Cali fornia Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less Than Significant Impact. According to the Arcadia GP EIR, the City is nearly built out and only approximately one (1) percent of the total land area in the City and its SOI remain as vacant and undeveloped.14 As such, the majority of plant and animal habitats are located in urban environments with non-native and ornamental landscaping. 15 Outdoor recreation areas in the City include the Arboretum of Los Angeles County, Arcadia County Park, Santa Anita County Golf Course, Wilderness Park (which includes high qu ality alder riparian forest), and a few other smaller parks and a private golf course. 16 Although the vegetation consists mainly of non-native ornamental landscaping in these areas, some pa tches of native vegetation remain, and many native trees exist including coast live oaks and western sycamores. 17 There are open spaces are found along the Sierra Madre, Santa Anita, and Arcadia Washes, with larger areas in the upper Santa Anita Wash in the northeastern portion of the City and Peck Road County Park in the southeastern portion of the City. 18 The Santa Anita Wash open space area consists mainly of mechanically disturbed areas that function as access routes and spreading grounds for flood control activities. It also supports many coast live oak and western sycamore trees, along with patches of native habitat, including oak-sycamo re riparian forest with native understory components and high quality coastal sage scrub. 19 Peck Road County Park was once a gravel mining pit, and now consists of a large lake fed by the Santa Anita and Sawpit Washes. The park is utilized by the public for fishing and bird -watching and supports a few stands of willow (Salix spp.) riparian forest and scrub vegetation at the lake margins.20 The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (C DFW) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) may list species as threatened or endangered under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) or Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA), respectively. The USFWS can designate critical habitat that identifies specific areas that are essential to the conservation of a listed species.
14 City of Arcadia. 2010 General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. Available at https://www.arcadiaca.gov/shape/development_services_department/planning___zoning/general_plan.php#outer-708. Accessed November 2021.
15 Ibid.
16 Ibid.
17 Ibid.
18 Ibid.
19 Ibid.
20 Ibid.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
The HEU is a policy document and would not resu lt in direct housing construction but would facilitate and provide a policy framework for future housing development on candidate housing sites throughout the City. However, given the Ci ty is predominantly urban and developed, the candidate housing sites mostly include properties that have either been developed, disturbed, and/or adjacent to existing development. However, future housing development could potentially impact candidate, sensitive, or special status wildlife or plan species through direct or indirect disturbance or elimination of essential habitat.
Additionally, future housing development facilitated by the HEU may have the potential to impact nesting birds which have acclimated to urban li fe and nest and forage in the local trees and shrubs. These bird species are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Although the MBTA is no longer interpreted to protect mi gratory birds and raptors from incidental take, State Fish and Game Commission §3503 and §3503.5 still provide these protections. If vegetation clearing would occur during the bird breeding season (February 1 to July 15 for raptors and January 15 to August 31 for other birds), direct impacts to nesting birds could occur.
The City has identified the Arcadia Golf Course as a site to accommodate residential units across all of the income categories. As shown on Exhibit 2-13, the Arcadia Golf Course is approximately
25.86 acres in size and has the capacity to accommodate up to 192 units. Future development of the Arcadia Golf Course facilitated by the HEU would be subject to project-specific CEQA review and would be required to comply with site-specific applicable mitigation measures, if any. Future development of the Arcadia Golf Course site wo uld also be subject to the City’s development review process. However, as stated above, the HEU is a policy document and would not result in direct housing construction but would facilita te and provide a policy framework for future housing development on candidate housing sites throughout the City, including the Arcadia Golf Course.
All future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to the City’s development review process, which may include re view pursuant to CEQA that includes site- specific analysis and would be required to demonstrate compliance with federal, State, and local regulations aimed at protecting biological resources.
Following compliance with the established regu latory framework described above, future housing development would not result in substantial adverse effect, either directly or indirectly, or through habitat modifications to special status wildlife and plants. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant level.
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any ri parian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
Less Than Significant Impact. The HEU Project would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate future housing development throughout the City. All future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to the City’s development review process, which may include environmental review under CEQA which includes site-specific analysis where sensitive vegetation communities are assumed to be present. Surveys would verify and confirm the presence of sensitive vegetation communities and determine the extent of any potential impacts and the need for mitigation.
All future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be required to demonstrate compliance with federal, State, and local requirements aimed at protecting biological resources, including those in the Arcadia GP, as discussed in Threshold 4(a) above. Therefore, the HEU would not result in substantial adverse effect, either di rectly or indirectly, on any sensitive vegetation communities and impact would be less than significant in this regard. c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Less Than Significant Impact. As previously noted, the project would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate future housin g development throughout the City. All future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to the City’s development review process, which may include environmental review under CEQA, and required to demonstrate compliance with relevant federal, State, and lo cal regulations for avoiding and minimizing impacts to wetlands and other waters of the U.S. and State. Following compliance with the established regulatory framework future housin g development would not result in substantial adverse effect, either directly or indirectly, on any known wetlands or ot her waters of the U.S. and State. A less than significant impact would occur.
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Less Than Significant Impact. Future projects are not expected to substantially interfere with the movement of any native species. All future ho using development facilitated by the HEU would also be subject to environmental review under CEQA, the City’s development review process, and required to adhere to relevant federal, State, and local regulations for avoiding and minimizing interference with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish and wildlife species, migratory wildlife species, or migratory wildlife corridors. Future housing development where the City has determined a potential for im pacts to a wildlife corridor, would be required to comply with the established regulatory framework and mitigation measures of the Arcadia GP and Arcadia MC. Therefore, future housing development would result in a less than significant impact on wildlife corridors. Anticipated impacts would be less than significant.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City has policies and ordinances for the protection of trees.
The City’s Oak Tree Regulations protect Engelm ann oaks, coast live oaks, and other oak trees.
The City also has a Comprehensive Tree Management Program for the protection of street trees.21 As previously stated, the HEU is a policy document and would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate and provide a policy framework for future housing development on candidate housing sites throughout the City. All future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to the City’s development review process which may include environmental review under CEQA and be required to demonstrate compliance with the Arcadia GP goals and policies, Arcadia MC standards, federal, State, and local regulations. Future housing development would also be required to comply with the Oak Tree Regulations and the Comprehensive Tree Management Program. Ther efore, HEU would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological re sources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance, and impacts would be less than significant.
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan? No Impact. Currently, the City does not have Habita t Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans, or other approved local, regi onal, or State habitat conservation plans that cover habitats located within the City. As discussed above, the project would not result in direct housing construction, but would facilitate future housing development throughout the City. All future housing development facilitated by the HE U would be subject to the City’s development review process, which may include environmen tal review under CEQA, and be required to demonstrate compliance with federal, State, and local regulations regarding biological resources and policies. The Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, and no impact is anticipated in this regard.
21 City of Arcadia. 2010 General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. Available at https://www.arcadiaca.gov/shape/development_services_department/planning___zoning/general_plan.php#outer-708. Accessed November 2021
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
V. Cultural Resources
Would the Project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Less Than Significant Impact. The HEU is a policy document and would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate and provide a policy framework for future housing development throughout the City. Therefore, future housing development facilitated by the HEU could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, as defined in CEQA Guidelines §15064.5, through demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration, if such a resource is present on or near the site. There are 31 cultural resources, including both archaeological and historic resources, recorded at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC). In addition, there are three (3) built environmental historic reso urces that are eligible for listing or listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The potential impacts to known cultural resources resulting from future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be assessed on a case-by-case basis at the time of the projects are proposed. All future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to the City’s development review process, which may include environmental review under CEQA and be required to adhere to all federal, State, and local regulations for avoiding impacts to historical resources, including the National Historic Preservation Act. Arcadia GP Goal PR-9aims to retain and preserve the City’s significant historical and cultural resources and provide public understanding and involvement of the unique heritage of the City.
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the si gnificance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Less Than Significant Impact. As previously noted, the HEU is a policy document and would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate future housing development throughout the City. Therefore, ground-disturbing activities such as grading or excavation, associated with future housing development facilitated by the HEU could impact archaeological resources. The likelihood of encountering archeological resource s on undeveloped sites is greatest given these have been minimally disturbed in the past (e.g ., undeveloped parcels, vacant lots, and lots containing undeveloped areas). Alternately, prev iously disturbed sites are generally considered to have a lower potential for archeological resour ces, since previous construction activities may have already removed or disturbed soil that may have contained resources. A majority of the candidate housing sites are located in areas urba n and built areas that have been developed, except for the approximately 25.86-acre Arcadia Golf Course. However, future development of the proposed 192-unit within the Arcadia Golf Course facilitated by the HEU would be subject to project-specific CEQA review and would be requ ired to comply with site-specific applicable Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
mitigation measures, if any. Future development of the Arcadia Golf Course site would also be subject to the City’s development review process. However, as stated above, the HEU is a policy document and would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate and provide a policy framework for future housing developmen t on candidate housing sites throughout the City, including the Arcadia Golf Course.
Future housing development could distur b and potentially destroy subsurface prehistoric/historic archaeological resources through ground disturbances. All future housing development facilitated by the HEU would therefore be subject to the City’s development review process, which may include environmental review under CEQA, and be required to adhere to all federal, State, and local requirements for avoidi ng impacts to archeological resources. This includes compliance with the Arcadia GP, which includes goals aimed at reducing archeological impacts. Compliance with the established regu latory framework would reduce any potential impacts to less than significant.
c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Less Than Significant Impact. According to the Arcadia GP EIR, no known human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, have been identified in the City.22While it is not expected human remains within a formal cemetery would be disturbed as a result of future development facilitated by the Project, human remains could be accidentally uncovered during grading and ground moving activities occurring during future housing development facilitated by the Project. Thus, future construction of the candidate housing sites has the potential to disturb sacred human remains through grading, thereby resulting in a potentially significant impact.
In the unlikely event that human remains are discovered, the provisions set forth in California PRC §5097.98 and State HSC §7050.5 would be im plemented in consultation with the assigned most likely descendant as identified by the NAHC. In this event, no further construction activities would be permitted until the coroner is contacte d, as well as any applicable Native American tribes. The City would be required to comply with the California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (2001) and the Federal Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (1990). These regulations would address inadvertent uncovering of human remains during grading. Compliance with the established regulatory framework would result in a less than significant impact.
22 City of Arcadia. 2010 General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. Available at https://www.arcadiaca.gov/shape/development_services_department/planning___zoning/general_plan.php#outer-708. Accessed November 2021.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
VI. Energy
Would the Project:
a. Result in a potentially significant environmen tal impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Construction
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate and provide a policy framework for future housing development throughout the City. Therefore, future housing development faci litated by the HEU would result in the direct consumption of electricity and natural gas resour ces. Energy use from construction activities would primarily result from the use of diesel fuel (e.g., mobile construction equipment), fuel use by vehicles and construction equipment and vehicle trips associated with workers commuting to and from construction sites, and electricity (e.g., power tools) and fuel use. During construction, some incidental energy conservation would occur through compliance with State requirements.
Construction equipment would also be required to comply with the latest Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and CARB engine emissions standards. Construction-related energy consumption associated with future housing de velopments would be su bject to project-level review, approval by the City, and environmental review under CEQA.
Future construction activities associated wi th future housing development would also be required to monitor air quality emissions using applicable regulatory guidance per SCAQMD. This requirement indirectly relates to construction energy conservation because when air pollutant emissions are reduced as a result of monitoring and the efficient use of equipment and materials, this results in reduced energy consumption. There are no aspects of the HEU that would foreseeably result in the inefficient, wastef ul, or unnecessary consumption of energy during construction activities of future housing developments.
There are no unusual characteristics that woul d necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less energy efficient than at comparable construction sites in the region or State.
Future housing developments would be subjec t to environmental review under CEQA and project-specific review and approval to ensure compliance with applicable City goals, policies, and code requirements. Therefore, it is expected that construction fuel consumption associated with the HEU would not be any more inefficien t, wasteful, or unnecessary than other similar projects of this nature. Impacts to energy resources associated with the future developments’ construction activities would be less than significant. Project implementation would not grant any entitlements or building permit issuances th at would result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
Operations
Less Than Significant Impact. As previously noted, the project would not result in direct housing construction, but would facilitate future housing development. Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would consume energy dur ing operations through building electricity, water, and natural gas usage, as well as fuel usage from on-road vehicles. Passenger vehicles would be mostly powered by gasoline, with some fu eled by diesel or electricity. Public transit would be powered by diesel or natural gas and could potentially be fueled by electricity. All future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to the City’s development review process and required to adhere to all federal, State, and local requirements for energy efficiency, including Senate Bill (SB) 32’s Scoping Plan that includes a 50 percent reduction in petroleum use in vehicles and the latest Title 24 standards. It is also be noted that the project design and materials would be subject to compliance with the most current Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the City would review and verify that the project plans demonstrate compliance with the current version of the Building and Energy Efficiency Standards. The project would also be required adhere to the provisions of CALGreen, which establishes planning and design standards for sustainable site development, energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code requirements), water conservation, material conservation, and internal air contaminants. Therefore, project implementation would not result in a substantial increase in transportationǦrelated energy uses, such that it would result in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. b. Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Less Than Significant Impact. As previously discussed, the Project would not result in direct housing construction, but would facilitate future housing development. Future housing development facilitated by the Project would be required to comply with State Building Energy Efficiency Standards, appliance efficiency regu lations, and green building standards. Project development would not cause inefficient, wast eful, and unnecessary energy consumption, and no adverse impact would occur. Further, the Proj ect would also be required to comply with the policies included in the Arcadia GP Goal RS-5 aimed at reducing energy consumption.
Future housing development facilitated by the proposed project would be required to obtain permits and comply with federal, State, and local regulations aimed at reducing energy consumption. Federal and State energy regulations, such as the California Energy Code Building Energy Efficiency Standards (CCR Title 24, Part 6), the CALGreen Code (CCR Title 24, Part 11), and SB 743 transportation-related impact analysis requirements would also be imposed through future development permit review to minimize future energy consumption. Therefore, future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be required to be consistent with applicable federal, State, and local laws, policies, and regu lations related to renewable energy and energy efficiency. No direct physical environmental impacts would occur.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
VII. Geology and Soils
Would the Project:
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substant ial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by th e State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (Act) was passed in 1972 to address the hazard of surface faulting to structures for human occupancy. Alquist-Priolo fault zones are those that contain active faults that have erupted within the last 11,000 years.
Alquist-Priolo fault zones prohibit the deve lopment of structures which allow for human occupancy within their boundaries or along their fault lines. The City c ontains two fault zones; the Arcadia – Colton Fault, and a portion of the San Jacinto Fault. The City contains two fault zones; the Raymond Fault, and a portion of the Sierra Madre Fault. The portion of the Sierra Madre Fault is not considered an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone, the Raymond Fault is. A portion of the candidate housing sites in are located in the Alquist-Priolo fault zone. However, these areas were previously evaluated in the Arcadia GP EIR anal ysis and future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be required to adhere to the applicable mitigation measures to reduce impacts to less than significant. Furthermore, the Project would comply with applicable goals and policies contained within the Arcadia GP including Goal S-1, Policy S-1.2, and Policy S-1.3.
All other future housing development outside of the Alquist-Priolo fault zone area would also be required to demonstrate conformance with seismic design guidelines and requirements contained in the current Title 24 - California Standards Building Code (CBC). The CBC contains design and construction regulations pertaining to seismic safety for buildings, which covers issues such as ground motion, soil classifications, redundancy, drift, and deformation compatibility. The City’s Geotechnical Investigation Ordinance re quires new developments to fully analyze the geological condition of their project sites as well as any potential effect associated with development of their project sites. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
iii. Seismic related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides?
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
Less Than Significant Impact. Liquefaction is the loss of strength where loose, saturated, relatively cohesion-less soil deposits lose shear strength during strong ground motions. According to the Arcadia GP’s Figure S-3, Liquefaction an d Landslide Hazards, the Project site contains a general area designated as an Area of Modera tely Liquefication Susceptibility in the City’s northern and southern portions. The project would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate future housing development thro ughout the City. Therefore, future housing facilitated by the HEU could be subject to liquefaction. All future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to environmenta l review under CEQA, the City’s development review process, and required to adhere to all federal, State, and local requirements. The City requires inclusion of a Soils Report, per the Arcadia MC §9105.09.110, to be included in grading plans. Therefore, future housing development would be subject to the requirements of the Arcadia MC §9105.09.110. Considering these requirements, including the preparation of Soils Reports for future housing developments, as required by City Codes, future housing development facilitated by the HEU would not create substant ial risks to life or property associated with expansive soils. The Project candidate housing focu s areas are relatively flat and not within an area susceptible to landslides. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact. The Project would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate future housing development throughout the City. Therefore, future development facilitated by the HEU would involve grading acti vities that would disrupt soil profiles, and thereby result in potential increased exposure of soils to wind and rain. Erosion on graded slopes could cause downstream sedimentation impacts. Other related impacts resulting from substantial short-term erosion or loss of topsoil include topography changes and the creation of impervious surfaces. As previously noted, all future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to environmental review under CEQA, the City’s development review process, and required to adhere to all federal, State, an d local requirements for avoiding and minimizing impacts concerning soil erosion or loss of topsoil.
Prior to initiation of ground disturbing activities , future project applicants would be required to demonstrate compliance with the Arcadia MC in cluding requirements pertaining to erosion control to the satisfaction of the City engineer s. Short-term construction-related erosion would be addressed through compliance with the NPDES program, which requires implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWP PP) and best management practices (BMPs) intended to reduce soil erosion. Considering these requirements, future housing development facilitated by the HEU would not result in substa ntial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Less Than Significant Impact . Subsidence occurs when a large portion of land is displaced vertically, usually due to the withdrawal of groundwater, oil, or natural gas. Soils that are particularly subject to subsidence include those wi th high silt or clay content. The potential for liquefaction is greatest in the northeast portion of the City, away from potential candidate sites.
The project would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate future housing development throughout the City. All future h ousing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to environmental review under CEQA , the City’s development review process, and required to adhere to all federal, State, and local requirements, including the City’s Building and Construction codes (Arcadia MC Article VIII). Considering these requirements, including the preparation of Soils Reports for future housing developments, future housing development facilitated by the HEU would not create substant ial risks to life or property associated with expansive soils. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
No Impact. The Project would not result in direct hous ing construction but would facilitate and provide a policy framework for future housing development throughout the City. All future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be in areas served by the City’s sanitary sewer system and would therefore not use septic tank s or other alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, no impact would occur.
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleonto logical resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Less Than Significant Impact. While the Project would not result in direct housing construction, it would facilitate and provide a policy framework for future housing development throughout the City. Therefore, there is a likelihood that earthwork activities associated with future housing development facilitated by the HEU would encounter a paleontological resource. Direct impacts to paleontological resources could occur when ea rthwork activities (e.g., grading) cut into sensitive paleontological areas, thereby dire ctly damaging the resource, or exposing paleontological resources to potential indirect impacts (e.g., surficial erosion, uncontrolled specimen collection). All future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to environmental review under CEQA, the City’s development review process, and relevant federal Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
and State regulations regarding paleontological resources. The City’s development review process may require additional studies if paleontological resources are suspected to be impacted by future development on future candidate ho using sites. Compliance with the established regulatory framework would ensure potentia l impacts from future housing development concerning the destruction of a unique paleonto logical resource or unique geologic feature would be less than significant.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Would the Project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate and provide a policy framework for future housing development throughout the City. As noted in Section 14: Population and Housing, the future housing development facilitated by the HEU could potentially result in a populat ion growth of 17,346 persons or approximately 30 percent from the estimated 2020 population of 57,820, as shown in Table 1.
Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would result in an increase in GHG due to increased VMT, construction activities, stationary area sources (i.e., natural gas consumption for space and water heating devices, landscape ma intenance equipment operations, and use of consumer products), energy consumption, wate r supply, and solid waste generation. Increased GHG emissions could contribute to global clim ate change patterns and the adverse global environmental effects thereof. GHG emissions associated with future development are anticipated to include CO2, N2O, and CH4. Future housing development would be subject to the City’s discretionary review process, CEQA evaluation, and plan check process, which may require future applicants prepare air quality and greenh ouse gas emission studies using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). CalEEMod relies upon project-specific land use data to calculate emissions. Site-specific details are not av ailable for this analysis of the HEU, which is programmatic in nature.
The SCAG’s Connect SoCal: The 2020 – 2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) is a long-range visioning plan that balances future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental and public health goals.23 The City’s existing zoning designations could potentially facilitate housing developing in certain commercially zoned areas, and therefore reduce VMT and GHG impacts by creating housing opportunities in areas with pedestrian connectivity between residential and commercial uses and in proximity to public transportation, along established transportation co rridors, near recreation opportunities, and away from environmentally sensitive resources. Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be required to meet the mandatory energy requirements of California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) and the Energy Code (CCR Title 24, Part 6) in effect at the time of development. These regulations require that new development incorporate design features to capture energy efficiencies associated with bui lding heating, ventilating, and air conditioning mechanical systems, water heating systems, an d lighting. Future housing development would
23 SCAG. Connect SoCal (2020). Retrieved from https://scag.ca.gov/connect-socal. Accessed on August 25, 2021.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
also be required to implement strategies outlined in the City's climate action plan, which includes several measures that have the potential to reduce GHG emissions. As a result, fewer VMT results in fewer GHGs. Therefore, future developmen t facilitated by the HEU would not generate significant greenhouse gas emissions impacts. Impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. b. Conflict with applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project does not include physical alterations to the City which could directly create changes to the City’s existing air quality or regional air quality. Instead, the Project proposes multiple regulatory changes to the City’s General Plan. The City has identified candidate housing sites which would allow for the future development of additional DUs. These candidate housing sites are spread throughout the City. Exhibit 3: Map of Candidate Housing Sites shows the location of the identified candidate housing sites within the City.
As summarized in Section 14: Population and Housing , additional housing developments facilitated by the Project would exceed the City’s buildout growth projections in 2035. Therefore, the additional housing associated with the Projec t could inherently generate GHG at a rate that exceeds previous estimates or established limitations. Future housing development facilitated by the Project would result in an increase in GHG due to increased vehicle miles traveled (VMT), construction activities, stationary area sources (i.e., natural gas consumption for space and water heating devices, landscape maintenance equipment operations, and use of consumer products), energy consumption, water supply, and solid waste generation. Increased GHG emissions could contribute to global climate change patterns and the adverse global environmental effects thereof. GHG emissions associated with future development are anticipated to include CO2, N2O, and CH4. At the time of their initiation, new developments facilitated by the Project would be required to comply with applicable federal, State, and local regulations regarding GHG emission.
This includes policies instituted by SCAQMD in which developers would be required to comply with one of five exclusion tiers in order to avoid significant environmental impacts. Furthermore, future projects facilitated by the Project would continue to be required to comply with the California Building Code, which includes Title 24, Part 11. This requires residential developments to be planned and developed in a manner that is consistent with any applicable regulations involving energy efficiency, water efficiency/conservation, material conservation and resource efficiency, and environmental quality.
The HEU is a policy document and would not direct ly generate additional GHG emissions within the City. The Project is being created in accordance with the State Housing Law and general plan laws. To comply with the laws, the Project wo uld need to be created within the framework provided by State law and would therefore not conflict with other established State laws such as GHG regulations. Further, future development facilitated by the Project would be required to comply with existing GHG regulations and with the proposed additions to the Arcadia GP.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
Therefore, potential impacts to GHG levels as a result of Project implementation would be less than significant without mitigation.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would the Project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less Than Significant Impact. Exposure of the public or the environment to hazardous materials can occur through transportation accidents; environmentally unsound disposal methods; improper handling of hazardous materials or hazardous wastes (particularly by untrained personnel); and/or emergencies, such as explosions or fires. The severity of these potential effects varies by type of activity, concentration and/or type of hazardous materials or wastes, and proximity to sensitive receptors.
The Project would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate and provide a policy framework for future housing development throughout the City. Demolition and construction activities associated with future housing development facilitated by the HEU would require transport of hazardous materials (e.g., asbestos containing materials, lead-based paint, and/or contaminated soils). This transport wo uld be limited in duration. Compliance with handling measures is required by the City and the State Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) during construction and operational phas es of future development projects. These measures include standards and regulations re garding the storage, handling, and use of hazardous materials.
Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would not involve ongoing or routine use of substantial quantities of hazardous materials duri ng operations (occupancy of future housing).
Only small quantities of hazardous materials wo uld be anticipated including cleaning solvents, fertilizers, pesticides, and other materials used in regular maintenance. Impacts associated with the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant. b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate future housin g development throughout the City. Therefore, excavation and grading activities associated with future development facilitated by the HEU could expose construction workers and the general public to unknown hazardous materials present in soil or groundwater. All future housing development fa cilitated by the HEU wo uld be subject to the City’s development review process, which may include environmental review under CEQA, and be required to demonstrate consistency with the regulatory framework for minimizing upset associated with hazardous materials. Following compliance with the established regulatory Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
framework potential impacts involving the accide ntal discovery of unknown wastes or suspect materials during construction would be less than significant. c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less Than Significant Impact. The Project would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate future housing development throughout the City. The future housing development facilitated by the HEU would have a potentially significant impact on the environment if it would emit hazardous emissions or substances within 0.25-mile of an existing or proposed school. However, by its nature, and compared to existing land uses, future residential uses from the proposed candidate housing sites would not typically emit hazardous materials, substances, and wastes that are more hazardous than that of more intense uses such as commercial, industrial, and mixed uses. Further, all future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to the City’s development review process, which may include environmental review under CEQA, and be required to adhere to regulations related to the emissions or handling of hazardous materials, subs tances, or wastes near schools to reduce the potential for impacts to schools. Adherence to California Hazardous Waste Control Law, California Health and Safety Code, and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations would reduce potential impacts associated with the accidental release of hazardous materials. As a result, future housing development facilitated by the HEU would not conflict with any State or local plan aimed at preventing emis sions or handling of hazardous materials near schools. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to the responses above. The Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) is a department of Cal/EPA and is the primary agency in California that regulates hazardous waste, clean-up existing contaminatio n, and looks for ways to reduce the hazardous waste produced in California. Government Code §65962.5 (commonly referred to as the Cortese List) includes DTSC-listed hazardous waste facilities and sites, the State Department of Health Services’ lists of contaminated drinking water wells, sites listed by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) as having unde rground storage tank leaks and having had a discharge of hazardous wastes or materials into the water or groundwater; as well as, lists from local regulatory agencies of sites that have had a known migration of hazardous waste/material.
As previously noted, the HEU is a policy docu ment and would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate and provide a policy framework for future housing development throughout the City. As Such, all future development would be subject to verification of the site(s) none-inclusion on the list of hazardous waste sites (Cortese List) compiled by the DTSC pursuant Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
to CGC §65962.5. Per Arcadia GP Goal S-4 an d Implementation Actions 8-6 and 8-7, future housing development facilitated by the HEU wo uld be required to comply with existing regulations; as well as prepare Environmental Site Assessments to identify and abate hazardous material releases from prior land uses. 24 In addition, compliance with applicable federal, State, and local regulations would result in a less than significant impact concerning hazardous materials sites.
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in the Arcadia GP EIR, the nearest airport to the City is the El Monte Airport; however, the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) for the El Monte Airport does not extend into the City of Arcadia.
25 However, future housing development facilitated by
the HEU in the southern section of the City, incl uding development within the Live Oak Corridor and the Arcadia Golf Course may extend into the navigable airspace (within two (2) miles) of the El Monte Airport and could affect aircraft landing and take-off operations. 26 As such, future housing development facilitated by the HEU in these areas would be required to comply with the height limitations in the FAR Part 77.27 Further, all future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to the City’s develo pment review process, which may include environmental review under CEQA, and be required to adhere to all applicable regulations. A Less than significant impact would occur in this regard.
f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate future housing development th roughout the City. Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would increase allowable housing capacity in certain areas located throughout the City. This increase in density could result in an increased demand on emergency evacuation services in the event of a citywide or partial city emergency. However, the increased housing capacity associated with the HEU woul d predominantly occur within areas that have already been developed with residential and non-residential uses. Therefore, no changes in the City’s existing circulation network are proposed or required under the HEU and no impact to emergency response or evacuation is anticipated. All future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to the City’s development review process, which may include
24 City of Arcadia. 2010 General Plan – Section 10 Implementation Plan. Available at https://cms9files.revize.com/arcadia/Shape%20Arcadia/Development%20Services/general%20plan/Implementation%20Plan.pdf. Accessed November 2021.
25 City of Arcadia. 2010 General Plan Environmental Impact Report – Section 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Available at https://cms9files.revize.com/arcadia/Shape%20Arcadia/Development%20Services/eir/Hazards.pdf. Accessed November 2021. 26 Ibid.
27 Ibid.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
environmental review under CEQA, Arcadia MC, in cluding §9103.07 which requires developers to include suitable site access for emergency vehicles. As a result, future housing development facilitated by the HEU would not conflict with any State, County, or local plan aimed at preserving and maintaining adopted emerge ncy response or emergency evacuation plans. Impacts would be less than significant.
g. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Section 20: Wildfire . Future housing development facilitated by the Project would not directly or indirectly expose people or structures to a risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. The City has significant interface areas where a proactive approach to preventing the start and spread of wildland fire is vital to protecting lives and property. The northern portion of the City’s area is designated as Very High fire hazard severity zones, as mapped by CAL FIRE. The candidate housing sites may be developed in these areas adjacent to areas near open space; therefore, risk of wildfire could occur.
Federal, State, and county fire suppression agencies have responsibility areas in the City. To protect the City and its residents from fire hazards, the City has building and fire codes that must be followed. Using fire-resistant building materi als, implementing fuel modification zones, and maintaining vegetation clearance around structures is required to protect buildings and reduce the potential loss of life and property. New development in wildland and urban-wildland interface areas must be consistent with the existing regulations, including the State Fire Code, to meet fire safety standards for building constructi on. Additionally, the California Building Code includes sections on fire-resistant construction material requirements based on building use and occupancy. The construction requirements a re a function of building size, purpose, type, materials, location, proximity to other structur es, and the type of fire suppression systems installed. Because the State of California, C ounty of San Bernardino, and the City require adherence to building codes and review by the fire department to reduce wildland fires, fire hazard impacts would be less than significant.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
X. Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the Project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or wa ste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate and provide a policy framework for future housing development throughout the City. Future housing development could result in potential impacts related to water quality over three (3) different periods:
• During the earthwork and construction phase, where the potential for erosion, siltation, and sedimentation would be the greatest;
• Following construction, before the establishment of ground cover, when the erosion potential may remain relatively high; and
• After project completion, when impacts related to sedimentation would decrease markedly but those associated with urban runoff would increase.
Urban runoff, both dry and wet weather, discharges into storm drains, and in most cases, flows directly to creeks, rivers, lakes, and the ocean.
Construction
Short-term impacts related to water quality can occur during the earthwork and construction phases of future housing development projects. During this phase, the potential for erosion, siltation, and sedimentation would be the greatest. Additionally, impacts could occur prior to the establishment of ground cover when the erosion potential may remain relatively high. All future housing development facilitated by the HEU woul d be subject to environmental review under CEQA, the City’s development review process, and compliance with the established regulatory framework pertaining to water quality. If future developments disturb more than one acre of land surface, they would be required to obtain coverage under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) storm water prog ram. The NPDES Construction General Permit program calls for the implementation of best management practices (BMPs) to reduce or prevent pollutant discharge from these activities to the Maximum Extent Practicable for urban runoff and meeting the Best Available Technology Economically Achievable and Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology standards for construction storm water. Construction activities would be required to comply with a project-specific St ormwater Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) that identifies erosion-control and sediment-control BMPs that would meet or exceed measures required by the Construction Activity General Permit to control potential construction-related Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
pollutants. Erosion-control BMPs are designed to prevent erosion, whereas sediment controls are designed to trap sediment once it has been mobilized.
Additionally, the future development projects facilitated by the HEU would be required to comply with the City’s Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (Arcadia MC Article VII Chapter 8). The Stormwater Ordinance esta blishes requirements for the management of storm water flows from development projects, both to prevent erosion and to protect and enhance existing water-dependent habitats. The Ordinance assures consistency with the purpose and intent of this chapter and shall implement the requirements of an NPDES Permit.
Operations
Due to the built-out nature of the City, most surface flows are directed toward existing stormwater drainage facilities. The project would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate future housing development throughout the City.
All future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to environmental review under CEQA, the City’s development review proce ss, to install, implement, and maintain the BMPs identified in Arcadia MC §7823 includi ng, but not limited to erosion management; materials storage; inspection, maintenance, repair, upgrade of BMPs; and preparation of SWPPP.
Additionally, future developments would be required to comply with Arcadia MC §7823 pertaining to Residential BMP requirements including minimum BMPs specified for landscaping, home care and maintenance, and motor vehicle maintenance.
All new development would also be required to comply with existing water quality standards and waste discharge regulations set forth by the State Water Quality Control Board (SWQCB). Future developments facilitated by the HEU would comply with these regulations and waste discharges would be connected to the public wastewater system.
Future housing development facilitated by the HE U would be required to adhere to all federal, State, and local requirements for avoiding violation of water quality standards during construction and operations. Considering these requirements, future housing development facilitated by the HEU would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrad e surface or groundwater quality. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Less Than Significant Impact. In 2014, the State of California adopted the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) to help manage its groundwater. The SGMA requires that local Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSAs) be formed for all high and medium priority basins Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
in the State. These GSAs must develop and impl ement Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) for managing and using groundwater without causing undesirable results.
The City’s potable water supply is served by the City via the Public Works Services Department.
These water utilities acquire their water from groundwater basins in the area, surface water, and from importing water from surrounding utilities and water districts. While potential projects could increase water demand by increasing resi dential density and population, the City would need to meet this demand without increasing groundwater withdrawal significantly. Examples of achieving this would be to increase the amount of water imported, implementing water conservation measures, increase recycled water use, and/or implement groundwater recharging projects.
Future developments facilitated by the Project could potentially increase the amount of impervious surface area in the City from devel opment of undeveloped parcels, particularly the
25.86-acre Arcadia Golf Course. As such, future development within the Arcadia Golf Course will be required to comply with the Arcadia MC §7554.9 – Stormwater Management and Rainwater Retention and implement BMPs into the landscape and grading design plans to minimize runoff and to increase on-site infiltration that rech arges groundwater and improves water quality.
However, a large portion of the identified candidate housing site areas have been developed into residential and non-residential uses. Because rede velopment of existing structures is a primary effort, any potential project would not signific antly interfere substantially with groundwater recharge.
Additionally, construction of any potential proj ect that would involve excavation into or below the water table would require dewatering and those dewatering operations would need to comply with all dewatering requ irements to protect groundwater quality and supply. This is coupled with the BMPs that will be utilized during construction as laid out in the SWPPP to limit the amount of pollution in stormwater that recharges groundwater basins. With the proper implementation of stormwater BMPs, the impact of potential projects on groundwater resources would be minimized and these impacts would be less than significant. c. Substantially alter the existing drainage patter n of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or pr ovide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate future housing development th roughout the City. Most candidate housing candidate sites are developed and contain impe rvious surfaces, which direct surface flows toward existing City facilities. Due to the primar ily built-out nature of the City, construction of future housing developments facilitated by the HEU would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern through the addition of impervious surfaces. The drainage areas, as well as the drainage characteristics/patterns in the implem entation condition would be similar to existing conditions.
All future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to environmental review under CEQA, the City’s development review process, and required to adhere to all federal, State, and local requirements for avoiding impacts that could substantially alter the existing drainage pattern or alter the course of a stream or river, including the City’s Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (Arcadia MC Article VII Chapter 8).
Considering these requirements, future housing development facilitated by the HEU would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area. This includes no alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site, substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off-site, create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drai nage systems, or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, or impede or redirect flood flows. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Arcadia is located approximately 23.6 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean. Given the distance from the coast, the potential for the Project site to be inundated by a large, catastrophic tsunami is extr emely low. No steep slopes are in the vicinity of the City; therefore, the risk of mudflow is in significant. Additionally, as previously noted the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) iden tifies the entire City of Arcadia to be in Flood Hazard Zone X, which is identified as 500-year Floodplain, an area of minimal flood hazard.28
Furthermore, all future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to the City’s development review process, which may includ e environmental review under CEQA, and be required to adhere to all federal, State, and local requirements for avoiding and minimizing
28 FEMA. (2008). FEMA Flood Map Service Center: Search By Address. Retrieved from:
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=arcadia#searchresultsanchor Accessed October 12, 2021.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
impacts related to flood hazards, tsunami, or seiches, including the Arcadia GP policies and Arcadia MC codes. Considering these requirement s, the future housing development facilitated by the HEU would not result in significant increased risk concerning release of pollutants due to inundation, tsunami, or seiche zones. Therefore, HEU impacts would be less than significant. e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. As previously noted, in 2014, the SGMA was passed, The SGMA provides authority for agencies to develop and implement groundwater sustainability plans (GSP) or alternative plans that demonstrate the water basins are being managed sustainably. As discussed under Threshold 10b, the City is unli kely to face groundwater impacts through the implementation of the Project. Therefore, futu re housing development facilitated by the HEU would not obstruct implementation of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) and would comply with the Arcadia MC §7554.9 – Stormwater Management and Rainwater Retention.
The City’s Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (Arcadia MC Arcadia MC Article VII Chapter 8) aims to protect water resources and improve water quality. The ordinance causes use of management practices by the city and its citizens that will reduce the adverse effects of polluted runoff discharges on waters of the State and control contribution of pollutants to City’s municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s), and to ensure that the City is compliant with RWQCB and with applicable State and federal law.
Future developments facilitated by the HEU would be required to prepare a stormwater management plan and incorporate stormwater standards manual requirements into design documents to minimize potential impacts to water quality. Submitted materials would be required to demonstrate how the requirements of this stormwater ordinance would be met, and the permit or approval would not be approved unless the decision maker determines that the application complies.
Further, dischargers whose projects disturb one or more acres of soil or whose projects disturb less than one acre but are part of a larger common plan of development that in total disturbs one or more acres, are required to comply with th e General Permit for Discharges of Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ). The Construction General Permit requires the development of a SWPPP by a certified Qualified SWPPP Developer.
All future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to environmental review under CEQA, the City’s development review process, and required to adhere to all federal, State, and local requirements for avoiding and mini mizing conflicts with or obstruction of implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
Further, future housing development facilitated by the HEU would not prevent the City’s Clean Water Program from ensuring that MS4 Permit, and Basin Plan requirements are met. As a result, future housing development facilitated by the HEU would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
XI. Land Use and Planning
State Housing law requires that the Housing Elemen t identify specific sites that are potentially suitable for residential development. The City has compiled an inventory of candidate housing sites, which includes properties that are disp ersed throughout the community to minimize the potential for adverse changes to the neighborho od character and aesthetics and reduce the potential for adverse environmental impacts. As part of the initial site investigation, the candidate housing sites inventory encompassed six focus areas that were identified as potentially suitable areas for future housing expansion (see Exhibit 3). The opportunity area locations and candidate housing sites are summarized here and described later in this section Would the Project:
a. Physically divide an established community?
Less Than Significant Impact. Projects that divide an estab lished community can involve large scale linear infrastructure, such as freeways, high ways, and drainage facilities, that bisect an established community or crate barriers to mo vement within that community. Additionally, “local undesirable land uses,” such as prisons or landfills sites within economically depressed areas can also divide an established community.
As previously noted, the HEU does not propose any development. The Project would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate and provide a policy framework for future housing development throughout the City. All future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to discretionary permits and would occur as market conditions allow and at the discretion of the individual property owners. However, the HEU would identify a series of implementation actions that would increase housing capacity. Future housing development would largely occur in developed areas and in areas currently zoned with allowed residential uses; therefore, an increase in housing capacity would be consistent with existing zoning and would not divide an established community. Furthe r, it is not anticipated that future housing development facilitated by the HEU would require substantial road-widenings or other features which could divide the established community. As well, candidate housing sites have been identified throughout the City, rather than concen trated in a single area, thus would not divide an established community. For this reason, a less than significant impact would occur. b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less Than Significant Impact. The HEU includes focus areas for future housing development to meet the City’s RHNA allocation of 3,214 units. a. As noted above, the project would not result in direct housing construction, but would facilitate future housing development. Future housing Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
development facilitated by the HEU, which woul d occur as market conditions allow and at the discretion of the individual property owners. However, the HEU would identify a series of implementing actions to increase the City’s housing capacity. As part of the HEU, additional housing units would be accommodated on the candidate housing sites that are ultimately selected through revisions to the City’s Housing Element. Future housing development facilitated by the HEU is anticipated to increase the City’s housing stock where capacity exists.
Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be the City’s development review process, which may include discretionary permit approval and environmental review under CEQA, as well as, be required to comply with app licable federal, State, and local laws and local policies and regulations, as applicable to new housing development. The HEU is subject to comply with applicable State Housing law. As such, the HEU would be consistent with applicable land use and planning policies in the State, regional, and local context as necessary to meet that legislation. This includes consistency with the General Plan. Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would therefore be consiste nt with all applicable land use and planning policies and regulations intended to minimize environmental effects; therefore, a less than significant impact would occur.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
XII. Mineral Resources
Would the Project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State?
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? Less Than Significant Impact. According to the Arcadia GP EIR, there are no mining operations currently ongoing in the City. The Rodeffer Quarry operated at the southern end of the City from 1967 to 1990.29 In 1994, the City approved the reclamation plan for the quarry that allowed the import of inert materials to fill the quarry pit. 30 Landfilling operations are regulated by the RWQCB, CalRecycle, the California Department of Mines and Geology (CDMG). 31 To date, the Rodeffer Quarry is partly filled and landfilling operations are ongoing. 32 The Project would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate and provide a policy framework for future housing development throughout the City. As previously noted, future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be su bject the City’s development review process, which may include discretionary permit review and approval and environmental review under CEQA, as well as, be required to comply with app licable federal, State, and local laws and local policies and regulations, as applicable to new housing development. Future housing development will also be required to adhere to Arcadia GP Goals RS-7 and Policies RS-7,1 through 7,3 which aim to prevent the loss of availability of regionally or locally significant aggregate recourses. Therefore, impact would be less than significant with respect to mineral resources.
29 City of Arcadia. 2010 General Plan Environmental Impact Report Section 4.10 – Mineral Resources. Available at https://cms9files.revize.com/arcadia/Shape%20Arcadia/Development%20Services/eir/MineralResources.pdf. Accessed November 2021. 30 Ibid.
31 Ibid.
32 Ibid.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
XIII. Noise
Would the Project:
a. Generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies?
Less Than Significant Impact.
Construction Noise . The project would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate and provide a policy framework for future housing development throughout the City.
Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would result in construction noise generated from development activities.
In general, construction would typically involve the following construction sequences: (1) site preparation and/or demolition; (2) grading and utilities construction; (3) building construction; (4) paving; and (5) architectural coatings. Ty pical construction equipment would include backhoes, excavators, graders, loaders, compac tors, cranes, trucks, pavers, pneumatic tools, generator sets, and air compressors. With except ion to pile-driving activities, construction equipment with substantially higher noise-generation characteristics (such as rock drills and blasting equipment) would not be anticipate d for construction of typical residential developments. Typical construction equipment generates maximum noise levels at 50 feet from the noise source ranging between 80 dBA for ba ckhoes and loading trucks, to 85-90 dBA for graders and excavators, as shown in Table 8, Maximum Noise Levels Generated by Construction Equipment below.
Table 8: Maximum Noise Levels Generated by Construction Equipment Equipment Acoustical Use Factor Lmax at 50 Feet (dBA) Lmax at 100 Feet (dBA) Concrete Saw 20 90 84
Crane 16 81 75
Concrete Mixer Truck 40 79 73
Backhoe 40 78 72
Dozer 40 82 76
Excavator 40 81 75
Forklift 40 78 72
Paver 50 77 71
Roller 20 80 74
Tractor 40 84 78
Water Truck 40 80 74
Grader 40 85 79
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
Equipment Acoustical Use Factor Lmax at 50 Feet (dBA) Lmax at 100 Feet (dBA) General Industrial Equipment 50 85 79
Notes:
1. dBA: A-weighted decibels; Lmax: maximum noise level.
2. The Acoustical Use Factor (percent) estimates the fraction of time each piece of construction equipment is operating at full power (i.e., its loudest condition) during a construction operation.
Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, 2020.
In general, construction noise can vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity and the specific type of equipment in operation. Additionally, construction activities associated with future housing development faci litated by the HEU is anticipated to occur in incremental phases over time based on market demand, economic, and planning considerations.
As a result, construction-related noise would not be concentrated in any one particular area of the City.
All future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to the City’s development review process, which may includ e environmental review under CEQA, and be required to comply with the Arcadia MC Chapter 6, Noise Regulation. Construction associated with future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be required to comply with the Arcadia MC §4610.3 (Noise Limits) and adhere to Arcadia GP Goal N-1 and Policies N-1,1 through N-1.5 would reduce any potential impacts with regard to noise to less than significant.
For some future housing developments, such as those near sensitive noise receptors, the City may choose to require conditions of approval to include measures under its development review process such as temporary sound barriers and sh ielding to reduce potential noise impacts on sensitive receptors. For example, acoustically designed enclosures and buildings can provide up to approximately 50 dBA of noise reduction, depending on the noise abatement treatments implemented. The Arcadia Noise Ordinance exempts construction noise that occurs between the hours of 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM on any day except Sundays and major holidays.
Operations Noise. The project would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate future housing development throughout the City. Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would result in additional housing, people, pets, and automobiles in the City. Noise would be generated by stationary operation-related sources, such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units, tankless water heater s, generators, lawn maintenance equipment, and swimming pool pumps. All future housing development facilitated by the HEU may be subject to discretionary permits and environmental review under CEQA and would be required to demonstrate compliance with Arcadia MC Chapter 6.
Noise is also likely to occur from line sources, such as motor vehicle traffic. Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would result in increased traffic volumes on local city roadways, thereby increasing cumulative noise levels. Given the City’s largely developed nature, new housing development would not be expected to significantly increase traffic volume on local Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
roadways. Additional average daily trips (ADT) fr om future housing development facilitated by the HEU would need to more than double current ADT for there to be a discernable difference in noise levels (i.e., more than 3 dBA increase). Furthermore, most of the identified focus areas are within previously developed portions of the City already generating traffic volumes and mobile noises. All future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to environmental review under CEQA, the City’s development re view process. Compliance with Arcadia MC Chapter 6 would ensure future construction and operations related noise impacts would be less than significant.
b. Generate excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. The project would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate future housing development th roughout the City. Construction activities associated with future housing development fa cilitated by the HEU could result in varying degrees of groundborne vibration impacts from heavy equipment operations, depending on the construction procedure and equipment used . Construction equipment operations would generate vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in amplitude with distance from the source. The effect on buildings located near a construction site often varies depending on soil type, ground strata, and construction characteristics of the receiver building(s). Groundborne vibrations from construction activities rarely reach levels that damage structures.
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has published standard vibration velocities for construction equipment operations. In general, the FTA architectural damage criterion for continuous vibrations (i.e., 0.2 in/sec) appears to be conservative. The types of construction vibration impacts include human annoyance and building damage. Human annoyance occurs when construction vibration rises significantl y above the threshold of human perception for extended periods of time. Building damage can be cosmetic or structural. Ordinary buildings that are not particularly fragile would not experience any cosmetic damage (e.g., plaster cracks) at distances beyond 30 feet. This distance can vary substantially depending on the soil composition and underground geological layer between vibrati on source and receiver. In addition, not all buildings respond similarly to vibration generate d by construction equipment. For example, for a building that is constructed with reinforced concrete with no plaster, the FTA guidelines show that a vibration level of up to 0.20 in/sec is c o n s i d e r e d s a f e a n d w o u l d n o t r e s u l t i n a n y construction vibration damage.
Ground-borne vibration generated by construc tion equipment spreads through the ground and diminishes in magnitude with increases in distance. Based on FTA data, vibration velocities from typical heavy construction equipment operations that would be used during Project construction range from 0.003 to 0.089 in/sec PPV at 25 feet from the source of activity.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
As previously discussed, the Project does not include physical alterations to the City. If proposed buildout were to occur, the additional allowable residential density at the candidate housing sites would remain within the expected population growth of the City and Region (See Section 14:
Population and Housing. The increase in density is not anticipated to change the overall impact of growth in the City compared to what was assumed in the Arcadia GP and SCAG’s Connect SoCal RTP/SCS. Any future development within the ca ndidate housing sites would be subject to the City’s standard development review process, including compliance with the City’s GP, compliance with the municipal code, and site-specific CEQA review. Therefore, impacts are less than significant.
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Less Than Significant Impact. Currently, there are no airports within the City of Arcadia. As previously discussed, the closest airport to Arcad ia is the El Monte Airport, which is located approximately 1.25 miles to the south of the Ci ty boundary. Per the Arcadia GP EIR, aircraft operations at this airport are audible at the southern section of the City, and flyovers at low levels are audible over the City of Arcadia. Future housing development within the Live Oak Corridor and the Arcadia Golf Course would be subject to the City’s development review process on a case-by-case basis, which may include disc retionary permit review and approval and environmental review under CEQA. The HEU is a policy document and does not directly involve housing construction. The HEU would not contain policies that would conflict with airport land use plans nor would it promote development near any airports. Therefore, less than significant impact related to exposing people to excessive as a result of airport land use would occur.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
XIV. Population and Housing
Would the Project:
a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Less Than Significant Impact. The HEU is a policy document and would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate and provide a policy framework for future housing development on candidate housing sits throughout the Ci ty and would not directly induce any population growth. To meet the City’s RHNA allocation of 3,214 units, the HEU identifies a series of implementing actions to increase the City’s ho using capacity that would induce some planned population growth in the City. As a component of Statewide housing legislation, any housing growth associated with the Project would be in accordance with State-level regulation and would therefore not be considered unplanned.
Any future housing development facilitated by the HEU would occur in urbanized locations near existing infrastructure (roads, utilities) and serv ed by fire and other emergency responders. As shown in Table 7, the City has identified the total pote ntial housing development capacity of approximately 7,222 housing units. As previously noted, because the Project does not propose physical alterations, direct population growth wo uld not be induced solely due to the Project’s implementation.
Table 9, Population Increase from Housing Element below summarizes the projected population growth associated with the implementation of the Project and future buildout of the City’s proposed 7,222 candidate housing units.
Table 9: Population Increase from Housing Element
Definition 6th Cycle Housing
Element
Number of RHNA Allocation Units 3,214
Number of Potential Candidate Housing Units 7,222
Existing Capacity including ADUs 2,386
New Housing Units 4,836
Persons per household (Department of Finance, 2020) 2.86 Population (Department of Finance, 2020) 57,820
Total Population Forecast with HEU 71,651
Forecasted Population Increase with HEU 13,831
Population Growth Forecast by Percentage with HEU 24%
2035 Development Capacity of 2010 Arcadia GP (Maximum Buildout) 61,995 Unplanned Additional Population Growth Forecast from 2035 Maximum Buildout with HEU 9,656 Population Growth Forecast (2020-2035) percentage without HEU 7.2% Population Growth Forecast (2020-2035) by Percentage with HEU 15.6% Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
Total Forecasted SCAG Population 2045 62,200
Total Forecasted SCAG Population 2045 with HEU 76,031
SCAG 2045 Population Growth Forecast Percentage with HEU 22.2% As shown in Table 9, future development facilitated by the Project would therefore enable the development of a total of 7,222 additional housing units within the City. When multiplied by the Department of Finance (2020) average persons per household of 2.86, the 7,222 housing units facilitated by the HEU would generate an ap proximately 13,831-person population increase within the City. When combined with the 2020 total population of 57,820 persons, the City would potential grow to a total population of approximately 71,651 during this HEU planning period.
This would create an approxim ate 24 percent increase in the 2020 population. However, the Arcadia GP EIR discussed the projected maximum population growth within the City in 2035 and estimated the maximum buildout to be approximately 61,995 persons.33 The proposed candidate housing sites are predominantly situated in urba nized and developed areas in the City within existing land use and zoning designations, consistent with the Arcadia GP and were evaluated as part of the total planned population and housin g growth in the GP. Therefore. the HEU would result in an increase of approximately 9,656 persons or 15.6 percent in unplanned population increase.
Without implementation of the Project, the Ci ty is anticipated to experience a population increase of approximately 7.2 percent to the projected 2035 maximum buildout population, as shown in Table 9. The HEU would result in a significant impact if it would “induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area.” While the HEU could potentially increase the population forecast by 15.6 percent, this increa se would not be considered substantial as the growth would occur over an extended period and the HEU is intended to help the City meet its RHNA allocation. Future housing development facilitated by the HEU is intended to be dispersed throughout the community in areas suited for residential development. As previously discussed, future housing development facilitated by the HEU would occur incrementally through 2029, based on market conditions and other constraints.
The implementation of the HEU would potentia lly increase the City’s projected population estimated by the SCAG RTP/SCS. The SCAG RTP/SCS anticipates the City’s population to be 62,200 people by 2045. With the inclusion of the Projec t this number will be increased by 22.2 percent to reach a total of 76,031 people. As with other projections, this number is a conservative estimate based on the development of the entire set of candidate sites.
It is noted that the Project would facilitate development of affordable housing units, in accordance with State law. The increase in affordable housing units would provide housing opportunities in proximity to jobs for those employed within the City that meet these household income categories, including those working in local retail/commercial service businesses, hotels,
33 City of Arcadia. 2010 General Plan Environmental Impact Report Section 4.12 – Population and Housing. Available at https://cms9files.revize.com/arcadia/Shape%20Arcadia/Development%20Services/eir/Population.pdf. Accessed November 2021.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration