Overlays
Selected parcel highlighted
Parcel location within City of Arcadia
Yes
Property Owner(s):
Lot Area (sq ft):
Year Built:
Main Structure / Unit (sq. ft.):
DMU
Number of Units:
DMU
Property Characteristics
1961
4,600
0 Property Owner
Site Address: 25 WHEELER AVE
Parcel Number: 5773-006-004
N/A
Zoning:
General Plan:
Yes
Downtown Overlay:
Downtown Parking Overlay:
Architectural Design Overlay: N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Residential Flex Overlay:
H-8
N/A
N/A
N/A
Special Height Overlay:
N/A
Parking Overlay:
Racetrack Event Overlay:
This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable.
Report generated 26-Apr-2022
Overlays
Selected parcel highlighted
Parcel location within City of Arcadia
Yes
Property Owner(s):
Lot Area (sq ft):
Year Built:
Main Structure / Unit (sq. ft.):
DMU
Number of Units:
DMU
Property Characteristics
1959
3,750
0 Property Owner
Site Address: 31 WHEELER AVE
Parcel Number: 5773-006-005
N/A
Zoning:
General Plan:
Yes
Downtown Overlay:
Downtown Parking Overlay:
Architectural Design Overlay: N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Residential Flex Overlay:
H-8
N/A
N/A
N/A
Special Height Overlay:
N/A
Parking Overlay:
Racetrack Event Overlay:
This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable.
Report generated 26-Apr-2022
Overlays
Selected parcel highlighted
Parcel location within City of Arcadia
Yes
Property Owner(s):
Lot Area (sq ft):
Year Built:
Main Structure / Unit (sq. ft.):
DMU
Number of Units:
DMU
Property Characteristics
1987
9,000
1 Property Owner
Site Address: 30 E SANTA CLARA ST
Parcel Number: 5773-006-010
N/A
Zoning:
General Plan:
Yes
Downtown Overlay:
Downtown Parking Overlay:
Architectural Design Overlay: N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Residential Flex Overlay:
H-8
N/A
N/A
N/A
Special Height Overlay:
N/A
Parking Overlay:
Racetrack Event Overlay:
This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable.
Report generated 26-Apr-2022
Attachment No. 5
Planning Commission Minutes,
Staff Report with no attachments,
and Resolution No. 2093
DATE: May 10, 2022
TO: Honorable Chair and Planning Commission
FROM: Jason Kruckeberg, Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director Lisa L. Flores, Planning & Community Development Administrator
SUBJECT: MINOR USE PERMIT NO. MUP 2 1-08, ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. ADR 21-12, GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY NO. 22 -01, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. TPM 21-02, A DENSITY BONUS AND A
STREET VACATION ALONG WITH AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUAL ITY ACT
(CEQA) FOR THE “ALEXAN ARCADIA” MIXED -USE DEVELOPMENT , WITH 319 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, INCLUDING 26 AFFORDABLE UNITS, LOCATED AT 150 N. SANTA ANITA AVENUE
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2093 Recommending Approval to the City Council
SUMMARY
The applicant, Arcadia Apartments, LLC, on behalf of the property owner, Pi Properties and 111 LLC, is requesting a pproval of Minor Use Permit No. MUP 2 1-08, Architectural Design Review No. ADR 21-12, Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 21-02, and General Plan Consistency No. 22-01 to construct a new mixed-use development at 150 N. Santa Anita Avenue and surrounding properties . The project includes a density bonus and a street vacation and will result in a seven- story mixed-use building containing 319 residential units, including 26 affordable units and eight live-work units. The existing eight-story office building will remain on site as well as the one -story Bank of America drive-through ATM use, and a plaza will be construct ed to connect these existing uses to the new building.
A parking structure will be constructed as part of the mixed -use building and will include 551 parking spaces to be shared by all uses on site.
The proposed development is consistent with the City’s General Plan, Development Code, and Subdivision Code. The Statement of Findings addresses the environmental effects associated with the proposed project , as described in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2093 (Attachment No. 1) recommending approval of the project to the City Council, subject to the conditions listed in this staff report.
150 N. Santa Anita Ave.
Alexan Mixed-Use Project
May 10, 2022
Figure 1 - Aerial of Subject Site
BACKGROUND
The project site consists of four parcels totaling approximately 2.96 acres in size, located on the east side of N. Santa Anita Avenue, south of Santa Clara Street, and north of Wheeler Avenue. The site is zoned Downtown Mixed Use (DMU) along with a H8 Height Overlay, which allows construction up to 95 feet in height. The General Plan Land Use Designation of the site is Downtown Mixed Use with a residential density allowance of 80 units per acre and a Floor Area Ratio of 1.0 – refer to Attachment No. 2 for an Aerial Photo with Zoning Information and Photos of the Subject Property. The property is surrounded by commercial uses consisting of the REI retail location to the north, which is zoned DMU, as well as the Gold Line Light Rail station, parking garage and transit plaza.
To the east is a public alley and t he Arcadia Post Office site , and to the south across Wheeler Avenue is the City’s public parking lot, all zoned DMU. To the west across Santa Anita Avenue is the Rusnak Mercedes Benz dealership (zoned as Central Business District) and other properties zoned DMU (see Figure 1 below for an aerial of the site).
PROPOSAL
Three of the existing buildings on site, those addressed as 30 E. Santa Clara, 25 Wheeler Avenue, and 31 Wheeler Avenue, will be demolished as part of the project . The existing eight-story office building and associated one-story Bank of America building, will remain on site and will share parking with the new building. Additionally, an open plaza area will
150 N. Santa Anita Ave.
Alexan Mixed-Use Project
May 10, 2022
Figure 2 – Site Plan
be constructed to connect the existing buildings with the new mixed- use development, along with a small 750 square foot café use. The drive through ATM use will remain.
The proposed mixed- use development consists of the construction of a seven- story building with five stories of residential units ( 319 units) over two subterranean levels of parking and additional project parking on levels one and two. Of the 319 residential units, 26 will be reserved for affordable housing at the very low -income level. The ground floor of the building along Wheeler Avenue will consist of eight live-work spaces and will convey a commercial appearance. Similarly, the ground floor frontage along Santa Clara Street will consist of the lobby, fitness area, and lounge for the associated residential units and will also appear as commercial along the streetscape.
In order to achieve this project description, the applicant is proposing to cons olidate the existing four legal lots into two lots, one for the existing buildings along Santa Anita Avenue at 35,609 square feet in size, and one for t he new mixed- use development at 92,901 square feet in size – refer to Attachment No. 3 for the Tentative Parcel Map and Attachment No. 4 for the Architectural Pl ans. The proposed building will be 84’-11” in height, therefore the development will be in compliance with the maximum height of 95 feet. In addition to the commercial appearance of the street frontages, the project will include refurbishment of the public alley to the east of the site into an improved accessway to the parking structure and pedestrian connection between the Arcadia Gold Line Station and Downtown Arcadia. S ee Figure 2 below for the overall site plan of the project area and Figure 3 for the renderings of the project.
150 N. Santa Anita Ave.
Alexan Mixed-Use Project
May 10, 2022
Figure 3 - Renderings
150 N. Santa Anita Ave.
Alexan Mixed-Use Project
May 10, 2022
The proposed residential unit mix will be comprised of 64 studios, 168 one-bedroom units, 79 two-bedroom units, and 8 live-work units. These units will occupy the second through the seventh floor s of the building and will range in size from studios beginning at 508 square feet to 1,382 square feet for the largest of the two-bedroom units. Of these units, 26 will be provided as affordable housing units to be reserved for residents at the very low-income level per Los Angeles County’s affordability standards. By providing 11% affordable units at very low -income (based on the original allowed density), the project qualifies for a density bonus per the Government Code of the State of California . This density bonus permits an additional 35% of units on site, which is why the overall project proposal of 319 units is permissible.
In terms of open space, the Alexan provides a substantial open space program for residents. Level 3 of the building includes an outdoor pool area, fire pit, barbeque dining area, game lounge and a lawn area, as well as an outdoor passive court area located in the middle of the building. The project also includes private balconies and a game roo m and roof deck on the top level.
In terms of parking, the project will provide a total of 551 parking spaces within the four levels of the associated parking garage and several surface spaces. The parking supply is meant for both the residents of the mixed-use building, as well as for the existing office buildings that will remain on site. Access to the parking structure will be provided from Santa Clara Street through the alley to the east of the project as well as from Wheeler Avenue. Egress will be from these same locations as well as through the northwest corner of the site adjacent to the Bank o f America ATM travel lanes and onto Santa Anita. The project will also include all electric vehicle, ADA van accessible, and bicycle parking spaces required per the Development Code and associated regulations. Due the provision of affordable housing units, as well as the proximity to the light rail station, the project qualifies for reduction in parking requirements as a matter of right. Additional detail and analysis on parking is provided below.
ANALYSIS
The project site is zone d DMU, which allows a mixed -use development subject to the approval of a Minor Use Permit (MUP). A MUP is typically processed administratively by staff, however since the proposed mixed- use development requires a Tentative Parcel Map as well as a density bonus and street vacation, the MUP is subject to both Planning Commission and City Council review. The purpose of the MUP is to ensure compatibility with the surrounding uses and to promote an active pedestrian environment with commercial uses located along street frontages. During a Study Session with the City Council concerning the project, the Council stated that they were interested in a market or specialty food store locating in this area as a way to activate the area and provide a needed service for new residents. The applicant reviewed this plan with their commercial team and concluded that the space would not be successful for such a use. A report was generated illustrating these findings, called the Alexan Arcadia Market Analysis (see Attachment No. 7). In addition, the City contracted with CBRE to provide a retail analysis of this project which concluded that the findings in the Market Analysis are adequate (also included in Attachment No. 7). In addition, an alternative was added to the Environmental 150 N. Santa Anita Ave.
Alexan Mixed-Use Project
May 10, 2022
Impact Report that evaluates the ground level of the Wheeler Avenue frontage as a market use to compare impacts.
In order to provide a commercial frontage, the applicant has proposed eight live- work units along Wheeler Avenue. These units will provide comm ercial uses and provide an active streetscape along Wheeler. Residential uses are only permitted in conjunction with a commercial use and are permitted above ground floor commercial. The subject property is one of the few properties in Arcadia which is designated with an H8 Height Overlay , allowing up to 95 feet in height. This was done to facilitate the existing eight story building on the site many years ago but, given that this Overlay zone is in effect, no modification is necessary given the maximum height of the building is proposed at 84’ -11” to the top of the parapet.
The proposed mixed- use development requires approval of a T entative Parcel Map to consolidate the four existing parcels into two parcels. Parcel 1 will contain the one- story Bank of America building (6,534 square feet), the eight -story office building (75,133 square feet) and its adjacent one-story building (1,586 square feet). Parcel 2 will contain the new mixed-use building at 258,341 square feet of residential square footage, along with eight live-work units. For purposes of computing Floor Area Ratio (FAR), the square footage of the “work” portion of the live-work units was included with the other commercial uses on the resulting two parcels. This results in 92,534 square feet of c ommercial floor area, or an FAR of .72. Given that residential area is not included in the FAR calculation, this FAR is below the maximum commercial FAR allowed of 1.0. T he proposed subdivision has been reviewed by the applicable City departments and it co mplies with the subdivision regulations of the Arcadia Municipal Code and the State Subdivision Map Act and will not violate any requirements of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Density Bonus and Affordable Housing
Senate Bill 1818 amended the State’s Density Bonus program, and it offers incentives for the development of affordable housing for low income, moderate income, and senior citizen households. The Arcadia Development Code refers to the applicable Government Code when referencing density bonus law and the program allows developments to receive a density bonus over and above the allowable base density if the appropriate number of affordable units are provided. In this case, the developer is proposing 11% of the units be set aside as affordable housing for very low-income households. With 11% of the units affordable at this level, the project qualifies for a 35% density bonus per the State. The table below shows the unit summary, including the allowable density.
Residential Component Calculation Number of Units
Base Density 80 du/acre 236
SB 1818 Unit Count 35% 319
Housing Type Provided
Market Rate Units 293
Affordable Units 26
150 N. Santa Anita Ave.
Alexan Mixed-Use Project
May 10, 2022
This is a density that is allowed by -right if the affordable units are provided. In order to ensure that the allowable units are include d, the Development Code requires that the method proposed by the developer to maintain the continued affordability of the units be provided. To this end, t he developer will be recording a Density Bonus Housing Agreement which will be reviewed by the City Attorney to ensure that the 26 affordable units will be rented to individuals who qualify at very low-income levels. The Agreement will also ensure that these units are maintained as affordable over time. These units will be spread throughout the project and the covenant will be recorded prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
In addition, the Government Code and the Arcadia Development Code allow developers to seek concessions or waivers to certain zoning requirements along with density bonuses. This can include relaxation of development standards such as parking or height, setbacks, lot co verage, etc. In this case, the only development standard that is being altered by the developer is parking. However, since the project is located in close proximity to the light rail station AND is providing affordable housing units, the developer is able to provide the units with less associated parking than the Code requires. This issue is described in more detail below in the parking section, but is mentioned here because, if necessary, the developer could request a concession that would be reviewed by t he Planning Commission and City Council. No concession is necessary, however.
Parking
The proposed project would redevelop a site containing existing surface parking for the office building. As a result, a total of 183 existing surface parking spaces would be replaced in the parking structure, with an additional six surface spaces remaining adjacent to the building. The proposed parking structure will provide a total of 551 parking spaces, contained in two subterranean levels and the first two levels of the new building. These spaces are designed to be internal to the site, as the ground level on both street frontages will include the live -work portion along Wheeler Avenue and the amenity portion of the residential project along Santa Clara Street.
For the residential component of a mixed- use development, the Arcadia Development Code generally requires 1.5 spaces per unit and 1 guest space for every 3 units. However, AB 2345 amended the Density Bonus Law to provide that a city may not require more than 0.5 spaces per unit, including guest and disability parking, for a development that includes at least 11% very low -income units, is within one- half mile from a major transit stop, and has unobstructed access to that transit stop. Accordingly, giv en the project’s provision of affordable housing and proximity to a major transit stop, for 319 units, the required residential parking is 160 spaces. In addition to the 160 required spaces, the applicant will provide an additional 193 spaces for a total of 353 spaces. Of those 353 residential parking spaces, State and local codes require that six (6) be accessible spaces and two (2) be van accessible spaces.
So, per density bonus law , the required parking would be to replace the existing commercial spaces (183 spaces), plus the 160 residential spaces for a total of 343 150 N. Santa Anita Ave.
Alexan Mixed-Use Project
May 10, 2022
spaces. With 551 spaces proposed, the development is meeting the legal requirements.
The table below provides a summary of the allocation of the parking spaces being provided vs. what is required per law.
Parking Required Spaces
Commercial Parking to be replaced.
Eight-Story Office Building, drive through building, Café 183
Residential Parking per Density Bonus Law 160
TOTAL REQUIRED
343
Parking Provided Spaces
Commercial Parking to be replaced.
Eight-Story Office Building, drive through building, Café 183
Residential Parking for:
• 72 studios/live work units
• 247 one and two-bedroom units
368
TOTAL PROVIDED
551
Although the project meets the parking requirements per AB 2345, a more detailed analysis was performed on expected parking demand and the sharing of parking spaces between the proposed land uses . This can be found in Appendix K -2 of the EIR, the Transportation Technical Memorandum. To summariz e, the demand for parking was reviewed on a 24-hour period based on utilization demand figures obtained for each land use through the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation Manual. Because the commercial uses are not operating in the evening or night, which is the most impacted period for the residential uses, many of the spaces are effectively “shared” during a normal business day and evening. The study anticipates the highest demand for the commercial use is between 10:00 AM on weekdays and Saturday, and for the residential use overnight between 12:00 AM and 4:00 AM on weekdays and Saturday. The combined weekday peak shared demand for all uses together would be at 10:00 AM on weekdays and would result in a peak parking demand of 404 spaces. Similarly, peak parking demand on Saturday for all uses would occur overnight when most residents were present, resulting in a demand for 376 spaces. Therefore, the demand for all uses would still fall below the overall parking supply proposed of 551 spaces. The fact that the project is within a few hundred feet of the light rail station adds credibility to this analysis and the overall parking needs. The Transportation Technical Memorandum does conclude, however, that 376 parking spaces be reserved for residential uses at all times to accommodate the maximum demand period for residential uses.
The Code also requires bicycle parking for mixed- use developments at a rate of 0.2 spaces per residential unit and 5% of non-residential parking. Based on 319 residential 150 N. Santa Anita Ave.
Alexan Mixed-Use Project
May 10, 2022
units and 171 non-residential parking spaces, 82 b icycle parking spaces are required.
The project will provide 82 bicycle parking spaces located on level 1 of the development.
This complies with the Code and exceeds the minimum requirement. Additionally, the project will meet all ADA and Energy Efficient vehicle requirements.
Another issue that is of import for this project is construction parking and replacement parking during construction. The applicant has identified a number of possibilities for replacement parking, including the Gold Line (or L Line) Arcadia station, the Sierra Madre Villa Station, and Santa Anita Park. Staging of construction vehicles is expected to occur within the project boundaries. Given the size of the site, the staging should be able to be handled without disrupting the surrounding parking lot or commercial uses. A detailed replacement parking and construction parking and staging plan will be required prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project.
Traffic and Circulation
Vehicular circulation to the Project site and parking structure is proposed with two two- directional access points as well as two exit-only locations. Vehicular access and egress to the Project site would be available from the alley on the eastern edge of the Project site from Santa Clara. Additionally, vehicles would be able to exit the parking structure to an exit-only driveway onto Santa Clara on the northwest portion of the site, adjacent to the existing office building. The other entrance is available on the southwest corner of the site via Wheeler Avenue. Vehicles would be able to both enter and exit from this point, but the drive aisle on to Santa Anita at this location will be an exit only from the garage.
These access and egress points have been evaluated in the traffic study and reviewed by the City Engineer and will be adequate for the project and its associated uses.
In terms of traffic, both the trips generated by the existing uses and the newly generated trips were evaluated to determine any expected impacts on the traffic flow through the area. A total of six intersections were analyzed as part of this project, including the intersections of Santa Anita Avenue and Huntington Drive, Wheeler Avenue and Santa Clara Avenue, and the intersections of First Avenue and those same three cross streets. 150 N. Santa Anita Ave.
Alexan Mixed-Use Project
May 10, 2022
Figure 4 – Intersections that were Studied
A Level of Service (LOS) analysis was conducted on these intersections. Based on the results of the LOS, site access, and parking analyses presented in Appendix K-2 of the EIR (The Transportation Technical Memorandum) , the following summarizes the key findings:
• The proposed Project would generate 1,424 net daily trips, 132 net AM peak hour trips (38 inbound and 94 outbound), and 166 net PM peak hour trips (100 inbound and 66 outbound).
• The six study area intersections currently and are forecast to operate at LOS E or better under all analysis scenarios, which meets the City’s traffic impact thresholds for the Downtown mixed-use district.
• The proposed Project would not result in unacceptable queueing conditions into or out of the Project site; however, the following recommendations are made:
o To restrict northbound left-turning movements from the ATM driveway exit onto Santa Clara Street given the proximity of the Santa Anita Avenue/Santa Clara Street intersection.
o Provide wayfinding signage at all parking garage ingress points for customers prior to entering the garage.
o Provide wayfinding signage within the parking garage such that customers are directed to the ATM drive-thru, and other users of the site are channeled to parking spaces and garage exits.
150 N. Santa Anita Ave.
Alexan Mixed-Use Project
May 10, 2022
The full text of the traffic study and associated tables can be found in Appendix K -2, but no significant impacts are expected as a result of the traffic generated by this project.
Architectural Design
The project is designed in a contemporary architectural style with an array of exterior finishes consi sting of stone tile veneer , architectural finished concrete, smooth and textured stucco, wood- like screens and decorative metal elements (see Figure 5). This portion of Downtown Arcadia is eclectic and consists primarily of one-story and two-story buildings in various architectural styles. However, the existing eight-story office building on site as well as the adjacent Gold Line Parking Structure and new four -story office building to the north of the site provide urban, contemporary elements that the new building will fit into. The proposed mixed- use development was designed to create a streetscape environment that will promote pedestrian activity and provide a complementary mix of residential and commercial uses. The project meets the City’s Design Guidelines and achieves compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood as well as the existing streetscape.
Figure 5 – Rendering
As shown in Figure 5 -- the project includes thoughtful treatments of the ground levels along both Santa Clara Street to achieve differentiation between the residential levels of the building and the commercial feel of the streetscape. Along Wheeler, live- work units are provided that include large, two-level window and strong stone veneer treatments that conveys a work -space appearance. The corner along Wheeler is anchored with a cantilevered element that frames a lobby and provides a unique treatment for the residential levels above. The Santa Clara frontage provides the “active” portions of the residential use, including the building lobby, fitness area, lounge area, etc. Walkways and glazing accentuate this area and provide a nice interface with the right -or-way. Also, the
150 N. Santa Anita Ave.
Alexan Mixed-Use Project
May 10, 2022
large courtyard area in the northern portion of the building provides a visual break for the streetscape at the third level of the building and provides excellent articulation and openness for the units. This de-emphasizes the massing from this elevation and provides light for many of the units.
The upper levels of the buildings are appropriately designed to create a distinction between the residential uses from the ground floor commercial /amenity spaces. In addition, the parking levels will be adequately concealed as the structure is wrapped with the commercial storefronts and access is taken for the most part off of the alley and internal drives. A balanced color and material palette is used to provide neutral colors and accent finishes that complement the area and the adjacent eight -story office building.
Again, the proposed overall design is consistent with the City’s Design Guidelines and is compatible with the surrounding area.
All City requirements regarding disabled access and facilities, occupancy limits, building safety, health code compliance, emergency equipment, environmental regulation compliance, and parking and site design shall be complied with by the property owner/applicant to the satisfaction of the Building Official, City Engineer, Planning & Community Development Administrator, Fire Marshal, and Public Works Services Director, or their respective designees.
Open Space
The Code requires a minimum of 100 square feet of open space for each residential unit in the D MU zone (31,900 square feet total). The proposed mixed- use development provides a mix of public and private open space throughout the project that exceeds this requirement. Private balconies are provided for many of the units in addition to an interior courtyard area, a pool courtyard, and a roof deck. The public spaces include a barbeque area in addition to the pool area, a lawn/grassy area, landscaped and hardscape areas with various seating and lounging areas. While the private balconies and patios are located to provide privacy from the office building to the west, the public open spaces are sited to offer views of the mountains and also include gaming areas and opportunities for entertainment. The public open spaces total 17,398 square feet while the private open space makes up 23,957 square feet for a total of 41,355 square feet. The project provides significantly more open space than what is required by Code, with the intent to provide residents with usable outdoor areas for recreational activities.
The project also proposes two additional common areas that provide open areas for the project, the plaza between the new building and the existing office building and the alley to the east of the project. While both of these areas do provide vehicular access points to the parking garage, they also serve as pedestrian only accessways. The plaza between the building provides easy access to the office building from the parking garage and includes seating and gathering areas which will be served well by the new café to be added. The alley on the east side of the property is a public alley that will be used as a direct access point from the Gold Line Station to Downtown Arcadia and will also serve as a place for pedestrians and cyclists to move through the area. 150 N. Santa Anita Ave.
Alexan Mixed-Use Project
May 10, 2022
FINDINGS
Minor Use Permit
Section 9107.09.050(B) of the Development Code requires that for a Minor Use Permit to be granted, it must be found that all of the following prerequisite conditions can be satisfied:
1. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan.
Facts to Support This Finding: Approval of the proposed mixed- use project would be consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation of Downtown Mixed Use, which allows a residential dens ity of 8 0 units per acre and a commercial floor area r atio of 1.0. This land use designation allows mixed- use developments and strongly encourages a pedestrian-oriented environment with a complementary mix of commercial and residential uses. The proposed live -work units will help generate increased activity along Wheeler Avenue and will convey a commercial appearance along the street. The proposed mixed-use development will not adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan and is consistent with the following General Plan goals and policies:
Land Use and Community Design Element
• Policy LU- 1.1: Promote new infill and redevelopment projects that are consistent with the City’s land use and compatible with surrounding existing uses.
• Policy LU-1.8: Encourage development types that support transit and other alternative forms of transportation, including bicycling and walking. • Policy LU-4.2: Encourage residential development that enhances the visual character, quality, and uniqueness of the City’s neighborhoods and districts. • Policy LU-4.3: Require the provision of adequate private and common open space for residential units. Require sufficient on-site recreational facilities to meet the daily needs of residents, if possible, commensurate with the size of the development.
• Policy LU- 6.4: Encourage design approaches that create a cohesive, vibrant look and that minimize the appearance of expansive parking lots on major commercial corridors for new or redeveloped uses. • Policy LU-6.5: Where mixed use is permitted, promote commercial uses that are complementary to adjacent residential uses.
2. The proposed use is allowed within the applicable zone, subject to the granting of a Minor Use Permit, and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Development Code and the Municipal Code.
150 N. Santa Anita Ave.
Alexan Mixed-Use Project
May 10, 2022
Facts to Support This Finding: The subject site is zoned Downtown Mixed Use (DMU), which allows for mixed -use developments subject to the approval of a Minor Use Permit (MUP). The proposed project complies with all the development standards of the DMU zone, including but not limited to setbacks, height, open space, parking dimensions and aisleways, etc. The project provides the requisite number of very low-income units to qualify for a density bonus AND relaxation of parking requirements per density bonus law under SB 1818 and AB 2345. As such, the project meets the Municipal Code requirements as well as State law.
3. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed activity will be compatible with the existing and fu ture land uses in the vicinity.
Facts to Support This Finding: The subject site is 128,510 square feet in size and is located in the Downtown Mixed Use (DMU) zone. The site is surrounded by commercial uses consisting of the Rusnak Mercedes Benz dealership to the west across Santa Anita Avenue, which is zoned Central Business District, as well as other office uses zoned for DMU . A retail use (REI) is located to the north across Santa Clara along with the Gold Line Parking Structure and rail station. To the south of the project is commercial parking owned by the City which serves the commercial uses along Huntington Drive to the south as well as the other buildings along Wheeler Avenue. To the east is the post office site and another mixed- use project. All of the surrounding properties are zoned DMU, with the exception of Rusnak Mercedes Benz. The project embodies what the goals of the DMU zone are, with a mix of and commercial uses. The project will also provide residential uses that will support the commercial uses in this area. Therefore, the development and operation of t he mixed-use development will be compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity.
4. The site is physically suitable in terms of:
a. Its design, location, shape, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed use in order to accommodate the use, and all fences, landscaping, loading, parking, spaces, walls, yards, and other features required to adjust the use with the land and us es in the neighborhood.
Facts to Support This Finding: The project site is 128,510 square feet in size and can physically accommodate the proposed mixed- use development. The residential component of the project will provide a density of 108 units per acre, which is in compliance with the maximum density for the area due to the density bonus permitted as a result of the affordable housing units being provided. The commercial component of the project will have a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0. 72, which is in compliance with the maximum allowable FAR of 1.0. Additionally, the amount of on-site parking that will be provided for this project meets and exceeds the minimum 150 N. Santa Anita Ave.
Alexan Mixed-Use Project
May 10, 2022
required by State law for projects providing affordable housing units that are in close proximity to the Gold Line Station. To provide a “reality check” of the parking situation, a parking demand analysis was provided as part of the Environmental Impact Report for the project. The analysis concluded that ample parking is provided to s erve the shared uses of the site.
Therefore, the site is physically suitable to accommodate the proposed mixed-use development.
b. Streets and highways adequate in width and pavement type to accommodate public and emergency vehicle ( e.g., fire and medical) access.
Facts to Support This Finding: The project site is located on the south side of Santa Clara Street through to the north side of Wheeler Avenue to the west of Santa Anita Avenue. These streets are adequate in width and pavement type to carry emergency vehicles and traffic generated by the proposed use on the site.
c. Public protection se rvices (e.g., fire protection, police protection, etc.).
Facts to Support This Finding: The Fire and Police Departments have reviewed the application and determined that there will be no impacts to public protection services. The need for new or altered F ire or Police services is usually associated with substantial population growth. The proposed mixed-use development is not anticipated to cause substantial population growth; therefore, no impacts to public protection services are anticipated. Development of Downtown Arcadia has been anticipated and planned for since the General Plan was updated in 2010. Mixed use developments and residential units have been expected since that time on the part of public protection services.
d. The provision of utilities (e.g., potable water, schools, solid waste collection and disposal, storm drainage, wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal, etc.).
Facts to Support This Finding: As part of the development , new utility connections, including connections for potable water and storm drainage, will be required. Implementation of best management practices during construction and operation would ensure impact s to water quality do not occur. The site can be adequately served by all required utilities through interconnection with existing utilities within City rights -of-way abutting the site.
5. The measure of site suitability shall be required to ensure that the type, density, and intensity of use being proposed will not adversely affect the 150 N. Santa Anita Ave.
Alexan Mixed-Use Project
May 10, 2022
public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare, constitute a nuisance, or be materially injurious to the improvements, persons, property, or uses in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located.
Facts to Support This Finding: The proposed mixed-use development is not anticipated to have adverse effects on the public health or welfare, or the surrounding neighborhood. The project will be compatible with the surrounding commercial and residential uses in the general area. Additionally, t he Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project assessed all the potential impacts from the project and it was determined that there would be no significant impacts to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. Therefore, the proposed use will not adversely affect the public convenience, health, interest, safety or general welfare of adjacent uses in the vicinity and zone of the subject property.
Tentative Parcel Map
The proposal includes a parcel map to consolidate the four existing lots into two and to vacate a public alley – see Attachment No. 3 for Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 21-02.
The proposed subdivision complies with the subdivision regulations of the Arcadia Municipal Code and the Subdivision Map Act, and will not violate any requirements of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. The following findings are required for approval of a Tentative Parcel Map:
6. The proposed map, subdivision design, and improvements are consistent with the General Plan, any applicable specific plan, and the Subdivisions Division of the Development Code.
Facts in Support of the Finding: Approval of the proposed mixed- use development with a tentative parcel map to divide the ground parcels is consistent with the Downtown Mixed Use Land Use designation as it is intended to accommodate mixed- use development s. The project has been reviewed for compliance with the City’s General Plan, Development Code, and the State Subdivision Map Act. It has been determined that the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan Downtown Mixed-Use Land Use designation and the Downtown Mixed-Use zoning standards. The site is physically suitable for this type of development and the architectural design of the building is compatible with the scale and character of the surrounding area. The proposed tentative parcel map complies with the Subdivision Map Act regulations and there is no specific plan applicable to this project. The project will not adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan and is consistent with the following General Plan goals and policies:
Land Use and Community Design Element
• Policy LU- 1.1: Promote new infill and redevelopment projects that are consistent with the City’s land use and compatible with surrounding existing uses.
150 N. Santa Anita Ave.
Alexan Mixed-Use Project
May 10, 2022
• Policy LU-1.8: Encourage development types that support transit and other alternative forms of transportation, including bicycling and walking. • Policy LU-4.2: Encourage residential development that enhances the visual character, quality, and uniqueness of the City’s neighborhoods and districts. • Policy LU-4.3: Require the provision of adequate private and common open space for residential units. Require sufficient on-site recreational facilities to meet the daily needs of residents, if possible, commensurate with the size of the development.
• Policy LU- 6.4: Encourage design approaches that create a cohesive, vibrant look and that minimize the appearance of expansive parking lots on major commercial corridors for new or redeveloped uses. • Policy LU-6.5: Where mixed use is permitted, promote commercial uses that are complementary to adjacent residential uses.
7. The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The project site is approximately 128,510 square feet in size and is physically suitable for the proposed mixed- use development. The MU zone allows a maximum residential density of 8 0 units per acre and a floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.0 for non- residential uses. However, the Arcadia Municipal Code and State law allow a density bonus process and parking relaxation if affordable housing is provided and the findings for the density bonus can be made in this case. The density of 108 dwelling units per acre fits within the physical constraints of the site and the project proposes a commercial FAR of 0.72 and a height of 84’11”, both within the limitations required by the site. T herefore, the project is in compliance with the Development Code and the site is physically suitable for the proposed development.
8. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The proposed tentative parcel map to consolidate and reform existing parcels for the proposed mixed- use development is a minor subdivision of an infill site within an urbanized area; therefore, it will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
9. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health or safety problems.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The proposed subdivision will consolidate and reform existing parcels in a commercial infill setting for a proposed mixed- use development. The construction of the proposed development will be carried out in compliance with Building and Fire Codes and all other applicable regulations. The City’s existing infrastructure will adequately serve the new development. In 150 N. Santa Anita Ave.
Alexan Mixed-Use Project
May 10, 2022
addition, the project meets all health and safety requirements, and will not cause any public health or safety problems.
10. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision (This finding shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgement of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision).
Facts in Support of the Finding: The proposed design of the subdivision does not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. Part of the project is the vacation of an existing public alley within the site. Thi s alley is not currently used substantially nor is it necessary for the public good in any way. There are no conflicts with any other easements on the subject property.
11. The discharge of sewage from the proposed subdivision into the community sewer system will not result in violation of existing requirements specified by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The Arcadia Public Works Services Department determined that the City’s existing infrastructure will adequately serve the new development, and the requirements of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board will be satisfied.
12. The design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, passive or natural heating and cooling opportunities.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The proposed tentative tract map and mixed- use development have been reviewed by Building Services to ensure compliance with the California Building Code, which includes requirements associated with heating and cooling requirements.
13. The proposed subdivision, its design, density, and type of development and improvements conforms to the regulations of the City’s Development Code and the regulations of any public agency having jurisdiction by law.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The proposed parcel map as conditioned, and following the application of a density bonus, complies with the density requirements of the City’s Development Code, and all the improvements required for the site and each unit will comply with the regulations in the City’s Development Code.
150 N. Santa Anita Ave.
Alexan Mixed-Use Project
May 10, 2022
Density Bonus
The proposal includes a density bonus of 35%, which is allowed based on the provision of 11% of the units being designated for very low -income residents. The findings below are required for a density bonus to be permitted.
14. The Project will be consistent with the General Plan, except as provided by this section with regard to maximum density, density bonuses, and other incentives and concessions.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The project is consistent with the Downtown Mixed Use land use designation in the General Plan, as well as the zoning requirements of the DMU zone. The Project meets the following policies of the General Plan Land Use Element: LU-1.1, LU-1.8, LU-4.2, LU 4.3, LU-6.4, and LU-
6.5. 15. The approved number of dwellings can be accommodated by existing and planned infrastructure capacities.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The project proposes 319 dwelling units, which includes 26 affordable units and 8 live-work units. All relevant utility providers and service providers reviewed the proposed project and have declared that the project can be serve d with existing and /or planned infrastructure. The Arcadia General Plan has anticipated mixed- use development in Downtown Arcadia since 2010.
The infrastructure has been reviewed and analyzed with this in mind and the project can be accommodated.
16. Adequate evidence exists to indicate the project will provide affordable housing in a manner consistent with the purpose and intent of this Section.
Facts in Support of The Finding. The applicant has submitted a draft Density Bonus Housing Agreement which specifies that 26 units will be provided for low and very low -income residents. This document must be recorded prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the project an d shall run with the property. This will provide the necessary surety that these units will remain affordable over time.
17. In the event that the City does not grant at least one financial concession or incentive as defined in Government Code Section 65915 in addition to the density bonus, that additional concessions or incentives are not necessary to ensure affordable housing costs as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50052.5, or for rents for the targeted units to be set as specified in Government Code 65915(C.).
Facts in Support of the Finding: The project is proposing a density bonus of 35% based on the provision of 11% affordable units at the very low-income level, which 150 N. Santa Anita Ave.
Alexan Mixed-Use Project
May 10, 2022
is allowable per State law. In addition, the project is utilizing the parking relaxation requirements allowed through AB 2345 due to the provision of affordable housing and proximity to transit. As such, the project can meet all other zoning requirements and standards and no concessions or incentives are necessary to meet the targeted affordability.
18. There are sufficient provisions to guarantee that the units will remain affordable for the required time period.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The developer has submitted a draft Density Bonus Housing Agreement which will be finalized and agreed to by both parties prior to recordation. The document will be required to be recorded prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the project.
Street Vacation and General Plan Consistency
As part of the project, the public alley running east-west from the eastern boundary of the site is proposed to be vacated. At the April 5, 2022, City Council Meeting, the City Council announced its intent to hold a public hearing on this matter. In advance of that, State law (Government Code Section 65402) requires that the Planning Commission is to review the vacation request and determine if the vacation is consistent with the General Plan’s Circulation Element. In this case, the pu blic alley is not used broadly by the public and serves no purpose within the development. The alley was previously in place to provide access to the original lots and their associated buildings however, all of these buildings are proposed for demolition and the alley is no longer necessary. Any utilities in the alley will be abandoned and are no longer necessary for the City or adjoining parcels. This has been made clear on the associated Tentative Parcel Map for the project.
If the public alley was to r emain in place now that the buildings will be demolished, it would preclude the ability of the developer to build a cohesive project that includes a joint parking garage to provide parking for the residential use and the existing commercial office buildings. By vacating the alley, the City is allowing the lots to be effectively joined to create an assembly of parcels that allow the mixed use project to be built, furthering the City’s goal to attract mixed- use development in Downtown Arcadia. As such, the vacation of the alley in question is compliant with the Arcadia General Plan and meets the following policies of the General Plan Circulation Element:
• Policy CI-1.2: Implement street design standards on arterial corridors consistent with the Master Plan of Roadways to address bicycle facilities, sidewalks, and on- street parking that are context sensitive to adjacent land uses and districts, and to all roadway users, where appropriate.
• Policy CI-7.1: Ensure that parking requirements in the City’s zoning regulations appropriately reflect the needs of businesses, residents, and institutions, and the evolving nature of personal transportation (for example, electric or other alternative fuel vehicles, car sizes, increased bicycle use).
150 N. Santa Anita Ave.
Alexan Mixed-Use Project
May 10, 2022
• Policy CI -7.2: Accommodate shared use of public and private parking facilities within business districts and where joint use of parking lots is appropriate given the uses sharing the facilities.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for this project by Dudek to evaluate potential environmental impacts that would result from implementation of the project (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070271). Please see the link to the EIR and associated technical studies as Attachment No. 5 to this Staff Report.
The EIR provides an introduction, review of the environmental setting for the project, a project description, a review of all the required sections for environmental analysis, and a review of alternatives. The sections of environmental analysis that were reviewed include:
• Aesthetics
• Air Quality
• Cultural Resources
• Energy
• Geology and Soils
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use and Planning
• Noise
• Population and Housing
• Public Services and Recreation
• Transportation
• Tribal Cultural Resources
• Utilities and Service Systems
Upon a complete review of all of the topics listed above, the EIR concluded that there are a number of mitigation measures required for the project. With the incorporation of these mitigation measures, however, the project will have no significant impacts. As such, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) will be provided to ensure that these mitigations occur. A summ ary of the required mitigations is provided below. For a full description of the mitigations, please see the EIR (link provided as Attachment No. 5):
• MM-CUL-1: Requirement for a Worker Environmental Awareness Program to educate those on the site as to archaeological resources that may be uncovered during grading, excavation or construction and requirements for procedures to protect any archaeological resources.
• MM-GEO-1: Requirement for retention of a paleontologist to educate workers and prepare guidelines for awareness of potential paleontological resources and procedures of they are located.
150 N. Santa Anita Ave.
Alexan Mixed-Use Project
May 10, 2022
• MM-HAZ-1: Ensure that demolition contractor incorporates proper abatement requirements for hazardous materials during demolition. • MM-HAZ-2: Soil Management Plan related to the potential presence of contaminated materials during excavation.
• MM-HAZ-3: Soil Vapor Mitigation design features prior to grading permit. • MM-TRA-1: Requirement for City-approved construction traffic control plan. • MM-TCR-1: Retention of a Native American monitor from the Kizh Nation prior to any ground disturbance activities to ensure protection of any Tribal cultural resources.
• MM-TCR-2: Ensure any human remains are reported to Coroner and proper protections are in place.
• MM-TCR-3: Protocols in the event that human remains are discovered which are relevant to the Tribe.
The Draft EIR was distributed for public review on February 24, 2022, and the public review period was from February 24, 2022, through April 11, 2022. Comment letters were received from the following interested parties. Copies of all of the comment letters are included within Attachment No. 6.
• Caltrans
• Lozeau Drury on behalf of Supporter’s Alliance for Environmental Responsibility • David Fu on behalf of property owner Dong Chang, MD.
• Mitchell Tsai on behalf of the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters A Response to each of the comments received is also included within Attachment No. 6.
PUBLIC NOTICE/COMMENTS
A public hearing notice for this item was published in the Arcadia Weekly newspaper and mailed to the property owners located within 300 feet of the subject property on April 7 and again on April 21, 2022. The project had originally been scheduled for the April 26, 2022 public hearing but was moved to May 10, 2022. In order to be clear with the hearing date, the second notice was published and mailed on April 21 advertising the May 10 date. Except for the comments listed above related to the Draft EIR, as of May 5, 2022, no public comments were received regarding this project.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning C ommission recommend approval of Minor Use Permit No. MUP 21 -08, Architectural Design Review No. ADR 21- 12, Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 21-02 along with a density bonus and street vacation to the City C ouncil, and adopt Resolution No. 2093, subject to the following conditions of approval:
1. The Applicant/Property Owner shall prepare and execute a Density Bonus Housing Agreement that will ensure that at least 26 units are reserved on site as housing for very low -income residents. The Density Bonus Housing Agreement must be recorded in the Office of the Los Angeles Recorder’s office prior to the issuance of 150 N. Santa Anita Ave.
Alexan Mixed-Use Project
May 10, 2022
a Certificate of Occupancy for the project. Prior to recordation, the Applicant/Owner shall submit the Agreement to the City for review and approval by the City and shall obtain the City Attorney’s approval thereof. For this purpose, the Applicant/Owner shall submit to the City with the proposed Agreement a deposit of $7,5 00 for purposes of such review, of which any funds remaining after review of the Agreement by the City shall be returned to the Applicant/Owner.
2. A declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions (“CC&Rs”) providing for reciprocal parking and access between both properties shall be prepared by the Applicant and recorded against both properties in the Office of the Los Angeles County Recorder’s Office after the final map has been recorded. Prior to their recordation, the Applicant/Owner shall submit the CC&R’s to the City for review and approval by the City, and shall obtain the City Attorney’s approval thereof. For this purpose, the Applicant/Owner shall submit to the City with the proposed CC&Rs a deposit of $3,000 for purposes of such review, of which any funds remaining after review of the CC&R’s by the City shall be returned to the Applicant/Owner.
3. The Applicant/Property Owner shall provide wayfinding signage at all parking garage ingress points for customers prior to entering the garage and providing wayfinding signage within the parking garage such that customers are directed to the ATM drive -thru, and other users of the site are channeled to parking spaces and garage exits.
4. Where parking serves more than one accessible entrance, accessible parking spaces shall be dispe rsed and located on the shortest accessible route to the accessible entrances.
5. A wheel stop shall be provided for each parking space adjacent to and facing a wall, building, walkway, utility cabinet, or structure. The wheel stops shall be set a minimum of 36 inches from the forward end of the parking space and shall be six inches high and in accordance with the City’s Development Code. All parking stalls shall also be double-striped to provide a parking stall with a 9-foot width, measured to the center of the lines. Said plan shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning and Community Development Administrator, or designee, prior to submitting the plans into Building Services for plan-check.
6. Tree removal sh all not occur during the local nesting season (February 1 to September 15 for nesting birds and February 1 to June 30 for nesting raptors), to the extent practicable. If any construction or tree removal occurs during the nesting season, a nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to commencement of grading or removal of any trees on the property. If the biologist determines that nesting birds are present, restrictions may be placed on construction activities in the vicinity of the nest observed until the nest is no longer active, as determined by a qualified biologist. The size of the protective barrier will be determined by the biologist based on the location of the nest, type of construction activities, the existing human activity in the vicinity of the nest and the sensitivity of the nesting species. Grading and/or construction may resume in this area when a 150 N. Santa Anita Ave.
Alexan Mixed-Use Project
May 10, 2022
qualified biologist has determined the nest is no longer occupied and all juveniles have fledged. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Planning & Community Development Administrator, or designee.
7. The final map must be approved and recorded by the Los Angeles County Recorder’s Office prior to issuance of a building permit.
8. The final landscape plans must be submitted at the same time as the b uilding and architectural plans to Building Services for plan- check. The P roject shall be developed and maintained by the Property Owner/Applicant in compliance with all of the recommended tree protection measures and maintenance (prior, during and after construction), as listed in the Arborist Report, dated September 2021.
9. The Project shall comply with Chapter 35A Multi-Family Construction Standards as amended in the Arcadia Municipal Code Section 8130.20.
10. During all Project site construction, all construction‐ related activities, including maintenance of construction equipment and the staging of haul trucks, shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturday. No construction is permitted on Sundays and holidays specified in the City’s Municipal Code.
11. The Project shall be developed and maintained by the Applicant/Property Owner in a manner that is consistent with the plans submitted and conditionally approved for Minor Use Permit No. MUP 21 -08, Architectural Design Review No. ADR 21- 12, and Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 21- 02), subject to the satisfaction of the Planning & Community Development Administrator or designee. Noncompliance with the plans, provisions and conditions of approval shall be grounds for immediate suspension or revocation of any approvals.
12. The Applicant/Property Owner shall be responsible for the repair of all damage to public improvements in the public right -of-way resulting from construction related activities, including, but not limited to, the movement and/or delivery of equipment, materials, and soils to and/or from the site. This shall be determined by the Planning and Community Development Administrator and Public Works Director during construction and up until issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
13. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Applicant/Property Owner shall submit a parking management plan providing how replacement parking for the existing uses on site shall be provided, including signed leases with adjacent properties as needed. The parking management plan shall include a staging plan for construction parking and staging and conditions f or the management of replacement and construction parking so as to minimize impacts on surrounding public parking areas and street parking. Said plan shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning and Community Development Administrator, or designee. 150 N. Santa Anita Ave.
Alexan Mixed-Use Project
May 10, 2022
14. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, it must be verified that at least 376 parking spaces are designated for residential uses and 82 bicycle parking spaces are provided.
15. The plans submitted for Building plan check shall comply with the latest adopted edition of the following codes as applicable:
a. California Building Code
b. California Electrical Code
c. California Mechanical Code
d. California Plumbing Code
e. California Energy Code
f. California Fire Code
g. California Green Building Standards Code
h. California Existing Building Code
i. Arcadia Municipal Code
16. All utility conductors, cables, conduits and wiring supplying electrical, cable and telephone service to the building shall be installed underground except risers which are adjacent to and attached to a building.
17. The grading plans shall indicate all site improvements and shall indicate complete drainage paths of all drainage water run-off.
18. The Applicant shall conduct pre- construction surveys prior to excavation, and existing improvements on the adjacent property at 100 N. Santa Anita Avenue shall be inspec ted and the pre- construction condition shall be documented.
During construction, all recommendations of the geotechnical investigation shall be followed and the building at 100 N. Santa Anita Avenue shall be monitored during drilling and pile installation, and periodically throughout construction.
Professionals representing 100 N. Santa Anita Avenue may participate in the preconstruction survey and monitoring activity at their own expense.
19. The Applicant/Property Owner will be required to pay the City’s Map and Final Approval Fee prior to approval of the Final Map.
20. Prior to occupancy, the developer shall repair any damages caused by the development to the asphalt street frontages from property line to property line including but not limited to trench cuts and construction traffic, per the direction of the City Engineer.
21. As part of the Final Parcel Map, the developer shall dedicate additional right -of- way as follows:
a. Santa Anita Avenue – Five-foot additional dedication 150 N. Santa Anita Ave.
Alexan Mixed-Use Project
May 10, 2022
b. Santa Clara Street – adjacent to Bank of America building – four-foot additional dedication.
c. Santa Clara Street – adjacent to new building – one-foot additional dedication and five-foot easement.
d. North/South Alley – five-foot public access/walkway easement adjacent to the alley.
e. All driveways – sufficient easements to accommodate ADA sidewalk access f. Street/Driveway corners – triangular cutbacks as necessary for ADA accessible ramp purposes
g. All portion s of sidewalks with obstructions – sufficient easements where public right-of-way does not exist to accommodate public sidewalk around obstacles.
22. Prior to the approval of the Final Parcel Map the developer shall either construct or post security for all public improvements as follows:
a. Remove and replace existing sidewalk, curb and gutter along all property frontages from property line to property line to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Include additional sidewalk to provide adequate clearances around all obstacles.
b. Construct new ADA accessible ramps at all corner and driveways. c. Coordinate with Public Works Services on protection of street trees along Wheeler Avenue and the installation of any new street trees. d. Remove and replace all drive approaches per City standard plan. e. Remove and replace the pavement in the alley adjacent to the development in conformance with the City’s Downtown Alleys Improvement Plan.
23. The building shall be fully sprinklered per the City of Arcadia Fire Department Commercial Sprinkler Standard. The fire sprinkler system shall be monitored by a UL listed central station. Notification appliances shall be provided in all common areas and adjacent to sleeping areas in residential units. Visual appliances will be provided in any units classified as being accessible.
24. An emergency responder radio coverage system is required.
25. Class 1 standpipes shall be provided in all stairwells to the roof level.
26. A knox box shall be provided at a location to be approved by the Fire D epartment.
Knox switches shall be provided for any automatic vehicular gates.
27. Fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A:10BC shall be provided in all common areas. Minimum travel distance shall be 75 feet. 150 N. Santa Anita Ave.
Alexan Mixed-Use Project
May 10, 2022
28. Illuminated exit signage and emergency lighting shall be provided for the parking area and all other common paths of egress.
29. Minimum fire flow is 1,500 gpm at 20 psi.
30. A minimum of one elevator capable of accommodating a 24- inch by 84-inch ambulance stretcher/gurney shall be provided.
31. New public hydrants shall be provided on Santa Clara Street and Wheeler Avenue on the street frontage of the property.
32. The project is responsible for contributing a fair share payment toward the installation of a cloud -based traffic mitigation system being completed by the Fire Department. This fair share payment shall be attributed to the six (6) immediately adjacent intersections evaluated in the Traffic Study for the project and the payment shall not exceed $6,300.
33. The Developer shall provide calculations to determine the maximum domestic demand, maximum commercial demand and maximum fire demand in order to verify the required water service size required.
34. The Developer shall provide separate water services and meters for specific residential, commercial, and irrigation uses. Backflow protection (approved reduced pressure backflow preventer) shall be installed for all three services.
35. Domestic water service for residential units shall be provided by a common master meter. Any condominiums shall require a separate water service and meter for common area landscape irrigation.
36. All fire protection requirements shall be as stipulated by the Arcadia Fire Department. In the ev ent that fire suppression is common to the complex, a separate fire service with Double Check Detector Assembly (DCDA) shall be required as directed by the Fire Marshal.
37. A Water Meter Clearance Application shall be submitted to the Public Works Services Department prior to final permit issuance.
38. New water service installations shall be installed by the Developer. Installation shall be according to the specifications of the Public Works Services Department, Engineering Section. Abandonment of existing water services, if necessary, shall be carried out by the Developer, according to Public Works Services Department, Engineering Section specifications.
39. If connecting to a City sewer main, the Applicant /Property Owner shall utilize existing sewer lateral(s) if possible. If any existing sewer lines serving other 150 N. Santa Anita Ave.
Alexan Mixed-Use Project
May 10, 2022
properties must be relocated, repaired, or upsized in any way, the developer shall be responsible for this work and for maintaining sewer service for any impacted properties throughout construction.
40. If any drainage fixture elevation is lower than the el evation of the next upstream manhole cover, an approved backwater valve is required.
41. All existing street trees shall remain and be protected on Wheeler. No trees required on Santa Anita or Santa Clara.
42. The proposed Project is subject to the State Water Resources Control Board’s NPDES General Construction Permit requirements:
a. Applicant submit Notice of Intent along with applicable fees to the State. b. Applicant to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. c. City will not issue a grading permit until W aste Discharge ID # can be furnished.
43. Developer shall size the trash enclosure(s) accordingly. Separate bins/carts shall be provided for trash, recycling, and green waste/ food waste. Placement and volume of bins/carts shall be subject to review and approval of the Public Works Department.
44. The Project requires a LID plan which shall comply with the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works 2014 LID standard manual and show the selected measures on the grading plan. Potential strategies include using infiltration trenches, bioretention planter boxes, roof drains connected to a landscaped area, pervious concrete pavers, etc.
45. All City requirements regarding disabled access and facilities, occupancy limits, building safety, health code compliance, emergency equipment, environmental regulation compliance, and parking and site design shall be complied with to the satisfaction of the Building Official, City Engineer, Planning & C ommunity Development Administrator, Fire Marshal, and Public Works Services Director. Any changes to the existing facility may be subject to having fully detailed plans submitted for plan check review and approval by the aforementioned City officials and employees and may subject to building permits.
46. Noncompliance with the plans, provisions and conditions of approval for MUP 21 - 08, ADR 21- 12, TPM 21 -02, a Density Bonus and a Street Vacation shall be grounds for immediate suspension or revocation of any approvals, which could result in the closing of the tutoring center.
47. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Applicant must defend, indemnify, and hold City, any departments, agencies, divisions, boards, and/or commissions of the City, and its elected offici als, officers, contractors serving as City officials, agents, 150 N. Santa Anita Ave.
Alexan Mixed-Use Project
May 10, 2022
employees, and attorneys of the City (“Indemnitees”) harmless from liability for damages and/or claims, actions, or proceedings for damages for personal injuries, including death, and claims for property damage, and with respect to all other actions and liabilities for damages caused or alleged to have been caused by reason of the Applicant’s activities in connection with MUP 21-08, ADR 21-12, TPM 21-02, a Density Bonus and a Street Vacation on the Project site, and which may arise from the direct or indirect operations of the Applicant or those of the Applicant’s contractors, agents, tenants, employees or any other persons acting on Applicant’s behalf, which relate to the development and/or construction of the Project. This indemnity provision applies to all damages and claims, actions, or proceedings for damages, as described above, regardless of whether the City prepared, supplied, or approved the plans, specifications, or other documents for the Project.
48. In the event of any legal action challenging the validity, applicability, or interpretation of any provision of this approval, or any other supporting document relating to the Project, the City will promptly notify the Applicant of the claim, action, or proceedings and will fully cooperate in the defense of the matter. Once notified, the Applicant must indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Indemnitees, and each of them, with respect to all liability, costs and expenses inc urred by, and/or awarded against, the City or any of the Indemnitees in relation to such action. Within 15 days’ notice from the City of any such action, Applicant shall provide to City a cash deposit to cover legal fees, costs, and expenses incurred by City in connection with defense of any legal action in an initial amount to be reasonably determined by the City Attorney. City may draw funds from the deposit for such fees, costs, and expenses.
Within 5 business days of each and every notice from City that the deposit has fallen below the initial amount, Applicant shall replenish the deposit each and every time in order for City’s legal team to continue working on the matter. City shall only refund to Developer any unexpended funds from the deposit within 30 days of: (i) a final, non- appealable decision by a court of competent jurisdiction resolving the legal action; or (ii) full and complete settlement of legal action. The City shall have the right to select legal counsel of its choice that the Applicant reasonably approves.
The parties hereby agree to cooperate in defending such action. The City will not voluntarily assist in any such third -party challenge(s) or take any position adverse to the Applicant in connection with such third -party challenge(s). In consideration for approval of the Project, this condition shall remain in effect if the entitlement(s) related to this Project is rescinded or revoked, whether or not at the request of the Applicant.
49. Approval of MUP 21 -08, ADR 21 -12, TPM 21 -02, a Density Bonus and a Street Vacation shall not be in effect unless the Property Owner and Applicant have executed and filed the Acceptance Form with the City on or before 30 calendar days after the Planning Commission has adopted the Resolution. The Acceptance Form to the Development Services Department is to indicate awareness and acceptance of the conditions of approval.
150 N. Santa Anita Ave.
Alexan Mixed-Use Project
May 10, 2022
Mitigation Measures as Conditions of Approval
The following conditions are found in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). They are recorded here to facilitate review and implementation. More information on the timing and responsible parties for these mitigation measures is detailed in the MMRP.
50. MM-CUL-1 - Prior to commencement of construction activities, an inadvertent discovery clause, written by an archaeologist, shall be added to all construction plans associated with ground disturbing activities and the Project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for Archaeology, to prepare a Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP). The WEAP shall be submitted to the City of Arcadia Planning and Community Development department (City) for review and approval.
All construction personnel and monitors shall be presented the WEAP training prior to the start of construction activities. The WEAP shall be prepared to inform all personnel working on the proposed Project about the archaeological sensitivity of the area, to provide specif ic details on the kinds of archaeological materials that may be identified during construction, to explain the importance of and legal basis for the protection of significant archaeological resources, and to outline the actions to be taken in the event of a discovery of cultural resources. Each worker shall also learn the proper procedures to follow in the event that cultural resources or human remains are uncovered during ground- disturbing activities. These procedures include work curtailment or redirectio n, and the immediate contact of the site supervisor and archaeological monitor.
The WEAP shall require that a qualified archaeologist be retained and on- call to respond to and address any inadvertent discoveries identified during initial excavation in native soils, which underly the 2-4 feet below ground surface (bgs) of artificial fill soils. As it pertains to archaeological monitoring, this definition excludes movement of sediments after they have been initially disturbed or displaced by project-related c onstruction. If potential archaeological resources (i.e., sites, features, or artifacts) are exposed during construction activities for the proposed Project, the City shall be notified and all construction work occurring within 50 feet of the find shall im mediately stop until a qualified archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for Archaeology, can evaluate the significance of the find and determine whether or not additional study is warranted. The archaeol ogist shall be empowered to temporarily stop or redirect grading activities to allow removal of abundant or large artifacts. Depending upon the significance of the find under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (14 CCR 15064.5[f]; PRC, Section 21082), the archaeologist may simply record the find and allow work to continue. If the discovery proves significant under CEQA, additional work, such as preparation of an archaeological treatment plan and data recovery, may be warranted. The archaeologist shall also be required to curate any discovered specimens in a repository with permanent retrievable storage and submit a written report to the City of Arcadia for review and approval 150 N. Santa Anita Ave.
Alexan Mixed-Use Project
May 10, 2022
prior to occupancy of the first building on the site. Once approved, the final report shall be filed with the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC).
51. MM-GEO-1 - Prior to commencement of any grading activity on-site, the Applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist per the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) (2010) guidelines. The paleontologist shall prepare a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) for the Project. The PRIMP shall be consistent with the SVP (2010) guidelines and shall outline requirements for preconstruction meeting attendance and worker environmental awareness training, where monitoring is required within the Project area based on construction plans and/or geotechnical reports, procedures for adequate paleontological monitoring and discoveries treatment, and paleontological methods (including sediment sampling for microvertebrate fossils), reporting, and collections management. The qualified paleontologist shall attend the preconstruction meeting and a paleontological monitor shall be on- site during all rough grading and other significant ground- disturbing activities in previously undisturbed, Pleistocene alluvial deposits. These deposits may be encountered at depths as shallow as 5-10 feet below ground surface. In the event that paleontological resources (e.g., fossils) are unearthed during grading, the paleontological monitor will temporarily halt and/or divert grading activity to allow recovery of paleontological resources. The area of discovery will be roped off with a 50-foot radius buffer. Once documentation and collection of the find is completed, the monitor will remove the rope and allow grading to recommence in the area of the find.
52. MM-HAZ-1 - Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, the Project applicant/developer or their designated contractor shall ensure that the demolition contract incorporate abatement procedures for the removal of materials containing asbestos, as identified in previous surveys, and identification and removal of polychlorinated biphenyls, hazardous material, hazardous wastes, and universal waste items. All abatement work shall be done in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations, including those of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (which regulates disposal), Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development, California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (which regulates employee exposure), and the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Confirmation of adequate removal of such materials shall be provided to the City prior to the issuance of a building permit.
53. MM-HAZ-2 - Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project applicant/developer or their designated contractor shall prepare a soil management plan (SMP) that outlines the proper screening, handl ing, characterization, transportation, and disposal procedures for contaminated soils on site. The SMP shall include health and safety and training procedures for workers who may come in contact with contaminated soils. The health and safety procedures shall also include periodic breathing zone monitoring and monitoring for VOCs using a handheld organic vapor analyzer and include required actions to be taken if concentrations of VOCs exceed applicable screening levels for health and safety of 150 N. Santa Anita Ave.
Alexan Mixed-Use Project
May 10, 2022
onsite workers. The SMP will be based on the findings of the Soil and Soil Vapor Investigation prepared for the Project, will outline areas of known or suspected soil contamination, and will be implemented by the applicant or their designated contractor for all confirmed and suspected contaminated soils which require excavation and offsite disposal. Contaminated soil shall be managed and disposed of in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations.
54. MM-HAZ-3 - Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, vapor mitigation design features shall be implemented in accordance with the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Vapor Intrusion Mitigation Advisory for all future residential buildings and enclosed structures. The construction contractor shall incorporate vapor mitigation design features into building plans that reduce potential vapor intrusion in buildings and enclosed structures on the Project site below DTSC Screening Levels. Vapor mitigation systems may be passive or active in nature, so lon g as they are designed to prevent vapor contamination on the Project site in accordance with applicable DTSC regulations at the time the systems are designed. Vapor mitigation systems must be reviewed and approved by the permitting agency(ies) (City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles) prior to construction and prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy. Operation of the Project shall maintain functionality of these features as required to continue protection from vapor intrusion. Following completion of c onstruction and occupancy of the buildings, indoor air monitoring will occur semiannually for one year to verify implemented measures are functioning properly and adequately mitigating vapor intrusion to below residential DTSC Screening Levels. Results shall be submitted to the City of Arcadia for confirmation of the adequacy of the designed systems. If indoor air samples reveal vapor intrusion occurring at levels above applicable DTSC Screening Levels, modifications shall be made, as necessary, to the desi gned system to improve the efficacy in reducing vapor intrusion to below applicable screening levels.
55. MM-TRA-1 - Prior to the issuance of demolition or grading permits, the Project applicant/developer shall develop and implement a City -approved Construction Traffic Control Plan. The Plan shall be prepared in accordance with applicable City guidelines and shall address the potential for construction- related vehicular traffic, as well as pedestrian and bicycle circulation disruption i n the public right -of-way.
The Plan shall describe safe detours and shall include protocols for implementing the following: temporary traffic controls (e.g., a flag person during heavy truck traffic for soil export) to maintain smooth pedestrian and traffic flow; dedicated on-site turn lanes for construction trucks and equipment leaving the site; scheduling of peak construction truck traffic that affects traffic flow on the arterial system to off- peak hours; consolidation of truck deliveries; and/or rerouting of construction trucks away from congested streets or sensitive receptors.
56. MM-TCR-1 - The project applicant shall retain a Native American Monitor from or approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation (“Tribe” or “Kizh”). The monitor shall be retained prior to the commencement of any “ground- 150 N. Santa Anita Ave.
Alexan Mixed-Use Project
May 10, 2022
disturbing activity” for the subject project at all project locations (i.e., both on- site and any off -site locations that are included in the project description/definition and/or required in connection with the project, such as public improvement work). “Ground-disturbing activity” shall include, but is not limited to, demolition, pavement removal, potholing, auguring, grubbing, tree removal, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching. “ Ground-disturbing activity” refers to ground disturbance occurring from 1 foot above native soils and below, and it does not include movement of sediments after they have been initially disturbed or displaced by current Project-related construction.
A copy of the executed monitoring agreement shall be submitted to the lead agency prior to the earlier of the commencement of any ground- disturbing activity, or the issuance of any permit necessary to commence a ground-disturbing activity.
The project applicant shall retain a Native American Monitor from or approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation (“Tribe” or “Kizh”). The monitor shall be retained prior to the commencement of any “ground- disturbing activity” for the subject project at all project locations (i.e., both on-site and any off- site locations that are included in the project description/definition and/or required in connection with the project, such as public improvement work). “Ground- disturbing activity” shall include, but is not limited to, demolition, pavement removal, potholing, auguring, grubbing, tree removal, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching. “Ground- disturbing activity” refers to ground disturbance occurring from 1 foot above native soils and below, and it does not include movement of sediments after they have been initially disturbed or displaced by current Project - related construction. A copy of the executed monitoring agreement shall be submitted to the lead agency prior to the earlier of the comme ncement of any ground-disturbing activity, or the issuance of any permit necessary to commence a ground-disturbing activity.
On-site tribal monitoring shall conclude upon the earlier of the following (1) written confirmation to the Kizh from a designated point of contact for the project applicant or lead agency that all ground- disturbing activities as defined above and phases that may involve ground-disturbing activities on the project site or in connection with the project are complete; or (2) a determination and written notification by the Kizh to the project applicant or lead agency that no future, planned construction activity and/or development/construction phase at the project site possesses the potential to impact Kizh TCRs. Upon discovery of any Kiz h TCRs, all construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall cease (i.e., not less than the surrounding 50 feet) and shall not resume until the Kizh recovers and retains all discovered Kizh TCRs in the form and/or manner the Tribe deems appropriate, in the Tribe’s sole discretion, and for any purpose the Tribe deems appropriate, including for educational, cultural and/or historic purposes. The Tribe shall have up to 48 hours to recover and retain any discovered Kizh TCRs, after which time construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery may continue.
150 N. Santa Anita Ave.
Alexan Mixed-Use Project
May 10, 2022
57. MM-TCR-2 - Native American human remains are defined in PRC 5097.98 (d)(1) as an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness. Funerary objects, called associated grave goods in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, are also to be treated according to this statute.
In accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, any discoveries of human skeletal material shall be immediately reported to the County Coroner and all ground-disturbing activities shall immediately halt and shall remain halted until the coroner has determined the nature of the remains. If the coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe they are Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission, and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 shall be followed.
Consistent with California Public Resources Code section 5097.98(d)(2), any items associated with the human remains that are placed or buried with the Native American human remains are to be treated in the same manner as the remains, but do not by themselves constitute human remains.
Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment for discovered human remains and/or burial goods.
Any discovery of human remains/burial goods shall be kept confidential to prevent further disturbance.
58. MM-TCR-3 - If the Tribe is designated by the Native American Heritage Commission (“NAHC”) as the Most Likely Descendant (“MLD”), the Koo- nas-gna Burial Policy shall be implemen ted. To the Tribe, the term “human remains” encompasses more than human bones. In ancient as well as historic times, Tribal Traditions included, but were not limited to, the preparation of the soil for burial, the burial of funerary objects with the deceased, and the ceremonial burning of human remains. Accordingly, if the Tribe is designated as the MLD for discovered human remains, the prepared soil and cremation soils are to be treated in the same manner as bone fragments that remain intact. Associated funerary objects are objects that, as part of the death rite or ceremony of a culture, are reasonably believed to have been placed with individual human remains either at the time of death or later; other items made exclusively for burial purposes or to cont ain human remains can also be considered as associated funerary objects. Cremations will either be removed in bulk or by means as necessary to ensure complete recovery of all sacred materials.
If the Tribe is designated by the NAHC as the MLD, the following condition will apply: If the discovery of human remains includes four or more burials, the discovery location shall be treated as a cemetery and a separate treatment plan shall be created.
150 N. Santa Anita Ave.
Alexan Mixed-Use Project
May 10, 2022
If the Tribe is designated by the NAHC as the MLD, the following condition will apply: In the case where discovered human remains cannot be fully documented and recovered on the same day, the remains will be covered with muslin cloth and a steel plate that can be moved by heavy equipment placed over the excavation opening to protect the remains. If this type of steel plate is not available, a 24-hour guard should be posted outside of working hours. The Tribe will make every effort to recommend diverting the project and keeping the remains in situ and protected.
If the project cannot be diverted, it may be determined that burials will be removed.
If the Tribe is designated by the NAHC as the MLD, the following condition will apply: In the event preservation in place is not possible despite good faith efforts by the project applicant/developer and/or landowner, before ground- disturbing activities may resume on the project site, the landowner shall arrange a designated site location within the footprint of the project for the respectful reburial of the human remains and/or ceremonial objects. If the Tribe is designated by the NAHC as the MLD, the following condition will apply: Each occurrence of human remains and associated funerary objects will be stored using opaque cloth bags. All human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony will be removed to a secure container on site if possible. These items should be retained and reburied within six months of recovery. Where the Tribe is designated as the MLD, the site of reburial/repatriation shall be on the project site but at a location agreed upon between the Tribe and the landowner at a site to be protected in perpetuity. There shall be no publicity regarding any cultural materials recovered.
If the Tribe is designated by the NAHC as the MLD, the following condition will apply: The Tribe will work closely with the project’s qualified archaeologist to ensure that the excavation is treated carefully, ethically and respectfully. If data recovery is approved by the Tribe, documentation shall be prepared and shall include (at a minimum) detailed descriptive notes and sketches. All data recovery and data recovery-related forms of documentation shall be approved in advance by the Tribe.
If any data recovery is performed, once complete, a final report shall be submitted to the Tribe and the NAHC. The Tribe does NOT authorize any scientific study or the utilization of any invasive and/or destructive diagnostics on human remains.
During ground-disturbing activities Construction contractor NAHC’s “Most Likely Descendant” Tribe.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Approval
If the Planning Commission intends to recommend approval of this project to the City Council, the Commission should move to recommend approval of Minor Use Permit No.
MUP 21-08, Architectural Design Review No. ADR 21-12, Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 21-02, along with a density bonus and General Plan Consistency No. 22-01 for the street vacation, state that the proposal satisfies the requisite findings, and adopt the attached Resolution No. 2093, and the conditions of approval as presented in this staff report, or as modified by the Commission.
150 N. Santa Anita Ave.
Alexan Mixed-Use Project
May 10, 2022
Denial
If the Planning Commission intends to recommend denial of the project to the City Council, the Commission should state the specific findings that the proposal does not satisfy based on the evidence presented with specific reasons for denial, and move to recommend denial of Minor Use Permit No. MUP 21-08, Architectural Design Revie w No. ADR 21-12, Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 21-02, along with a density bonus and General Plan Consistency No. 22- 01 street vacation, and direct staff to prepare a resolution for adoption at the next meeting that incorporates the Commission’s recommendation and specific findings.
If any Planning Commissioner or other interested party has any questions or comments regarding this matter prior to the April 26, 2022, hearing, please contact Planning & Community Development Administrator Lisa Flores, at (626) 574-5445, or by email at [email protected].
Approved:
Lisa L. Flores
Planning & Community Development Administrator
Attachment No. 1: Resolution No. 2093
Attachment No. 2: Aerial Photo and Zoning Information and Photos of the Subject Property
Attachment No. 3: Tentative Parcel Map
Attachment No. 4: Architectural Plans and Renderings
Attachment No. 5: Link to Draft Environmental Impact Report and Technical Appendices – www.arcadiaca.gov/projects
Attachment No. 6: Final EIR: Preface, Comment Letters on Draft EIR, Response to Comments, Proposed Changes to the Draft EIR, Findings of Fact, and MMRP
Attachment No. 7: Alexan Arcadia Market Analysis and CBRE Retail Analysis
Attachment No. 6
Tentative Parcel Map
127(6
&217$&7,1)250$7,21
2:1(5 3,3523(57,(612// & 16$17$$1,7$9(
$5&$',$&$
68%',9,'(5 $5&$',$$3$570(176//& $771
72''3+,//,36
)/((7675((768,7(
&$5/6%$'&$
6859(<25(1*,1((5 3620$6
$771
'$9,'0$57,1
7851%(55</$1(68,7(
9$/(1&,$&$
(;,67,1*&21',7,216
352-(&7$''5(66 16$17$$1,7$$9(
$5&$',$&$
$31
)/22'=21(
68%-(&73523(57</,(62876,' ()/22'=21($66+2:121)/22',1685$1&(5$7(0$3 &20081,7<3$1(/12&)'$7('
$638%/,6+('%<)('(5$/(0(5*(1&<
0$1$*(0(17$*(1&<
($6(0(176 7+(5($5(38%/,&($6(0(17621 7+(3523(57< $//75((6$5(72%(5(029('
$5($
%$6('83215(&25'%($5,1*6$1'',67$1&(6$66+2:1+(5(217+($5($,6
64)7
$&5(6
75((6 7+(5($5(123527(&7(' 75((6217+(68%-(&73523(57< 675((7'(6,*1$7,21 6$17$$1,7$$9(35,0$5<$57(5,$/ 6$17$&/$5$67(1+$1&('&2//(&725
:+((/(5$9(/2&$/52$'
3/$11,1*$1'=21,1*,1)250$7,21
*(1(5$/3/$1'(6,*1$7,21
'2:172:10,;('86(
'08
63(&,),&3/$1$5($ 121(
(;,67,1*=21,1*
'08
'2:172:10,;('86(
352326('=21,1* '08
%8,/',1*6(7%$&.6
'08
)5217<$5'
121(
)((70$;,080
5($5<$5'
121($%877,1*1215(6,'(17,$/25'2:172:1=21(
)((7$%877,1*5(6,'(17,$/=21(
6,'(<$5'
,17(5,25
121($%877,1*1215(6,'(17,$/25'2:172:1=21(
)((7$%877,1*5(6,'(17,$/=21(
6,'(<$5'
675((76,'(
121(
)70$;,080
+(,*+7 +63(&,$/+(,*+729(5/$< (,*+76725,(625
)((7
352326('&21',7,216
7+(352-(&7
7+(352-(&7&216,6762))285
3$5&(/6%(,1*&2162/,'$7('$1'7+(1',9,'(',172
7:2
/276/27:,//&216,672)7+(7+5((
(;,67,1*&200(5&,$/%8,/',1*67+$7
:,//5(0$,1$1'/27:,//&216,672)7+(352326('08/7,6725<%8,/',1*)2508/7,86( $1'3$5.,1*
(;,67,1*6758&785(6
6758&785(621/2772%(5(029('$1'6758&785(621/27725(0$,1 352326('87,/,7,(6
6(:(5$*()257+(352326('08/7,6725<%8,/',1*72%(6(59('%<7+(&,7<2)$5&$',$ 6<67(0)5207+($//(<727+(($67(;,67,1*%8,/',1*6$5(%(,1*6(59('%<7+(&,7<2) $5&$',$6(:(56<67(0,16$17$$1,7$$9(18('5$,1$*(3529,'('%<7+(&,7<2) $5&$',$6<67(06$/21*:+((/(5$1'6$17$$1,7$$9(18(
/27%5($.'2:1/277+5((
(;,67,1*&200(5&,$/%8,/',1*6
64)7
/27352326('21(
0,;('86(08/7,6725<%8,/',1*$1'%$6(0(17
64)7
6+((7,1'(;
6+((7&29(5$1'127(6
(;,67,1*&21',7,216
352326('%281'$5,(6
/(*$/'(6&5,37,21
5($/3523(57<,17+(&,7<2)$5&$',$&2817<2)/26$1*(/(667$7(2)&$/,)251,$'(6&5,%('$6)2//2:6
3$5&(/$
/276$1',1%/2&.2)$3$572)$5&$',$6$17$$1,7$75$&7,17+(&,7<2)$5&$',$&2817<2)/26$1*(/(6 67$7(2)&$/,)251,$$63(50$35(&25'(',1%22.3$*( 6
$1'
,1&/86,9(2)0,6&(//$1(2865(&25'6,1
7+(2)),&(2)7+(&2817<5(&25'(52)6$,'&2817<
$31
3$5&(/%
3$5&(/2)3$5&(/0$3,17+(&,7<2)$5&$',$$63(50$35(&25'(',1%22.3$*( 6 2)3$5&(/0$36,1
7+(2)),&(2)7+(&2817<5(&25'(52)/26$1*(/(6&2817<&$/,)251,$ (;&(377+(5()5207+$73257,212)6$,'3$5&(/,1&/8'(':,7+,17+(/$1'$6'(6&5,%(',13$5&(/,17+('((' 727+(&,7<2)$5&$',$5(&25'('129(0%(5
$6,167580(1712,1%22.'3$*(2)2)),&,$/ 5(&25'62)6$,'&2817<
$31
3$5&(/&
/27,1%/2&.2)$5&$',$6$17$$1,7$75$&7,17+(&,7<2)$5&$',$&2817<2)/26$1*(/(667$7(2) &$/,)251,$$63(50$35(&25'(',1%22.3$*(6
$1'
2)0,6&(//$1(2865(&25'6,17+(2)),&(2)7+(
&2817<5(&25'(52)6$,'&2817<
$31
3$5&(/'
/27,1%/2&.2)$5&$',$6$17$$1,7$75$&7,17+(&,7<2)$5&$',$&2817<2)/26$1*(/(667$7(2) &$/,)251,$$63(50$35(&25'(',1%22.3$*(6
$1'
2)0,6&(//$1(2865(&25'6,17+(2)),&(2)7+(
&2817<5(&25'(52)6$,'&2817<
$31
7(17$7,9(3$5&(/0$312
5(9 '$7( '(6&5,37,21 %< $33
'
6+((7
352-(&712
3,3523(57,(612//&
$5&
/,%(1&+0$5.
(/(9$7,21 $'-8670(17
'$9,'0$57,15&('$7(
'5$:1%<
'(6,*1('%<
&+(&.('%<
'0
'$7(
2)
6&$/(
16$17$$1,7$$9(
$5&$',$&$
&21752/127(6
+25,=217$/&21752/
7+(&225',1$7(6$1'%($5,1*66+2:1+(5(21$5(%$6('83217+(&$/,)251,$&225',1$7(6<67(02) &&6
=21(9
,1$&&25'$1&(:,7+7+(&$/,)251,$38%/,&5(6285&(6&2'(6(&7,216
6$,'&225',1$7(6
$1'%($5,1*6$5(%$6('/2&$//<8321),(/'2%6(59('7,(6727+()2//2:,1*&$/,)251,$63$7,$/5()(5(1&( 1(7:25.25(48,9$/(1767$7,216
/21*
&76&256
&,7
&76&256
:15$
&76&256
*956
&76&256
9(57,&$/&21752/
9(57,&$/9$/8(66+2:1+(5(21$5(%$6('83211257+$0(5,&$19(57,&$/'$7802)
1$9'
87,/,=,1*&2817<
2)/26$1*(/(6%(1&+0$5.6/,67('%(/2:
%(1&+0$5.180%(5
+*
'(6&5,37,21
'3:%07$*,16(1'&%)712%&5#1(&25)227+,//%/9' 6$17$$1,7$$9(18( (/(9$7,21
)((7
48$'<($5
%(1&+0$5.180%(5
*
'(6&5,37,21
/$&2%07$*,11&%)227+,//%/9' )7(2&/352'1257+9,(:$9(18( (/(9$7,21
)((7
48$'<($5
352-(&7$5($
75$)),&6,*1$/:675((7/,*+7
',5(&7,212):$7(5'5$,1$*()/2:
),5('(3$570(17&211(&7,21
&85%/,1(
&217285/,1(
$3352;,0$7(
%8,/',1*)22735,17/,1(
&85%/,1(
)520
2172
&20081,&$7,2132:(587,/,7<32/($1'&21'8,7
3523(57<%281'$5</,1(
'(&,'828675((,1:(//:7581.',$0(7(5 &+$,1/,1.
&+/.
)(1&(/,1(
%$5%:,5()(1&(/,1(
<$5'/,*+7
'2:163287
$5($'5$,1
),5(+<'5$17
3267,1',&$7259$/9(
29(5+$1*/,1(
&$7&+%$6,1:$&&(66+2/(
6,*1
$//.,1'6
('*(2)$63+$/73$9,1*
*8$5'5$,/
&21&5(7(3$9,1*
75$)),&6,*1$/:$50
5(7$,1,1*
5(7
6&5((1:$//
$6127('
675((7/,*+7:$50
3/$17(5
*8$5'3267
$3352$&+
$,5*$6,55,*$7,213(752/(8081.12:1:$7(59$/9(
(/(&75,&$/*$681.12:1:$7(50(7(5
3$5.,1*0(7(5
$335
$9*9,93989:9
3/
*3
6 (0*080:0
30 3,9
'6
)'&
&3&33&83&
&%
$'
)/2:/,1(
675((75:/,1(
&(17(5/,1(
($6(0(17/,1(
: :,'7+
/27/,1(3$5&(//,1(
/(*(1'
$'
'5:< '5,9(:$<
&/($1287&2
/2&$7,212)%8,/',1*+(,*+70($685(0(176 75$)),&6,*1$/
:22'(1
:'1
)(1&(/,1(
:528*+7,521
:,
)(1&(/,1(
&20081,&$7,21(/(&75,&$/),%(5237,&9$8/7&()29/7 *$6,55,*$7,2181.12:1:$7(59$8/7*,8:9/7 &20081,&$7,21(/(&75,&$/*$65,6(5&(*5,65
3(752/(8081.12:1:$7(55,6(538:5,65
6(:(567250'5$,181.12:1:$7(50$1+2/(60+6'0+80+:0+ &20081,&$7,21(/(&75,&$/),%(5237,&*$60$1+2/(&0+(0+)0+*0+ &20081,&$7,2132:(587,/,7<32/(&33383
&21&
$63+$/73$9,1*$63+
%)3 %$&.)/2:35(9(17(5
&20081,&$7,21(/(&75,&$/,55,*$7,2175$)),&6,*1$/3$1(/&(,7631/ &20081,&$7,21(/(&75,&$/81.12:175$)),&6,*1$/&$%,1(7&(876&$% &20081,&$7,21(/(&75,&$/),%(5237,&38//%2;&3%(3%)23% 6/3%763%83%675((7/,*+775$)),&81.12:138//%2; 55 5$,/52$'
*,8%2; *$6,55,*$7,2181.12:1%2; $&()6758 $,5&20081,&$7,21(/(&75,&$/),5(6758&785( *,3666758*$6,55,*$7,213(752/(806$1,7$5<6(:(56758&785( 6'6/8:675867250'5$,1675((7/,*+781.12:1:$7(56758&785( $&(305. $,5&20081,&$7,21(/(&75,&$/3$,170$5. *366305. *$6,55,*$7,216$1,7$5<6(:(53$,170$5. 6'8:305. 67250'5$,181.12:1:$7(53$,170$5. 29+* 29(5+$1*
&203+&67'&203$&7+$1'<&$367$1'$5'3$5.,1*67$// 81'5 81'(5*5281'
75$16 75$16)250(5
'5$,1,1/(7',
,6+ ,55,*$7,21635,1./(5+($'
6(&75$)&$0 6(&85,7<75$)),&&$0(5$
),5('(3$570(17&211(&7,21
675((7/,*+7
675((7/,*+7:$502132:(532/(
*$5'(1/,*+7
3$5.,1*/,*+7
*8<32/(
*8<$1&+25
3('(675,$175$)),&6,*1$/3('76
3('(675,$1&5266,1*386+%87721
3$/075((:7581.',$0(7(5
(9(5*5((175((:7581.',$0(7(5
&/ 675((7&(17(5/,1(&21752//,1(
3/ 3523(57</,1(
('*(2)*877(5(/(9$7,21
('*(2)&21&5(7((/(9$7,21
('*(2)3$9(0(17(/(9$7,21
)/2:/,1((/(9$7,21
%$&.2):$/.(/(9$7,21
(3
)/
%:
(*
(&
7232*5$3+,&6327(/(9$7,2112/($'(5 3,3(,19(57(/(9$7,21,19
0$1+2/(5,0(/(9$7,215,0
7232)%(50(/(9$7,217%
7232)&85%(/(9$7,217&
7232))227,1*(/(9$7,217)
7232)*5$7((/(9$7,217*
7232):$//(/(9$7,217:
$'-$&(173523(57<2:1(5
1257+($676287+:(67/2&$7,212),03529(0(17 5(&25'/273$5&(/180%(5
:5(63(&7725()(5(1&(1257+$1'3523(57</,1( 5(&25'',0(16,2125%($5,1*,)',))(5(177+$10($685(' ,03529(0(17('*(
,03529(0(17(1'
,03529(0(17)$&()
1(6:
(
(G
127726&$/(
9,&,1,7<0$3
($6(0(176
())(&72)7$;(6$66(660(176$1'/,(16
D
())(&72)($6(0(17)2575$163257,1*9(+,&/(60$&+,1(5<$1'(48,30(1772$6(:(50$1+2/(6/2&$7(',1 6$,'$//(<$1'7286(6$,'9(+,&/(60$&+,1(5<$1'(48,30(17)25&/($1,1*7+(6(:(5&211(&7('726$,' 0$1+2/($1',1&,'(17$/385326(65(&25'('2&72%(5
$6,167580(1712%22.'3$*(
253/277('+(5(21
())(&72)($6(0(17)2581'(5*5281'(/(&75,&$/6833/<6<67(06$1'&20081,&$7,2166<67(06$1',1&,'(17$/ 385326(65(&25'('2&72%(5
$6,167580(1712%22.'3$*(
253/277('+(5(21
())(&72)7(5063529,6,216$1'($6(0(176&217$,1(',17+('2&80(17(17,7/('*5$172)($6(0(17$1' $*5((0(17)250$,17(1$1&(2)3$5.,1*$5($5(&25'(''(&(0%(5 $6,167580(1712,1%22.
'3$*(25
())(&72)($6(0(17)250$,17(1$1&($1',1&,'(17$/385326(65(&25'(''(&(0%(5
$6,167580(1712
253/277('+(5(21
())(&72) 7+()$&77+(/$1'/,(6:,7+,17+(%281'$5,(62)7+(&(175$/5('(9(/230(17352-(&7$5($$6',6&/26(' %<7+('2&80(175(&25'(''(&(0%(5
$6,167580(1712
25
())(&72)7(506$1'3529,6,2162)$1815(&25'('/($6('$7('81',6&/26('5(&25'('$8*867
$6
,167580(1712
25
())(&72)7(506$1'3529,6,216&217$,1(',17+('2&80(17(17,7/('25',1$1&(1R5(&25'('-8/<
$6
,167580(1712
25
())(&72) 7(5063529,6,216$1'($6(0(176&217$,1(',17+('2&80(17(17,7/('*5$172)($6(0(17$1' $*5((0(17)250$,17(1$1&(2)3$5.,1*$5($5(&25'('129(0%(5$6,167580(1712
25
())(&72) $'2&80(17%(5(&25'(',17+(38%/,&5(&25'6& 219(<,1*2527+(5:,6((/,0,1$7,1*$1<,17(5(672) 9$+5$17$6+-,$1$675867((81'(57+('2&80(175(&25'(''(&(0%(5$6,167580(1712
25
())(&72) $'(('2)75867726(&85($125,*,1$/,1'(%7('1(665(&25'('-$18$5<$6,167580(1712
25
())(&72) $),1$1&,1*67$7(0(175(&25'('-$18$5<$6,167580(1712
25
())(&72) $'(('2)75867726(&85($125,*,1$/,1'(%7('1(665(&25'(')(%58$5<$6,167580(1712 25
())(&72) $),1$1&,1*67$7(0(175(&25'(')(%58$5<$6,167580(1712 25
())(&72) :$7(55,*+76&/$,06257,7/(72:$7(5:+(7+(5251276+2:1%<7+(38%/,&5(&25'6
())(&72)5,*+762)3$57,(6,13266(66,21
())(&72) $'(('2)75867726(&85($125,*,1$/,1'(%7('1(665(&25'('6(37(0%(5$6,167580(1712 25
())(&72)$1($6(0(1725/(66(55,*+7$6',6&/26('%<35,257,7/((9,'(1&(3/277('+(5(21 125()(5(1&(
'2&80(17
())(&72)$1(1&52$&+0(172)$&$123<$3352;,0$7(/<)((721727+(675((7$))(&763$5&(/'$6 ',6&/26('%<35,257,7/((9,'(1&(
())(&72)(;,67(1&(2)$1<815(&25'('/,(12527+(5,1'(%7('1(66:+,&+&28/'*,9(5,6(72$1<6(&85,7< ,17(5(67,17+(68%-(&73523(57<$))(&763$5&(/&
&29(5$1'127(6
87,/,7<3529,'(56
87,/,7< 6(59,&(%<
32:(5 6287+(51&$/,)251,$(',621
6&(
*$6 62&$/*$6
7(/(&20081,&$7,216
$7 7
9(5,=21
7,0(:$51(5&$%/(
63(&7580
&+$03,21%52$'%$1'
:$7(5 &,7<2)$5&$',$
:$67(:$7(5
&,7<2)$5&$',$
/26$1*(/(6&2817<6$1,7$7,21',675,&7
62/,':$67(',6326$/
:$67(0$1$*(0(17
/26$1*(/(6&2817<6$1,7$7,21',675,&7
9/24/2021
7(17$7,9(3$5&(/0$312
5(9 '$7( '(6&5,37,21 %< $33
'
6+((7
352-(&712
3,3523(57,(612//&
$5&
/,%(1&+0$5.
(/(9$7,21 $'-8670(17
'$9,'0$57,15&('$7(
'5$:1%<
'(6,*1('%<
&+(&.('%<
'0
'$7(
2)
6&$/(
16$17$$1,7$$9(
$5&$',$&$
(;,67,1*&21',7,216
9/24/2021
/27
/27
6)
6)
(;,67,1*($6(0(1772
5(0$,1
(;,67,1*
($6(0(1772%(
48,7&/$,0('
(;,67,1*($6(0(17
72%(48,7&/$,0('
(;,67,1*$//(<72%(9$&$7('
127$3$57
(;,67,1*($6(0(1772
5(0$,1
352326('%8,/',1*
)22735,17
352326('%8,/',1*
)22735,17
7(17$7,9(3$5&(/0$312
5(9 '$7( '(6&5,37,21 %< $33
'
6+((7
352-(&712
3,3523(57,(612//&
$5&
/,%(1&+0$5.
(/(9$7,21 $'-8670(17
'$9,'0$57,15&('$7(
'5$:1%<
'(6,*1('%<
&+(&.('%<
'0
'$7(
2)
6&$/(
16$17$$1,7$$9(
$5&$',$&$
352326('%281'$5,(6
9/24/2021
Attachment No. 7
Architectural Plans and Renderings
11'-2"12'-11"11'-5"
TYP.
16'-2"11'-6"11'-6"11'-6"
11'-6"
11'-2"14'-0"11'-2"
16'-2"11'-6"11'-6"
14'-3"
12'-10"11'-6" 16'-8"16'-7"
12'-5"
11'-0"
11'-6"11'-6"11'-6"
16'-0"
11'-7"11'-5"
11'-5"
11'-7"
11'-5"
Attachment No. 8
Alexan Arcadia Market Analysis
and
CBRE Retail Analysis
Attachment No. 9
Link to the Draft Environmental Impact
Report and Technical Appendices
Go to:
www.arcadiaca.gov/projects
Attachment No. 10
Final EIR: Preface, Response to
Comments, Changes to the Draft EIR,
MMRP, Memo for Hearing Responses, and
additional comment letters
AAlexann Mixed-Usee Developmentt Projectt
Finall Environmentall Impactt Reportt
Statee Clearinghousee No.. 20210702711
Prepared for:
Cityy off Arcadiaa
240 W. Huntington Drive
Arcadia, California 91007
Prepared by:
38 North Marengo Avenue
Pasadena, California 91101
JUNE 2022
Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material.
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 TOC-i
Table of Contents
SSection Page No.
1 PREFACE .................................................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Format of the Final EIR ...................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.3 Environmental Review Process ......................................................................................................... 1-2
1.3.1 Notice of Preparation ............................................................................................................ 1-2
1.3.2 Noticing and Availability of the Draft ................................................................................... 1-2
1.3.3 Final EIR ................................................................................................................................ 1-3
1.4 Revisions to the Draft EIR .................................................................................................................. 1-3 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ..................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Introduction............................................................................................................... .......................... 2-1 3 CHANGES TO THE DRAFT EIR ..................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2 Errata ................................................................................................................................................... 3-1 4 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ........................................................................... 4-1 Table
4-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ............................................................................... ................ 4-2
Table of Contents
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 TOC-ii
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 1-1
1 Preface
1.1 Purpose
This Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared by the City of Arcadia (City) for the Alexan Mixed- Use Development Project (proposed Project). This Final EIR has been prepared in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) statutes (Cal. Pub. Res. Code, Section 21000 et. seq., as amended) and implementing guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq.).
Before approving a project, CEQA requires the lead agency to prepare and certify a Final EIR. The City has the principal responsibility for approval of the proposed Project and is therefore considered the lead agency under CEQA Section 21067. According to the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15132, the Final EIR shall consist of:
x The Draft EIR or a revision of the Draft EIR
x Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR either verbatim or in summary x A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR x The responses of the lead agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process; and
x Any other information added by the lead agency
1.2 Format of the Final EIR
This Final EIR consists of the February 2022 Draft EIR and the following four chapters:
11 Preface. This chapter summarizes the contents of the Final EIR and the environmental review process. 2 Response to Comments. During the 45-day public review period for the Draft EIR, four comment letters were received. This chapter contains these comment letters, which have been bracketed to organize the responses, and the City’s responses to the comments.
3 Changes to the Draft EIR. Comments that are addressed in Chapter 2 may have resulted in minor revisions to the information contained in the February 2022 Draft EIR. Where necessary, deletions to the text are shown in b
bold strikeout and additions to the text are shown in b bold underline in all applicable sections of the Draft EIR. Additionally, through the certification of this Final EIR, where the term “Draft EIR” is used in the text, this is now deemed to be “Final EIR.”
4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. This chapter of the Final EIR provides the mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) for the proposed Project. The MMRP is presented in table format and identifies mitigation measures for the proposed Project, the implementation period for each measure, the implementing party, and the enforcing agency. The MMRP also provides a section for recordation of mitigation reporting. 1 – Preface
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 1-2
1.3 Environmental Review Process
1.3.1 Notice of Preparation
CEQA requires preparation of an EIR when there is substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that a proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment. The purpose of an EIR is to provide decision makers, public agencies, and the general public with an objective and informational document that fully discloses the environmental effects of the proposed project. The EIR process is intended to facilitate the objective evaluation of potentially significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the proposed project, and to identify feasible mitigation measures and alternatives that would reduce or avoid the proposed project’s significant effects. In addition, CEQA requires that an EIR identify adverse impacts determined to be significant after mitigation.
In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, a Notice of Prep aration (NOP) was circulated for a 30-day public review starting on July 19, 2021, to public agencies, organizations, and interested individuals. The purpose of the NOP was to provide notification that the City plans to prepare an EIR and to solicit input on the scope and content of the EIR.
Additionally, a notice announcing the availability of the NOP was also publ ished in the Arcadia Weekly on July 14, 2021. Copies of the NOP were made available for electronic download on the City’s website at www.arcadiaca.gov/ shape/development_services_department/current_projects.php. Comments on the NOP were received from three agencies, three letters/emails from individuals or groups, which are provided in Appendix A-2 to the Draft EIR.
A scoping meeting was held on August 5, 2021. Rather than conducting an in-person meeting, the Governor’s Executive Order N-25-20 allowed local governments to hold meetings via teleconferencing while still meeting State transparency requirements. As such, the Project’s Scoping Meeting was held online, through a webinar type format.
The City hosted one Scoping Meeting on Thursday, August 5, 2021, from 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. and was made available through the City’s website at http://www.arcadiaca.gov/projects. The purpose of this meeting was to seek input from public agencies and the general public regarding the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Project. The City received no comments/questions with environmental concerns during the Scoping Meeting.
1.3.2 Noticing and Availability of the Draft
The Draft EIR was made available for public review and comment pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15087. The 45-day public review period for the Draft EIR started on February 24, 2022 and ended on April 11, 2022. At the beginning of the public review period, an electronic copy of the Draft EIR and an electronic copy of the Notice of Completion (NOC) and Notice of Availability (NOA) were submitted to the State Clearinghouse. Relevant State agencies received electronic copies of the documents. An NOA was distributed to interested parties and filed with the Los Angeles County Clerk as well as published in the Arcadia Weekly. The NOA described where the document was available and how to submit comments on the Draft EIR. A hardcopy of the Draft EIR was available at the Arcadia Planning Division located at 240 West Huntington Drive, Arcadia, CA 91066 and at the Arcadia Library located at 20 West Duarte Rd, Arcadia, CA 91006. Additionally, the NOA and the Draft EIR were available to be viewed on the City website at:
www.arcadiaca.gov/shape/development_services_department/current_projects.php.
The 45-day public review period provided interested public agencies, groups, and individuals the opportunity to comment on the contents of the Draft EIR. A total of four agency, organization, and individual comment letters were received and are included in Chapter 2, Responses to Comments, of this Final EIR. 1 – Preface
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 1-3
1.3.3 Final EIR
The Final EIR addresses the comments received during the public review period and includes minor changes to the text of the Draft EIR in accordance with comments that necessitated revisions. This Final EIR will be presented to City decision-makers for potential certification as the environmental document for the proposed project. All agencies who commented on the Draft EIR will be provided with a copy of the Final EIR, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(b). The Final EIR will also be posted on the City’s website at:
www.arcadiaca.gov/shape/development_services_department/current_projects.php.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, the City shall make findings for each of the significant effects identified in this EIR and shall support the findings with substantial evidence in the record. After considering the Final EIR in conjunction with making findings under Section 15091, the lead agency may decide whether or how to approve or carry out the Project. When a lead agency approves a project that will result in the occurrence of significant effects that are identified in the Final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency is required by CEQA to state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the Final EIR and/or other information in the record. Because the Project would not result in significant and unavoidable impacts, a “statement of overriding considerations” is not required to be prepared.
1.4 Revisions to the Draft EIR
The comments received during the public review period for the Draft EIR resulted in minor clarifications and modifications in the text of the February 2022 Draft EIR, as shown in Chapter 3, Changes to the Draft EIR. These changes are included as part of the Final EIR, to be presented to City decision makers for review and consideration of certification and Project approval.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 identifies when a lead agency must recirculate an EIR. A lead agency is required to recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the Draft EIR but before certification of the Final EIR. Information includes changes in the project or environmental setting as well as additional data or other information. New information added to an EIR is not considered significant unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project’s proponents have declined to implement. As defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a), significant new information requiring recirculation includes the following:
1. A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.
2. A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance.
3. A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to adopt it.
4. The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.
1 – Preface
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 1-4
The minor clarifications, modifications, and editorial corrections that were made to the Draft EIR are shown in Chapter 3, Changes to the Draft EIR, of this Final EIR. None of the revisions that have been made to the Draft EIR resulted in new significant impacts; none of the revisions resulted in a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact identified in the Draft EIR; and, none of the revisions brought forth a feasible project alternative or mitigation measure that is considerably different from those set forth in the Draft EIR. Furthermore, the revisions do not cause the Draft EIR to be flawed such that it precludes meaningful public review. As none of the CEQA criteria for recirculation have been met, recirculation of the EIR is not warranted. As stated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(b), “recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR.”
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-1
2 Responses to Comments
2.1 Introduction
A draft version of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project (Project) was circulated for a 45-day public review from February 24, 2022, to April 11, 2022. This chapter of the Final EIR includes a copy of each comment letter provided during the 45-day public review period for the Draft EIR.
The City of Arcadia (City) has prepared responses to each comment, which are included in this chapter. The comments are ordered numerically, and the individual issues within each comment letter are bracketed and numbered. The City’s responses to comments on the Draft EIR represent a good-faith, reasoned effort to address the environmental issues identified by the comments. Under the CEQA Guidelines, the Lead Agency is required to evaluate and provide written responses to comments received on the Draft EIR (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15088).
As shown in Table 2-1, the City received four comment letters from one agency, two organizations, and one letter from the public. In accordance with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(b), the City will provide a written response on comments submitted by public agencies to each respective public agency at least 10 days prior to certifying the Final EIR.
TTable 2--11. List of Commenters
CComment Letter NNo. CCommenter TType DDate PPage No.
AAgencies
A1 Caltrans Regional Agency April 4, 2022 2-3
OOrganizations
O1 Supporters Alliance for
Environmental Responsibility
(“SAFER”) – Lozeau Drury LLP
Organization April 11, 2022 2-11
O2 Southwest Regional Council of
Carpenters (“SWRCC”) –
Mitchell M. Tsai Attorney at Law
Organization April 11, 2022 2-15
IIndividuals
I1 David Fu and Associates Individual April 6, 2022 2-305
The changes to the analysis contained in the Draft EIR represent only minor clarifications/ amplifications and do not constitute significant new information. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines, Section 15088.5, recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required.
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-2
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-3
Comment Letter A1
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-4
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-5
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-6
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-7
Response to Comment Letter A1
California Department of Transportation
April 4, 2022
A1-1 The comment summarizes the proposed Project’s characteristics and location. The comment’s summary of the Project’s characteristics and location are correctly recorded. The comment does not contain any specific concerns related to the adequacy or accuracy of the environmental analysis in the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required and no additional analyses or changes to the Draft EIR are required.
A1-2 The comment notes that the metric to evaluate impacts to transportation is an increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
The Draft EIR evaluates transportation and circulation in Section 4.13. The analysis uses the VMT metric to evaluate potential impacts, but as explained starting on page 4.13-10, the Project screens out of having to prepare a project-level VMT assessment. The comment does not contain any specific concerns related to the adequacy or accuracy of the environmental analysis in the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required and no additional analyses or changes to the Draft EIR are required.
A1-3 The comment is generally discussing Caltrans support for encouraging and promoting alternative modes of transportation, including complete streets and pedestrian safety measures. The comment requests the Draft EIR ensures all modes of transportation are well served.
The Draft EIR addresses the potential for the Project to conflict with any program, plan, ordinance or policy that addresses alternative transportation modes under Threshold 4.13a starting on page 4.13-9. As noted in the analysis, the Project is consistent with the goals and policies contained in the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS and the City’s General Plan. The Project site is also located within a transit priority area (TPA) due to close access to the Arcadia Metro L Line Station and access to bus service provided by LA Metro Routes 79 and 287, along with Foothill Transit Route 187. The comment does not contain any specific concerns related to the adequacy or accuracy of the environmental analysis in the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required and no additional analyses or changes to the Draft EIR are required.
A1-4 The comment is requesting the City evaluate the potential of including transportation demand management (TDM) strategies and intelligent transportation systems (ITS) application to manage the City’s transportation network including transit, bicycle and pedestrian access.
This comment is acknowledged and will be taken into consideration by the City’s decision makers as part of the Final EIR. The Draft EIR did not identify any transportation impacts requiring mitigation and the City is not requiring the Project include TDM measures. The comment does not contain any specific concerns related to the adequacy or accuracy of the environmental analysis in the Draft EIR; therefore no further response is required and no additional analyses or changes to the Draft EIR are required.
A1-5 The comment includes an excerpt from the Draft EIR regarding the findings of the VMT screening assessment. 2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-8
The comment does not contain any specific concerns related to the adequacy or accuracy of the environmental analysis in the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required and no additional analyses or changes to the Draft EIR are required.
A1-6 The comment is requesting a post-development VMT analysis be conducted with all necessary mitigation measures.
The City will take into consideration the need to conduct a post-development VMT analysis; however, the Project would not result in any significant VMT impacts. As noted in Comment A1-5 above, the Project is screened from conducting a VMT analysis and was determined to have a less-than-significant impact. Therefore, no mitigation is required, and no mitigation is proposed. The Project also meets the intent of Senate Bill 743 and the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (OPR 2018) because the Project:
x Is an infill development (in part, replacing an existing surface parking lot and underutilized buildings in downtown Arcadia)
x Contains a mix of land uses (new residential and local serving café, adjacent to an existing office building)
x Is a high-density development
x Has access to high-quality transit (the project is located across the street from the Metro L Line Station, and near regional and local bus service)
x Includes 26 affordable housing units
x Includes project design features to reduce vehicle trips, including:
o A new pedestrian and bicycle paseo to facilitate connectivity between the Metro L Line Station and the City’s downtown amenities
o Secure bicycle parking
o On site-amenities such as an outdoor pool area, fire pit, barbeque dining area, game lounge, lawn area, outdoor plaza, and outdoor passive court”
The City’s Guidelines also include three types of VMT screening criteria to determine it a project is required to perform a project-level VMT assessment: Within a Transit Priority Area (TPA); Low VMT Area Screening; and Project Type. The analysis under Threshold 4.11b starting on page 4.13-10 in the Draft EIR addresses if the Project would meet any of the City’s screening criteria. The Project was screened out of the City’s Guidelines because the Project is:
x Located within a TPA
x Based on the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments screening tool the Project is located in a low VMT-generating area
x Within a TPA and in a low VMT-generating area; thus, a project-level VMT assessment is not required under the City’s Guidelines.
Based on the OPR Technical Guidance and the City’s VMT screening criteria it was determined a project- level VMT analysis is not required and impacts to VMT would be less than significant. 2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-9
A1-7 The comment notes the transport of over-sized construction vehicles or equipment will need a Caltrans transportation permit and Caltrans recommends large trucks be scheduled during off- peak commute times.
The Project applicant will obtain all required permits from Caltrans and will strive to ensure the transport of any large trucks or equipment would occur outside of peak commute times. In addition, to ensure adequate safeguards for pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular circulation as well as emergency vehicle access during short-term construction activities, compliance with MM-TRA-1 is required. MM-TRA-1 requires preparation and implementation of a Construction Traffic Control Plan in accordance with City guidelines to address pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular circulation during construction activities. The Traffic Control Plan would be reviewed and approved by the City.
The comment does not contain any specific concerns related to the adequacy or accuracy of the environmental analysis in the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-10
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-11
Comment Letter O1
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-12
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-13
Response to Comment Letter O1
Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) April 11, 2022
01-1 The comment establishes the letter is on behalf of the Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”). The comment does not contain any specific concerns related to the adequacy or accuracy of the environmental analysis in the Draft EIR; therefore. no further response is required and no additional analyses or changes to the Draft EIR are required. 01-2 The comment states an opinion that the Draft EIR fails to adequately disclose potential Project impacts and identify feasible mitigation measures and requests the Draft EIR be revised and recirculated.
The commenter fails to identify any deficiencies of the Draft EIR related to the adequacy of the environmental analysis. Therefore, the commenter’s assertion that the Draft EIR must be revised and recirculated is not based on substantial evidence. CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, Recirculation of an EIR Prior to Certification, describes the thresholds for recirculation of an EIR. Pursuant to Section 15088.5, a lead agency is required to recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the Draft EIR but before certification.
New information can include a disclosure showing that a new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented, a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact, a feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project (but the project’s proponents decline to adopt it), or the Draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.
The Draft EIR describes the Project at length, in full compliance with Section 15121 of the CEQA Guidelines, to inform public agency decision makers and the public of the significant environmental effects of the Project, identify possible ways to minimize (or mitigate) the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the Project. Regarding the commenter’s opinion the Draft EIR needs to be recirculated, significant new information, as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, has not been added to this EIR subsequent to its release for public review. No changes have been made to the Project, and no changes have occurred in the environmental setting such that a new significant impact would occur or such that a substantial increase in the severity of an impact would occur. No additional data or other information has been added such that a new significant impact would occur or such that a substantial increase in the severity of an impact would occur. Additionally, no feasible Project alternatives or mitigation measures considerably different from those in the Draft EIR that would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the Project have been identified. Lastly, the Draft EIR is not fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature. The Draft EIR includes extensive environmental analysis that was conducted by qualified professionals. The Draft EIR discloses a number of significant impacts that would result from the proposed Project and identifies feasible mitigation that would reduce these significant impacts below a level of significance. As such, the Draft EIR is not required to be revised and recirculated, and the commenter has not presented substantial evidence to support a need for recirculation. 2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-14
01-3 The comment indicates their comments can be supplemented during review of the Final EIR and at any public hearings on the Project.
The comment does not contain any specific concerns related to the adequacy or accuracy of the environmental analysis in the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required and no additional analyses or changes to the Draft EIR are required.
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-15
Comment Letter O2
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-16
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-17
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-18
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-19
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-20
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-21
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-22
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-23
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-24
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-25
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-26
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-27
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-28
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-29
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-30
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-31
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-32
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-33
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-34
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-35
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-36
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-37
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-38
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-39
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-40
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-41
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-42
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-43
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-44
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-45
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-46
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-47
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-48
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-49
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-50
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-51
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-52
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-53
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-54
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-55
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-56
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-57
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-58
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-59
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-60
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-61
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-62
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-63
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-64
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-65
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-66
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-67
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-68
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-69
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-70
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-71
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-72
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-73
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-74
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-75
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-76
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-77
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-78
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-79
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-80
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-81
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-82
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-83
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-84
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-85
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-86
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-87
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-88
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-89
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-90
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-91
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-92
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-93
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-94
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-95
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-96
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-97
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-98
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-99
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-100
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-101
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-102
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-103
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-104
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-105
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-106
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-107
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-108
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-109
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-110
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-111
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-112
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-113
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-114
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-115
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-116
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-117
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-118
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-119
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-120
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-121
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-122
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-123
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-124
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-125
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-126
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-127
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-128
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-129
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-130
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-131
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-132
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-133
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-134
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-135
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-136
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-137
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-138
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-139
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-140
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-141
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-142
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-143
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-144
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-145
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-146
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-147
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-148
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-149
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-150
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-151
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-152
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-153
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-154
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-155
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-156
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-157
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-158
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-159
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-160
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-161
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-162
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-163
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-164
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-165
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-166
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-167
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-168
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-169
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-170
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-171
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-172
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-173
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-174
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-175
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-176
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-177
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-178
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-179
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-180
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-181
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-182
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-183
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-184
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-185
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-186
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-187
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-188
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-189
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-190
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-191
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-192
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-193
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-194
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-195
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-196
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-197
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-198
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-199
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-200
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-201
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-202
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-203
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-204
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-205
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-206
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-207
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-208
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-209
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-210
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-211
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-212
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-213
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-214
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-215
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-216
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-217
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-218
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-219
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-220
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-221
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-222
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-223
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-224
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-225
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-226
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-227
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-228
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-229
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-230
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-231
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-232
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-233
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-234
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-235
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-236
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-237
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-238
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-239
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-240
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-241
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-242
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-243
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-244
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-245
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-246
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-247
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-248
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-249
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-250
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-251
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-252
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-253
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-254
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-255
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-256
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-257
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-258
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-259
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-260
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-261
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-262
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-263
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-264
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-265
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-266
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-267
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-268
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-269
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-270
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-271
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-272
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-273
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-274
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-275
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-276
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-277
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-278
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-279
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-280
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-281
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-282
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-283
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-284
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-285
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-286
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-287
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-288
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-289
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-290
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-291
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-292
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-293
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-294
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-295
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-296
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-297
Response to Comment Letter O2
Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters
April 11, 2022
O2-1 The comment establishes the letter is on behalf of the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters (“SWRCC”) and provides general background on the members of the SWRCC and notes the SWRCC incorporates by reference all comments submitted on the Draft EIR. The comment does not contain any specific concerns related to the adequacy or accuracy of the environmental analysis in the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required and no additional analyses or changes to the Draft EIR are required.
02-2 The comment requests notification of any and all notices referring or related to the Project issued under CEQA. Any designated contacts for the SWRCC requesting notice and the law firm of Mitchell M. Tsai will be included in all future notices of actions or hearings related to the proposed Project. The comment does not contain any specific concerns related to the adequacy or accuracy of the environmental analysis in the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required and no additional analyses or changes to the Draft EIR are required.
02-3 The comment provides an overview of the perceived benefits to hiring local workers to work on the Project and requests the City consider using the local workforce. The comment does not contain any specific concerns related to the adequacy or accuracy of the environmental analysis in the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required and no additional analyses or changes to the Draft EIR are required. The comment is acknowledged and will be taken into consideration by the City’s decision makers as part of the Final EIR.
However, the following response is provided to address the intent of the comment that the City consider requiring the Project hire local construction workers, citing economic benefits and benefits to greenhouse gas, air quality, and transportation impacts. As stated in Draft EIR Sections 4.2, Air Quality, 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and 4.13, Transportation, there are no significant short-term construction-related or long-term operational environmental impacts that are related to the length of vehicle trips or the proximity of workers to the Project site. Therefore, there is no obligation under CEQA to consider hiring from the local workforce, and no changes to the EIR are required. 02-4 The comment requests the City should require the Project be constructed to standards that exceed the 2019 California Green Building Code to further the state’s environmental goals.
The proposed Project would be built in accordance with the current Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24) at the time building permits are submitted for approval. Title 24 includes robust requirements for energy efficiency. Draft EIR Sections 4.4, Energy and 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, determined impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation was required. Table 4.6-5, 2019 CALGreen Mandatory Measures Relevant to Greenhouse Gas Emissions starting on page 4.6-29, demonstrates that the proposed Project would be consistent with the mandatory CalGreen requirements. Notably, 2022 Title 24, which is more stringent than 2019 Title 24, will take effect on January 1, 2023, and the Project likely would be subject to these more stringent standards because building permits are likely to be submitted after January 1, 2023. Table 4.6-6 on page 4.6-31 demonstrates the Project’s consistency with the California Air Resources Board greenhouse gas 2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-298
emission reduction strategies. The commenter’s request to go beyond state requirements is acknowledged and will be taken into consideration by the City’s decision makers as part of the Final EIR. The comment does not contain any specific concerns related to the adequacy or accuracy of the environmental analysis in the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required and no additional analyses or changes to the Draft EIR are required.
02-5 The comment provides general information on CEQA requirements including the requirements under CEQA relevant to the definition of significant new information and when this new information would trigger recirculation of an EIR. The comment does not contain any specific concerns related to the adequacy or accuracy of the environmental analysis in the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required and no additional analyses or changes to the Draft EIR are required. 02-6 The comment is requesting the City adopt additional mitigation measures to address public health risks to construction workers from COVID-19 and lists a number of design features.
The CEQA Guidelines do not expressly require public health effects from COVID-19 or any other communicable virus (i.e., influenza, legionnaires disease) be evaluated as potential impacts to the environment. Such viruses are not caused by construction projects. CEQA also does not require analysis of the Project on itself, including its construction workers and future users. If approved, the Project’s construction contractor can impose requirements for construction personnel to minimize the spread of COVID-19 or any other communicable virus consistent with their company policy and any local or state requirements that may be in place at the time. The comment does not contain any specific concerns related to the adequacy or accuracy of the environmental analysis in the Draft EIR. Therefore, no changes or additions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment. 02-7 The comment is discussing the Infection Control Risk Assessment (“ICRA”) the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and the Carpenters International Training Fund have developed and requests the City require the Project be constructed consistent with these protocols. The comment does not contain any specific concerns related to the adequacy or accuracy of the environmental analysis in the Draft EIR.
However, the following response is provided.
The potential for Project construction to cause COVID-19 to spread through worker exposure is not an impact on the environment under CEQA, rather it is a public health concern under the purview of federal, state, and local public health agencies. CEQA requires the consideration of significant changes in the environment caused by a project; therefore, an existing adverse environmental condition that a project does not create or exacerbate is not responsible for mitigating that adverse condition. Implementation of the proposed Project would not create or exacerbate an existing environmental hazard or an existing public health hazard, and therefore, no mitigation is required. Compliance with existing mandates from federal, state, and local public health agencies, including California Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (Cal/OSHA) COVID-19 Prevention Emergency Temporary Standards (ETS) are specifically intended to address workplace health and safety (OSHSB 2021). Policy mandates from public health agencies are consistently updated to address rapidly changing circumstances and provide the most appropriate methods for protecting worker safety. Employers are required by the General Duty Clause, Section 5(a)(1) of the OSH Act, to provide a safe and healthful workplace free from recognized hazards that are causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm (OSHA 2021).
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-299
Therefore, compliance with mandatory federal, state, and local public health agency regulations in effect at the time would ensure adequate and appropriate protections for workplace safety and the proposed Project would not create or exacerbate an existing environmental or public health hazard.
There is no aspect of the proposed Project that would prevent or interfere with the United Brotherhood of Carpenters providing the Carpenter union members with additional trainings related to COVID-19.
Therefore, no additional analyses or changes to the Draft EIR are required. 02-8 The comment provides background on the Phase I and Phase II ESA, with special note to regulations and requirements. The comment does not specifically address the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft EIR.
Although the comment does not raise any specific concerns with the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft EIR analysis, the following information is provided to clarify the comments. The comment indicates that ASTM E1903 notes that data gaps in a Phase I ESA indicates the need to prepare a Phase II ESA, even in the absence of any identified recognized environmental concerns (RECs). This is not accurate, ASTM E 1903-19, Section 1.2 states the practice is intended for use where a user desires to obtain sound scientifically valid data concerning actual property conditions, whether or not such data relate to property conditions previously identified as RECs or data gaps in the Phase I ESA. As such, it is not the intention to complete a Phase II ESA when data gaps are identified in the Phase I ESA.
The comment also states that the due diligence process should include emerging contaminants. This is also inaccurate. ASTM E1527-21 X6.10 specifically states emerging contaminants and other materials not identified as hazardous substances by CERCLA are not included in the 1527 scope. State- regulated hazardous substances may be evaluated as non-scope considerations under E1527, but it is not required. The contaminants identified in this comment are neither state- or federally-regulated hazardous substances, and therefore do not require consideration in the Phase I ESA. Therefore, no additional analyses or changes to the Draft EIR are required. 02-9 The comment states that a Phase II ESA was not prepared as required, and therefore the Draft EIR failed to establish the proper existing setting for the Project. It also reiterates the lack of impacts with regard to emerging contaminants.
As stated in ASTM E1903-19, a Phase II assessment may be undertaken in order to qualify for and maintain the three types of CERCLA landowner liability protection (LLP). All three LLPs require that a prospective purchaser undertake all appropriate inquiries (AAI) into the condition of a property before purchase. That level of inquiry is defined by federal rule, 40 C.F.R. Part 312, and by Practice E1527 and Practice E2247 for Phase I ESAs, all of which expressly provide that they do not require sampling or chemical testing of environmental media . As such, a Phase II ESA, as defined by 1903-19, is not required. It is an optional additional investigation to better understand and evaluate potential hazardous materials/petroleum products on a subject property.
Three separate investigations were conducted to evaluate RECs identified on the site, an asbestos survey, a lead-based paint survey, and a subsurface soil and soil vapor investigation (Phase II ESA).
These are provided in the Draft EIR Appendices F2 through F4. These investigations appropriately established the existing setting for the Project, and evaluate potential RECs identified in the Phase I ESA. The results of these investigations clearly identified existing conditions, and as such the Project is designed/mitigated such that the Project would not exacerbate hazards. Soil vapor 2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-300
conditions are understood, and construction of the project would not increase existing contamination, nor exacerbate the existing condition of contamination. Excavation would ultimately remove contaminated soils, thereby reducing existing contamination on site. Existing conditions on areas of the site to remain in place would not be exacerbated by the proposed construction and operation of the project.
. As noted in Response to Comment 02-8, evaluation of
emerging contaminants is not required. Therefore, no additional analyses or changes to the Draft EIR are required.
02-10 The comment states that the de minimis condition defined in the Draft EIR with regards to the existing Above Ground Storage Tank (“AST”) or diesel generator was unsubstantiated.
As noted in the comment and in the Draft EIR and also in the appendices, the Phase I ESA site reconnaissance identified two emergency backup generators outside the bank building at 150 N. Santa Anita Avenue. According to the Project site representative, the generators operate on natural gas; however, each generator includes a diesel fuel reservoir at the base, one generator was placed within secondary containment, and one generator also included a “diesel fuel” label (DEIR p. 4.7-1). All diesel generators are required to be permitted and regularly inspected by the LA County Fire Department. The definition of a REC is the “presence or likely presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products due to a release to the environment, a likely release to the environment, or material threat of a future release to the environment.” As the generator is permitted and inspected by the regulatory agency, and is continuously operated by the site owner, there is no evidence of a release to the environment associated with this generator, therefore there is no evidence of a REC. A de minimis condition is defined as a release that does not present a threat to human health or the environment and that generally would not be subject to enforcement action. As noted above, the AST is permitted, inspected, and regularly operated; therefore, any release of a REC if any, of which there was no evidence, would be considered de minimis, as defined above as it has not been previo usly identified as a REC. As such, the de minimis condition is substantiated.
02-11 The comment refers to backup generators and states the project description must include backup generators and the health effects of diesel particulate matter are identified as toxic air contaminants.
It is not clear what the commenter is referring to because the Project does not propose installing backup diesel generators. If the Project were to include generators it would be identified in the project description and any impacts associated with the generators evaluated, but the Project does not include backup generators. The commenter may be referring to the presence of two existing emergency backup generators that were observed outside the southeast corner of the bank building at 150 N. Santa Anita Avenue during the Phase I ESA site reconnaissance. These generators are not part of the Project. As noted above, these generators operate on natural gas; however, each generator includes a diesel fuel reservoir at the base (DEIR p. 4.7-3). These generators are not part of the Project; therefore, an analysis of the health effects of these generators is not required. Impacts of the environment on a project or plan (as opposed to impacts of a project or plan on the environment) are beyond the scope of required CEQA review. “[T]he purpose of an EIR is to identify the significant effects of a project on the environment, not the significant effects of the environment on the project.” ( Ballona Wetlands Land Trust v. City of Los Angeles (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 455, 473.) However, a health risk assessment (HRA) was prepared to evaluate potential health risks associated with construction in accordance with Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) risk assessment methodology. The 2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-301
analysis in the Draft EIR starting on page 4.2-25 demonstrates that Project impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, no additional analyses or changes to the Draft EIR are required. 02-12 The comment provides general background on indoor air quality impacts and parameters. The comment does not contain any specific concerns related to the adequacy or accuracy of the environmental analysis in the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required and no additional analyses or changes to the Draft EIR are required.
02-13 The comment provides general background on vapor intrusion impacts. The comment does not contain any specific concerns related to the adequacy or accuracy of the environmental analysis in the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required and no additional analyses or changes to the Draft EIR are required.
02-14 The comment states the Draft EIR failed to evaluate the health risks of Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) contributed by the Project.
The Draft EIR evaluates health effects associated with air emissions in Section 4.2, Air Quality. The commenter incorrectly states that the Draft EIR fails to properly evaluate health risk impacts of toxic air contaminants. As provided on under Threshold 4.2b starting on page 4.2-28, the Project’s direct and indirect air emissions associated with both Project construction and operation are quantified. In addition, a health risk assessment was prepared in for construction emissions in accordance with Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) risk assessment methodology for the project. The analysis provided demonstrates that project impacts would be less than significant. Please see Response to Comment 02-11.
02-15 The comment states that the Draft EIR fails to evaluate risks associated with vapor forming chemicals (“VFC”) and also logistics regarding testing, soil remediation, and the location where excavated soils would be disposed. The comment goes on to state the Draft EIR should be revised to include a vapor intrusion assessment to evaluate and mitigate the potential risks associated with vapor intrusion, including contaminant/vapor mobility over time.
With regards to contaminated soils that would be moved during grading and also exported off the site, the Draft EIR recognizes the historical uses on the Project site (and potentially other surrounding industrial activities) has resulted in soil and soil vapor contamination. Based on the analysis, concentrations of contaminants of concern in soils do not exceed the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) screening levels for residential use; however, these soils are regulated as non- hazardous waste subject to state regulations for the transportation and disposal (DEIR p. 4.7-20). To address this potentially significant impact, mitigation MM-HAZ-2 requires preparation of a soil management plan (SMP) that outlines the proper screening, handling, characterization, transportation, and disposal procedures for contaminated soils as well as health and safety procedures for breathing zone monitoring in accordance with applicable regulations covering handling of VOC-contaminated soils (DEIR p. 4.7-23).
With regards to a vapor intrusion assessment, a Soil and Soil Vapor Investigation (DEIR Appendix F-4) was performed to determine the existing conditions of soil vapor contamination on the site as compared to residential screening levels (DEIR p. 4.7-21). The Investigation indicated a potential vapor intrusion risk to proposed residential structures to be construc ted on the Project site. To address this underlying 2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-302
condition, MM-HAZ-3 requires vapor mitigation design features be implemented in accordance with the DTSC Vapor Intrusion Mitigation Advisory for all future residential buildings and enclosed structures. The mitigation also requires during Project operation semiannual indoor air monitoring be performed for one year to evaluate the effectiveness of the engineered vapor barriers also required by MM-HAZ-3. Results would be submitted to the City and modifications are required if the vapor mitigation system is not properly reducing indoor air contaminants to below applicable acceptable thresholds. Compliance with this mitigation would address continued protection of Project residents over time. Therefore, no additional analyses or changes to the Draft EIR are required. 02-16 The comment suggests mitigation measure MM-HAZ-3 fails to identify or mention any mitigation design features and is therefore to be considered deferred mitigation. The comment goes on to state the Draft EIR should be revised to properly mitigate vapor intrusion impacts.
As discussed above under Response to Comment 02-15, the Draft EIR includes MM-HAZ-3 which states vapor mitigation design features will be implemented in accordance with DTSC’s Vapor Intrusion Mitigation Advisory conducted prior to issuance of a grading permit. DTSC’s Vapor Intrusion Mitigation Advisory, intended to be used in conjunction with the DTSC Vapor Intrusion Guidance, are documents designed to provide state-wide consistency for screening, evaluating, and mitigating vapor intrusion.
These documents have been developed in collaboration with multiple disciplines, including California Environmental Protection Agency and State Water Quality Control Board. These documents provide agency-recommended practices, screening levels, and remediation techniques based on agency data and experience. MM-HAZ-3 also requires review/approval by the relevant permitting agencies prior to construction. Lastly, MM-HAZ-3 also requires semiannual air monitoring to verify the efficacy of the vapor barrier system. Results of monitoring would be submitted to the City, and, if required, modifications shall be made to the system if acceptable levels are not met. As such, standards have been established, and mitigation is not deferred. See also Response to Comment 02-17. 02-17 The comment is stating the Draft EIR fails to identify the design features noted in mitigation measure MM-HAZ-3 and should be revised to properly mitigate vapor intrusion impacts.
The DTSC has recently issued a draft Supplemental Guidance: Screening and Evaluating Vapor Intrusion (DTSC 2020) that provides details on methods to address vapor intrusion. Therefore, to address the comment MM-HAZ-3 has been revised to include examples of design features that could be used to address vapor intrusion and meet the required performance standard. Please see Chapter 3 for the revised mitigation measure. Also, please see Responses to Comments 02-15 and 02-16. 02-18 The comment states the Draft EIR improperly relies on existing local, state and/or federal regulations to mitigate potential impacts and specifically refers to compliance with the City’s Stormwater Management requirements to protect water quality.
Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality includes a detailed summary of all relevant federal, state, and local laws, regulations, policies and requirements adopted to oversee the protection and management of water quality. If the Project is approved, construction and operation must comply with all laws specifically adopted to protect water quality as well as be consistent with the City’s General Plan goals and policies, and all City ordinances adopted to ensure projects do not adversely impact water quality.
Because projects are required to comply with any and all laws such requirements are described in the 2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-303
analysis but are not identified as mitigation. The comment does not provide any evidence that this is improper and contradicts CEQA.
02-19 The comment includes excerpts from Section 4.8 of the Draft EIR but does not contain any specific concerns related to the adequacy or accuracy of the environmental analysis in the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required and no additional analyses or changes to the Draft EIR are required. 02-20 The comment states reliance on consistency with regulatory standards to conclude an impact is less than significant is not adequate and CEQA requires facts and analysis must be provided to enable the decision-makers and the public the ability to understand the potential impacts.
As explained under Response to Comment 02-18, the analysis in the EIR describes how compliance with a particular law, regulation or policy would provide the decision makers and the public with the understanding of how a potential impact would be mitigated. The analysis in the Draft EIR does not simply state compliance with a specific law would mitigate an impact without providing a detailed assessment that explains what the impact would be and how compliance with a specific law, regulation or policy has been designed to mitigate the impact. If, with adherence to a specific law, regulation or policy it is determined the impact could not be mitigated this would be disclosed and mitigation provided to address the impact. This approach does not mean that the City has failed to provide detailed information about the effects a project could have on the environment. On the contrary, all conclusions in the Draft EIR, including impacts to hydrology and water quality, are supported by substantial evidence (including facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts), as defined in Section 15384 of the CEQA Guidelines. 02-21 The comment states, once again, compliance with regulations alone is insufficient to conclude the project would not have an impact.
Please see Response to Comment 02-20.
02-22 The comment is stating the Draft EIR does not identity potential impacts because the analysis of the Project’s hydrology and noise impacts are compressed into a single issue, inconsistent with CEQA.
It is not clear from the comment how the Draft EIR “compresses the analysis of impacts and mitigation measures into a single issue.” The Draft EIR includes a detailed analysis of the Project’s direct and indirect impacts to all of the issue areas where it was determined the Project could potentially result in an impact on the environment. The analysis does not rely on “special construction techniques” for example, to negate the City’s responsibility to fully evaluate and disclose any potential impact. All conclusions in the Draft EIR are supported by substantial evidence (including facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts), as defined in Section 15384 of the CEQA Guidelines. Further, “[a]n agency may rely on generally applicable regulations to conclude an environmental impact will not be significant and therefore does not require mitigation.” ( San Francisco Beautiful v. City and County of San Francisco (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1012, 1033.)
02-23 The comment is requesting the Draft EIR be recirculated to address the concerns included in their letter. 2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-304
The commenter’s assertion that the Draft EIR must be revised and recirculated is inaccurate. CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, Recirculation of an EIR Prior to Certification, describes the thresholds for recirculation of an EIR. Pursuant to Section 15088.5, a lead agency is required to recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the Draft EIR but before certification. New information can include a disclosure showing that a new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented, a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact, a feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project (but the project’s proponents decline to adopt it), or the Draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.
Significant new information, as it is defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, has not been added to this EIR subsequent to its release for public review. No changes have been made to the Project, and no changes have occurred in the environmental setting such that a new significant impact would occur or such that a substantial increase in the severity of an impact would occur. No additional data or other information has been added such that a new significant impact would occur or such that a substantial increase in the severity of an impact would occur. Additionally, no feasible project alternatives or mitigation measures considerably different from those in the Draft EIR that would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the Project have been identified. Lastly, the Draft EIR is not fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature. As described above, the Draft EIR includes extensive environmental analysis that was conducted by qualified professionals. The Draft EIR discloses a number of significant impacts that would result from the proposed Project and identifies mitigation that would reduce these significant impacts below a level of significance. As such, the Draft EIR is not required to be revised and recirculated, and the commenter has not presented substantial evidence to support a need for recirculation.
02-24 The comment includes an example analysis from another project in the City of Claremont of using a local workforce to reduce construction related GHG emissions. This analysis is not performed for the proposed Project and furthermore not even prepared for a project in the City of Arcadia. The comment does not contain any specific concerns related to the adequacy or accuracy of the environmental analysis in the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required and no additional analyses or changes to the Draft EIR are required.
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-305
Comment Letter I1
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-306
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-307
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-308
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-309
Response to Comment Letter I1
David Fu and Associates
April 6, 2022
I1-1 The comment provides background on the history of the adjacent medical office building owned by Dong L. Chang, M.D. and requests his concerns be addressed by the Project applicant. The comment does not contain any specific concerns related to the adequacy or accuracy of the environmental analysis in the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required and no additional analyses or changes to the Draft EIR are required.
I1-2 The comment is a general introduction to concerns raised in this comment letter. The comment does not contain any specific concerns related to the adequacy or accuracy of the environmental analysis in the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required and no additional analyses or changes to the Draft EIR are required. Please see the responses below that address these concerns.
I1-3 The comment is addressing the Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the Project and is requesting the Project applicant pay for the commenter to conduct the same investigation for the adjacent medical office building due to its proximity to the Project site. The comment also raises a concern regarding tiebacks anchors and if these anchors would impact the adjacent building.
The Geotechnical Investigation (see DEIR Appendix D-1) and Draft EIR discuss features needed to ensure the adjacent property is not adversely impacted by Project construction. The commenter expresses many concerns about soil stability, including differential settlement due to vibration during construction, the need for the commenter to supervise pre-construction surveys of their property, whether tieback anchors would impact the commenter’s property, and the need for monitoring during construction to prevent damage to commenter’s property. Each of these concerns is addressed below.
Construction vibration. The Draft EIR addresses construction vibration in Section 4.10, Noise, on pages 4.10-19–4.10-20. Groundborne vibration attenuates rapidly, even over short distances. According to the Draft EIR analysis, at the adjacent medical office building (Dr. Chang’s office), construction vibration would peak at approximately 0.067 in/sec in PPV, which is below the level that studies have found would cause damage to buildings, including building foundations due to differential settlement of soil.
Specifically, the Federal Transit Administration guidelines show that a vibration level of up to 0.5 in/sec in PPV (FTA 2018) is considered safe for buildings consisting of reinforced concrete, steel, or timber, and would not result in any construction vibration damage. For a nonengineered timber and masonry building, the construction building vibration damage criterion is 0.2 in/sec in PPV. The vibration from construction at the commenter’s property (0.067 in/sec in PPV) is well below even the 0.2 in/sec in PPV threshold.
Pre-construction surveys and construction monitoring . The Geotechnical Investigation recommends that prior to excavation the existing improvements on adjacent properties be inspected and their present condition be documented. The Geotechnical Investigation also recommends monitoring of adjacent properties during drilling and pile installation. The commenter’s engineer can participate in the preconstruction survey and monitoring on the commenter’s property, but this extra oversight is not required to reduce impacts to a less-than- significant level. Accordingly, the City cannot require the Project applicant to pay for the commenter’s engineer. The commenter and Project applicant are free to enter into a private agreement that addresses this issue. 2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-310
Excavation and tiebacks. The Geotechnical Investigation provides recommendations that would prevent impacts to adjacent properties during the construction of the Project’s building foundation. For example, where off-site structures are within the shoring surcharge area, the design engineer should limit beam deflection to less than ½ inch at the elevation of the adjacent off-site foundation. Caving of the holes for the foundation could be prevented by formwork or casing. In addition, vertical excavations greater than 5 feet or where surcharged by existing structures would have sloping or shoring measures to provide a stable excavation. Where space is limited, shoring measures would be required to prevent caving. One method of shoring would consist of steel soldier piles, placed in drilled holes, and backfilled with concrete.
Where excavations exceed 12 feet or are surcharged, soldier piles may require lateral bracing using drilled tie-back anchors or raker braces to maintain an economical steel beam size and prevent excessive deflection. As the commenter notes, temporary tie-back anchors may be used with the solider pile wall system to resist lateral loads. The locations and depths of all off-site utilities would be thoroughly checked and incorporated into the drilling angle design for the tieback anchors to avoid damage to adjacent properties. Tieback anchors would not be installed under or affect the commenter’s property.
Monitoring. The commenter is concerned about a lack of clear responsibility to monitor construction or create a design-level geotechnical plan. The geotechnical recommendations, which will be incorporated as Project conditions of approval, require a design-level plan and monitoring of structures on adjacent properties to ensure they are not damaged by Project construction.
I1-4 The comment is addressing the Transportation Technical Memorandum (TTM) prepared for the Project and notes the TTM does not address the parking easement or potential parking impacts with the adjacent medical office building.
An evaluation of impacts to parking is not required to be evaluated under CEQA. The CEQA Guidelines were updated in 2009 and a review of parking availability was removed. Recent case law has confirmed CEQA does not consider the adequacy of a project’s parking or its “impacts on parking” unless it would result in significant secondary effects on the physical environment.
I1-5 The comment is referencing the Sewer Study conducted for the Project and notes the sewer infrastructure that services the adjacent property runs under the Project site and would be impacted by the Project. The comment also notes the adjacent property has a history of issues with the existing sewer system due to its design.
Based on City building records, the commenter’s sewer line does not run under the Project site.
Accordingly, the sewer line would not be interrupted by Project construction.
I1-6 The comment states that the noise modeling output data does not address the “substantial noise conditions” which would be experienced by the adjacent dermatological practice, and that both noise and vibration are matters of concern.
As stated in Section 4.10.1 of the EIR’s noise se ction, residences, schools, and hospitals are typical examples of noise and vibration-sensitive land uses, with other sensitive uses dependent on what the local jurisdiction may have defined or established. Based on the City’s Noise Ordinance and General Plan Noise Element summarized in Section 4.10.2 of the EIR, sensitive receptors include residences, schools, hospitals, hotels and motels, places of worship, and open space/recreation uses. Residences, a school and recreational uses are the nearest noise-sensitive land uses in the vicinity of the Project site. 2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-311
Medical facilities are typically considered as sensitive receptors if they involve continuing care, such as a hospital or convalescent home. Medical offices are typically not considered a sensitive receptor for the purposes of CEQA noise analysis. The medical office building adjacent to the Project site is a dermatologist’s office and therefore was not considered a sensitive receptor. Nonetheless, noise and vibration levels at the medical office building from construction and operation of the Project were provided in the analysis for informational purposes. This information is provided under Threshold 4.10a starting on page 4.10-13. As shown in Tables 4.10-9 through 4.10-12 (DEIR pp. 4.10-15, 4.10-17,
4.10-18, 4.10-19) noise associated with construction would be as high as 88 dBA L eq at the adjacent
medical office building (see Table 4.10-9); however, the City’s Municipal Code allows construction work to occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday – Friday, and 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturday, and any time on Sunday and holidays. Tables 4.10-10 through 4.10-12 show the noise levels of stationary equipment and noise associated with Project traffic under existing plus Project and cumulative conditions at the nearest receivers would be well below the applicable noise standards.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Threshold 4.10b on page 4.10-19 addresses vibration from construction activities. Based on guidance provided by Caltrans the Project would not exceed the guidance-based annoyance threshold of 0.2 ips PPV. At the adjacent medical office building vibration is predicted at approximately 0.067 ips PPV, which is be well below the guidance limit of 0.3 ips PPV for preventing structural damage. Because the predicted vibration levels are less than both the annoyance and building damage risk thresholds, vibration from construction activities would be less than significant. The City appreciates the commenter’s engagement and the City’s decision makers will consider these comments when reviewing the proposed Project.
I1-7 The comment notes additional comments may be submitted to the City and appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR.
The comment does not contain any specific concerns related to the adequacy or accuracy of the environmental analysis in the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required and no additional analyses or changes to the Draft EIR are required.
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-312
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-313
References
DTSC (Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2020. Supplemental Guidance: Screening and Evaluating Vapor Intrusion. Draft for Public Comments. February 2020. Accessed April 19, 2022. https://dtsc.ca.gov/wp- content/uploads/sites/31/2020/02/Public-Draft-Supplemental-VI-Guidance_2020-02-14.pdf.
FTA (U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. September 2018.
OPR (California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research). 2018. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. December 2018. Accessed June 2020. http://opr.ca.gov/ docs/20190122-743_Technical_Advisory.pdf.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). 2021. Protecting Workers: Guidance on Mitigating and Preventing the Spread of COVID-19 in the Workplace. The Roles of Employers and Workers in Responding to COVID-19. Guidance posted January 29, 2021; Updated June 10, 2021; Summary of changes August 13, 2021. https://www.osha.gov/coronavirus/safework#role-employers-workers.
Occupational Safety & Health Standards Board (OSHSB). 2021. California Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (Cal/OSHA) COVID-19 Prevention Emergency Temporary Standards (ETS). Standards Presentation to California Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board. Title 8, Division 1, Chapter 4.
December 16, 2021. https://www.dir.ca.gov/OSHSB/documents/Dec162021-COVID-19-Prevention- Emergency-apprvdtxt-2nd-Readoption.pdf.
2 – Responses to Comments
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 2-314
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 3-1
3 Changes to the Draft EIR
3.1 Introduction
The comments received on Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project during the public review period for the Draft EIR included information that has resulted in several minor revisions to the text of the Draft EIR. Additionally, typographical errors have been identified in the Draft EIR. These revisions are shown below and are categorized by section number and page number. Errors which require multiple revisions throughout the Draft EIR are categorized at the beginning of Section 3.2, Errata, below, with a summary of the change and subsequent section number and page number provided. Text from the Draft EIR that has been removed is shown in bold strikethrough (i.e., s
strikethrough), and text that has been added as part of the Final EIR is shown as bold underlined (i.e., uunderline).
Revisions are shown with surrounding sentences for context. These errata merely clarify and corrects minor facts and does not constitute “substantial revisions” or significant new information, that in accordance with CEQA Guidelines, Section 15088.5, would trigger the need to recirculate portions or all of the Draft EIR.
3.2 Errata
Executive Summary, Section ES.4, Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures, Pages ES-9 and ES-10 Table ES-1 is revised to read:
Environmental Topic Impact? Mitigation Measure(s)1
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
Cultural Resources
Would the project cause
a substantial adverse
change in the
significance of an
archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
MM--CUL--1
Prior to commencement of construction activities,
an inadvertent discovery clause, written by an
archaeologist, shall be added to all construction
plans associated with ground disturbing activities
and the Project applicant shall retain a qualified
archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the
Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for
Archaeology, to prepare a Worker Environmental
Awareness Program (WEAP). The WEAP shall be
submitted to the City of Arcadia P
Planning and
Community Development Services dDepartment
(City) for review and approval. All construction
personnel and monitors shall be presented the
WEAP training prior to the start of construction
activities. The WEAP shall be prepared to inform all
personnel working on the proposed Project about
the archaeological sensitivity of the area, to
provide specific details on the kinds of
archaeological materials that may be identified
during construction, to explain the importance of
and legal basis for the protection of significant
Less Than
Significant
33 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 3-2
Environmental Topic Impact? Mitigation Measure(s)1
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
archaeological resources, and to outline the
actions to be taken in the event of a discovery of
cultural resources. Each worker shall also learn
the proper procedures to follow in the event that
cultural resources or human remains are
uncovered during ground-disturbing activities.
These procedures include work curtailment or
redirection, and the immediate contact of the site
supervisor and archaeological monitor.
The WEAP shall require that a qualified archaeologist
be retained and on-call to respond to and address
any inadvertent discoveries identified during initial
excavation in native soils, which underly the 2-4 feet
below ground surface (bgs) of artificial fill soils. As it pertains to archaeological monitoring, this definition
excludes movement of sediments after they have
been initially disturbed or displaced by project-
related
construction.
If potential archaeological resources (i.e., sites,
features, or artifacts) are exposed during
construction activities for the proposed Project, the
City shall be notified and all construction work
occurring within 50 feet of the find shall
immediately stop until a qualified archaeologist,
meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional
Qualification Standards for Archaeology, can
evaluate the significance of the find and determine
whether or not additional study is warranted. The
archaeologist shall be empowered to temporarily
stop or redirect grading activities to allow removal
of abundant or large artifacts. Depending upon the
significance of the find under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (14 CCR
15064.5[f]; PRC, Section 21082), the
archaeologist may simply record the find and allow
work to continue. If the discovery proves significant
under CEQA, additional work, such as preparation
of an archaeological treatment plan and data
recovery, may be warranted. The archaeologist
shall also be required to curate any discovered
specimens in a repository with permanent
retrievable storage and submit a written report to
the City of Arcadia for review and approval prior to
occupancy of the first building on the site. Once
approved, the final report shall be filed with the
South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC).
33 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 3-3
Environmental Topic Impact? Mitigation Measure(s)1
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
Hazards and Hazardous Resources
Would the project create
a significant hazard to
the public or the
environment through the
routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous
materials?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
MM--HAZ--1
DDemolition and Abatement Procedures. Prior to the
issuance of a demolition permit, the Project
applicant/developer or their designated contractor
shall ensure that the demolition contractor’s
contract s
specifications incorporate abatement
procedures for the removal of materials containing
asbestos, as identified in previous surveys, and
identification and removal of polychlorinated
biphenyls, hazardous material, hazardous wastes,
and universal waste items. All abateme
nt work shall
be done in accordance with federal, state, and local
regulations, including those of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (which regulates
disposal), Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development, California Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (which
regulates employee exposure), and the South Coast
Air Quality Management District. Confirmation of
adequate removal of such materials shall be
provided to the City prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
Less Than
Significant
Would the project create
a significant hazard to
the public or the
environment through
reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident
conditions involving the
release of hazardous
materials into the
environment?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
MM--HAZ--3
Vapor Mitigation. Prior to the issuance of a grading
permit, vapor mitigation design features shall be
implemented in accordance with the Department
of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Vapor Intrusion
Mitigation Advisory for all future residential
buildings and enclosed structures. D
Draft
Supplemental Guidance issued by DTSC indicates
long term mitigation may include subslab venting
or depressurization systems with or without vapor
barriers (subslab liners), and sewer VI mitigation
such as venting, check valves, and sewer pipe
linings. The construction contractor shall
incorporate vapor mitigation design features into
building plans that reduce potential vapor
intrusion in buildings and enclosed structures on
the Project site below DTSC Screening Levels.
Vapor mitigation systems may be passive or active
in nature, so long as they are designed to prevent
vapor contamination on the Project site in
accordance with applicable DTSC regulations at
the time the systems are designed. V
Vapor
mitigation systems shall be designed, built,
installed, operated, and maintained in
conformance with standard geologic, engineering,
Less Than
Significant
33 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 3-4
Environmental Topic Impact? Mitigation Measure(s)1
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
and construction principles and practices by
appropriately licensed professionals aand Vapor
mitigation systems must shall be reviewed and
approved by the permitting agency(ies) (City of
Arcadia, County of Los Angeles) prior to
construction and prior to issuance of certificate of
occupancy. Operation of the Project shall maintain
functionality of these features as required to
continue protection from vapor intrusion. Following
completion of construction and occupancy of the
buildings, indoor air monitoring will occur
semiannually for one year to verify implemented
measures are functioning properly and ade
quately
mitigating vapor intrusion to below residential
DTSC Screening Levels. Results shall be submitted
to the City of Arcadia for confirmation of the
adequacy of the designed systems. If indoor air
samples reveal vapor intrusion occurring at levels
above applicable DTSC Screening Levels,
modifications shall be made, as necessary, to the
designed system to improve the efficacy in
reducing vapor intrusion to below applicable
screening levels.
Tribal Cultural Resources
ii. A resource
determined by the
lead agency, in its
discretion and
supported by
substantial evidence,
to be significant
pursuant to criteria
set forth in
subdivision (c) of
Public Resources
Code Section
5024.1. In applying
the criteria set forth
in subdivision (c) of
Public Resource
Code Section
5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider
the significance of
the resource to a
California Native
American tribe?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
MM--TCR--1
The project applicant shall retain a Native
American Monitor from or approved by the
Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians –
Kizh Nation
(“Tribe” or “Kizh”). The monitor shall be retained
prior to the commencement of any “ground-
disturbing activity” for the subject project at all
project locations (i.e., both on-site and any off-
site
locations that are included in the project
description/definition and/or required in
connection with the project, such as public
improvement work). “Ground-disturbing activity”
shall include, but is not limited to, demolition,
pavement removal, potholing, auguring, grubbing,
tree removal, boring, grading, excavation, drilling,
and trenching. “Ground-disturbing activity” refers
to ground disturbance occurring from 1 foot above
native soils and below, and it does not include
movement of sediments after they have been
initially disturbed or displaced by current Project-
related construction.
A copy of the executed monitoring a
greement shall
be submitted to the lead agency prior to the earlier
of the commencement of any ground-disturbing
33 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 3-5
Environmental Topic Impact? Mitigation Measure(s)1
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
activity, or the issuance of any permit necessary to
commence a ground-disturbing activity.
The monitor will complete daily monitoring logs
that will provide descriptions of the relevant
ground-disturbing activities, the type of
construction activities performed, locations of
ground-disturbing activities, soil types, cultural-
related materials, and any other facts, conditions,
materials, or discoveries of significance to the
Tribe. Monitor logs will identify and describe any
discovered TCRs, including but not limited to,
Native American cultural and historical artifacts,
remains, places of significance, etc., (collectively,
tribal cultural resources, or “TCR”), as well as any
discovered Native American (ancestral) human
remains and burial goods. Copies of monitor logs
will be provided to the project applicant/lead
agency upon written request to the Tribe.
On-site tribal monitoring shall conclude upon the
earlier of the following (1) written confirmation to
the Kizh from a designated point of contact for the
project applicant or lead agency that all ground-
disturbing activities as defined iin TCR-1.A above
and phases that may involve ground-disturbing
activities on the project site or in connection with
the project are complete; or (2) a determination
and written notification by the Kizh to the project
applicant or lead agency that no future, planned
construction activity and/or development/
construction phase at the project site possesses
the potential to impact Kizh TCRs.
Upon discovery of any Kizh TCRs, all construction
activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery
shall cease (i.e., not less than the surrounding 50
feet) and shall not resume until the Kizh recovers
and retains all discovered Kizh TCRs in the form
and/or manner the Tribe deems appropriate, in
the Tribe’s sole discretion, and for any purpose the
Tribe deems appropriate, including for
educational, cultural and/or historic purposes.
The Tribe shall have up to 48 hours to recover and
retain any discovered Kizh TCRs, after which time
construction activities in the immediate vicinity of
the discovery may continue.
33 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 3-6
Chapter 3, Project Description, Section 3.2.1, Residential Development, Page 3-4 The tenth sentence under the subheading “Amenities” is revised to read:
The roof would also support mechanical equipment and provide several ssolar-ready zones for solar panels, the locations of which are depicted in Figure 3-3d.
Chapter 3, Project Description, Section 3.2-5, Utilities and Infrastructure, Page 3-9 The second sentence under is revised to read:
The proposed Project would require upgrades to utility infrastructure on the Project site. TThe Project would include a 100-kW solar generation system on the roof of the multi-family residential building.
All infrastructure would be constructed in accordance with the standards of the City and in accordance with applicable building codes.
Section 4.3, Cultural Resources, Section 4.3.6, Mitigation Measures, Pages 4.3-29 and 4.3-30 The first paragraph under mitigation measure MM-CUL-1 is revised to read:
MM-CUL-1 Prior to commencement of construction activities, an inadvertent discovery clause, written by an archaeologist, shall be added to all construction plans associated with ground disturbing activities and the Project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for Archaeology, to prepare a Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP). The WEAP shall be submitted to the City of Arcadia P Planning and
Community Development Services ddDepartment (City) for review and approval. All construction personnel and monitors shall be presented the WEAP training prior to the start of construction activities. The WEAP shall be prepared to inform all personnel working on the proposed Project about the archaeological sensitivity of the area, to provide specific details on the kinds of archaeological materials that may be identified during construction, to explain the importance of and legal basis for the protection of significant archaeological resources, and to outline the actions to be taken in the event of a discovery of cultural resources. Each worker shall also learn the proper procedures to follow in the event that cultural resources or human remains are uncovered during ground-disturbing activities. These procedures include work curtailment or redirection, and the immediate contact of the site supervisor and archaeological monitor.
Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Section 4.7.6, Mitigation Measures, Page 4.7-23 Mitigation measure MM-HAZ-1 is revised to read:
MM-HAZ-1 D Demolition and Abatement Procedures. Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, the Project applicant/developer or their designated contractor shall ensure that the demolition contractor’s contract sspecifications incorporate abatement procedures for the removal of materials containing asbestos, as identified in previous surveys, and identification and removal of polychlorinated biphenyls, hazardous material, hazardous wastes, and universal waste items. All abatement work shall be done in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations, including those of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (which regulates disposal), Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, California Occupational 33 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 3-7
Safety and Health Administration (which regulates employee exposure), and the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Confirmation of adequate removal of such materials shall be provided to the City prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Section 4.7.6, Mitigation Measures, Page 4.7-24 Mitigation measure MM-HAZ-3 is revised to read:
MM-HAZ-3 V Vapor Mitigation. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, vapor mitigation design features shall be implemented in accordance with the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Vapor Intrusion Mitigation Advisory for all future residential buildings and enclosed structures. D Draft Supplemental Guidance issued by DTSC indicates long term mitigation may include subslab venting or depressurization systems with or without vapor barriers (subslab liners), and sewer VI mitigation such as venting, check valves, and sewer pipe linings. The construction contractor shall incorporate vapor mitigation design features into building plans that reduce potential vapor intrusion in buildings and enclosed structures on the Project site below DTSC Screening Levels.
Vapor mitigation systems may be passive or active in nature, so long as they are designed to prevent vapor contamination on the Project site in accordance with applicable DTSC regulations at the time the systems are designed. V
Vapor mitigation systems shall be designed, built, installed, operated, and maintained in conformance with standard geologic, engineering, and construction principles and practices by appropriately licensed professionals and VVapor mitigation systems must shall be reviewed and approved by the permitting agency(ies) (City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles) prior to construction and prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy. Operation of the Project shall maintain functionality of these features as required to continue protection from vapor intrusion. Following completion of construction and occupancy of the buildings, indoor air monitoring will occur semiannually for one year to verify implemented measures are functioning properly and adequately mitigating vapor intrusion to below residential DTSC Screening Levels.
Results shall be submitted to the City of Arcadia for confirmation of the adequacy of the designed systems. If indoor air samples reveal vapor intrusion occurring at levels above applicable DTSC Screening Levels, modifications shall be made, as necessary, to the designed system to improve the efficacy in reducing vapor intrusion to below applicable screening levels.
Section 4.14, Tribal Cultural Resources, Section 4.14.6, Mitigation Measures, Page 4.14-12 The first sentence in the fourth paragraph of MM-TCR-1 is revised to read:
MM-TCR-1 On-site tribal monitoring shall conclude upon the earlier of the following (1) written confirmation to the Kizh from a designated point of contact for the project applicant or lead agency that all ground- disturbing activities as defined iin TCR-1.A above and phases that may involve ground-disturbing activities on the project site or in connection with the project are complete; or (2) a determination and written notification by the Kizh to the project applicant or lead agency that no future, planned construction activity and/or development/construction phase at the project site possesses the potential to impact Kizh TCRs.
Section 4.15, Utilities and Service Systems, Section 4.15.1, Existing Conditions, Page 4.15-5 The third paragraph under the subheading “Electricity” is revised to read:
33 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 3-8
The Project also proposes construction of a 100 kilowatt (kW) S Solar Ready Zonesolar system, which could generate an estimated 161,000 kWh (kilowatt hours) of energy per year (DOE 2021).
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 4-1
4 Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program
California Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 requires that, upon certification of an EIR, “the public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation.” This chapter contains the mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) that has been developed for the Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project (Project). This MMRP has been developed in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and Section 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines. The mitigation measures in the table are coded by alphanumeric identification consistent with the EIR. The following items are identified for each mitigation measure:
x MMitigation Monitoring. This section of the MMRP lists the stage of the proposed project during which the mitigation measure would be implemented and the stage during which proper implementation would be monitored and verified. It also lists the agency that is responsible for ensuring that the mitigation measure is implemented and that it is implemented properly.
x Verification of Compliance. This section of the MMRP provides a location for the implementing party and/or enforcing agency to make notes and to record their initials and the compliance date for each mitigation measure.
The City of Arcadia (City) must adopt this MMRP, or an equally effective program, if it approves the proposed project with the mitigation measures that were adopted or made conditions of project approval.
44 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 4-2
Table 4--1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Monitoring
Implementation
Timing
Party Responsible for
Implementation
Agency Responsible for
Monitoring Implementation
Cultural Resources
MM--CUL--1
Prior to commencement of construction activities, an
inadvertent discovery clause, written by an archaeologist, shall be added to all construction plans associated with ground disturbing activities and the Project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for Archaeology, to prepare a Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP). The WEAP shall be submitted to the City of Arcadia Development Services Department (City) for review and approval. All construction personnel and monitors shall be presented the WEAP training prior to the start of construction activities. The WEAP shall be prepared to inform all personnel working on the proposed Project about the archaeological sensitivity of the area, to provide specific details on the kinds of archaeological materials that may be identified during construction, to explain the importance of and legal basis for the protection of significant archaeological resources, and to outline t
he actions to be taken
in the event of a discovery of cultural resources. Each worker shall also learn the proper procedures to follow in the event that cultural resources or human remains are uncovered during ground-disturbing activities. These procedures include work curtailment or redirection, and the immediate contact of the site supervisor and archaeological monitor.
The WEAP shall require that a qualified archaeologist be retained and on- call to respond to and address any inadvertent
discoveries ident ified during initial excavation in native soils, which underly the 2-4 feet below ground surface (bgs) of artificial fill soils. As it pertains to archaeological monitoring, this definition excludes movement of sediments after they have been Prior to
commencement of
construction activities
;
During construction
activities
Project applicant; Project
archaeologist for preparation
of a Worker Environmental
Awareness Program (WEAP)
City of Arcadia Planning
Division
44 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 4-3
Table 4--1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Monitoring
Implementation
Timing
Party Responsible for
Implementation
Agency Responsible for
Monitoring Implementation
initially disturbed or displaced by project-related construction. If potential archaeological resources (i.e., sites, features, or artifacts) are exposed during construction activities for the proposed Project, the City shall be notified and all construction work occurring within 50 feet of the find shall immediately stop until a qualified archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for Archaeology, can evaluate the significance of the find and determine whether or not additional study is warranted. The archaeologist shall be empowered to temporarily stop or redirect grading activities to allow removal of abundant or large artifacts. Depending upon the significance of the find under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (14 CCR 15064.5[f]; PRC, Section 21082), the archaeologist may simply record the find and allow work to continue. If the discovery proves significant under CEQA, additional work, such as preparation of an archaeological treatment plan and data recove ry, may be warranted. The archaeologist shall also be required to curate any discovered specimens in a repository with permanent retrievable storage and submit a written report to the City of Arcadia for review and approval prior to occupancy of the first building on the site. Once approved, the final report shall be filed with the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC).
Geology and Soils
MM--GEO--1
Prior to commencement of any grading activity on-site, the Applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist per the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) (2010) guidelines. The paleontologist shall prepare a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) for the Project. The PRIMP shall be consistent with the SVP (2010) guidelines and shall outline requirements for preconstruction meeting attendance and Prior to any grading
activity; During
grading activities
Project applicant; Project
paleontologist for preparation
of a Paleontological
Resources Impact Mitigation
Program (PRIMP) and
preconstruction meeting
City of Arcadia Planning
Division
44 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 4-4
Table 4--1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Monitoring
Implementation
Timing
Party Responsible for
Implementation
Agency Responsible for
Monitoring Implementation
worker environmental awareness training, where monitoring is required within the Project area based on construction plans and/or geotechnical reports, procedures for adequate
paleontological monitoring and discoveries treatment, and paleontological methods (including sediment sampling for microvertebrate fossils), reporting, and collections
management. The qualified paleontologist shall attend the preconstruction meeting and a paleontological monitor shall be on-site during all rough grading and other significant ground- disturbing activities in previously undisturbed, Pleistocene alluvial depo
sits. These deposits may be encountered at depths
as shallow as 5-10 feet below ground surface. In the event that paleontological resources (e.g., fossils) are unearthed during grading, the paleontological monitor will temporarily halt and/or divert grading activity to allow recovery of paleontological resources. The area of discovery will be roped off with a 50- foot
radius buffer. Once documentation and collection of the find is completed, the monitor will remove the rope and allow grading to recommence in the area of the find.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
MM--HAZ--1
Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, the Project applicant/developer or their designated contractor shall ensure that the demolition contractor’s contract incorporate abatement procedures for the removal of materials containing asbestos, as identified in previous surveys, and identification and removal of polychlorinated biphenyls, hazardous material, hazardous wastes, and universal waste items. All abatement work shall be done in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations, including those of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (which regulates disposal), Occupational Safety and Health Prior to the issuance
of a demolition permit
Project applicant; Project
contractor
City of Arcadia Planning and
Building Divisions
44 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 4-5
Table 4--1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Monitoring
Implementation
Timing
Party Responsible for
Implementation
Agency Responsible for
Monitoring Implementation
Administration, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, California Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (which regulates employee exposure), and the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Confirmation of adequate removal of such materials shall be provided to the City prior to the issuance of a building permit.
MM--HAZ--2
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project
applicant/developer or their designated contractor shall prepare a soil management plan (SMP) that outlines the proper screening, handling, characterization, transportation, and disposal procedures for contaminated soils on site. The SMP shall include health and safety and training procedures for workers who may
come in contact with contaminated soils. The
health and safety procedures shall also include periodic breathing zone monitoring and monitoring for VOCs using a handheld organic vapor analyzer and include required actions to be taken if concentrations of VOCs exceed applicable screening levels for health and safety of onsite workers. The SMP will be based on the findings of the Soil and Soil Vapor Investigation prepared for the Project, will outline areas of known or suspected soil contamination, and will be
implemented by the applicant or their designated contractor for all confirmed and suspected contaminated soils which require excavation and offsite disposal. Contaminated soil shall be managed and disposed of in accordance with applicable
federal, state, and local regulations.
Prior to the issuance
of a grading permit
Project applicant; Project
contractor for preparation of a
Soil Management Plan (SMP)
City of Arcadia Planning and
Building Divisions
MM--HAZ--3
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, vapor mitigation design features shall be implemented in accordance with the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Vapor Intrusion Mitigation Advisory for all future residential buildings and Prior to issuance of a
grading permit; Prior
to construction and
prior to issuance of
certificate of
Project applicant; Construction
contractor
City of Arcadia Planning and
Building Divisions; County of
Los Angeles Department of
Public Works
44 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 4-6
Table 4--1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Monitoring
Implementation
Timing
Party Responsible for
Implementation
Agency Responsible for
Monitoring Implementation
enclosed structures. Draft Supplemental Guidance issued by DTSC indicates long term mitigation may include subslab venting or depressurization systems with or without vapor barriers (subslab liners), and sewer VI mitigation such as venting, check valves, and sewer pipe linings. The construction contractor shall incorporate vapor mitigation design features into building plans that reduce potential vapor intrusion in buildings and enclosed structures on the Project site below DTSC Screening Levels. Vapor mitigation systems may be
passive or active in nature, so long as they are designed to prevent vapor contamination on the Project site in accordance with applicable DTSC regulations at the time the systems are designed. Vapor mitigation systems shall be designed, built, installed, operated, and maintained in conformance with standard geologic, engineering, and construction principles and practices by appropriately licensed professionals and shall be reviewed and approved by the permitting agency(ies) (City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles) prior to construction and prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy. Operation of the Project shall maintain functionality of these features as required to continue protection from vapor intrusion. Following completion of construction and occupancy of the buildings, indoor air monitoring will occur semiannually for one year to verify implemented measures are functioning properly and adequately mitigating vapor intrusion to below residential DTSC Screening Levels. Results shall be submitted to the City of Arcadia for confirmation of the adequacy of the designed systems. If indoor air samples reveal vapor intrusion occurring at levels above applicable DTSC Screening Levels, modifications shall be made, as necessary, to the designed system to improve the efficacy in reducing vapor intrusion to below applicable screening levels. occupancy with
respect to vapor
mitigation systems
44 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 4-7
Table 4--1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Monitoring
Implementation
Timing
Party Responsible for
Implementation
Agency Responsible for
Monitoring Implementation
Transportation
MM--TRA--1
Prior to the issuance of demolition or grading permits, the Project applicant/developer shall develop and implement a City- approved Construction Traffic Control Plan. The Plan shall be prepared in accordance with applicable City guidelines and shall address the potential for construction-related vehicular traffic, as well as pedestrian and bicycle circulation disruption in the public right-of-way. The Plan shall describe safe detours and shall include protocols for implementing the following:
temporary traffic controls (e.g., a flag person during heavy truck traffic for soil export) to maintain smooth pedestrian and traffic flow; dedicated on-site turn lanes for construction trucks and equipment leaving the site; scheduling of peak construction truck traffic that affects traffic flow on the arterial system to off- peak hours; consolidation of truck deliveries; and/or rerouting of construction trucks away from congested streets or sensitive receptors.
Prior to the issuance
of demolition or
grading permits
Project Applicant for the
preparation of a Construction
Traffic Control Plan
City of Arcadia Planning and
Engineering Divisions
Tribal Cultural Resources
MM--TCR--1.
The project applicant shall retain a Native American Monitor from or approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation (“Tribe” or “Kizh”). The monitor shall be retained prior to the commencement of any “ground-disturbing activity” for the subject project at all project locations (i.e., both on-site and any off-site locations that are included in the project description/definition and/or required in connection with the project, such as public improvement work). “Ground-
disturbing
activity” shall include, but is not limited to, demolition, pavement removal, potholing, auguring, grubbing, tree removal, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching. “Ground- Prior to the
commencement of
any “ground-
disturbing activity” for
the subject project at
all project locations,
or prior to issuance
of
any permit necessary
to commence a
ground-disturbing
activity; During
Construction contractor; Native
American Monitor from or
approved by the Gabrieleño
Band of Mission Indians –
Kizh
Nation
City of Arcadia Planning
Division
44 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 4-8
Table 4--1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Monitoring
Implementation
Timing
Party Responsible for
Implementation
Agency Responsible for
Monitoring Implementation
disturbing activity” refers to ground disturbance occurring from 1 foot above native soils and below, and it does not include movement of sediments after they have been initially disturbed or displaced by current Project-related construction.
A copy of the executed monitoring agreement shall be
submitted to the lead agency prior to the earlier of the commencement of any ground-disturbing activity, or the
issuance of any permit necessary to commence a ground-
disturbing activity.
The monitor will complete daily monitoring logs th
at will provide
descriptions of the relevant ground-disturbing activities, the type of construction activities performed, locations of ground- disturbing activities, soil types, cultural-related materials, and any other facts, conditions, materials, or discoveries of significance to the Tribe. Monitor logs will identify and describe any discovered TCRs, including but not limited to, Native American cultural and historical artifacts, remains, places of significance, etc., (collectively, tribal cultural resources, or “TCR”), as well as any discovered Native American (ancestral) human remains and burial goods. Copies of monitor logs will be provided to the project applicant/lead agency upon written request to the Tribe.
On-site tribal monitoring shall conclude upon the earlier of the following (1) written confirmation to the Kizh from a designated point of contact for the project applicant or lead agency that all ground-disturbing activities as defined above and phases that may involve ground-disturbing activities on the project site or in connection with the project are complete; or (2) a determination and written notification by the Kizh to the project applicant or lead agency that no future, planned construction activity and/or ground-disturbing
activity
44 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 4-9
Table 4--1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Monitoring
Implementation
Timing
Party Responsible for
Implementation
Agency Responsible for
Monitoring Implementation
development/construction phase at the project site possesses the potential to impact Kizh TCRs.
Upon discovery of any Kizh TCRs, all construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall cease (i.e., not less than the surrounding 50 feet) and shall not resume until the Kizh recovers and retains all discovered Kizh TCRs in the form and/or manner the Tribe deems appropriate, in the Tribe’s sole discretion, and for any purpose the Tribe deems appropriate, including for educational, cultural and/or historic purposes. The Tribe shall have up to 48 hours to recover and retain any discovered Kizh TCRs, after which time construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery may continue.
MM--TCR--2
Native American human remains are defined in PRC 5097.98 (d)(1) as an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness. Funerary objects, called associated grave goods in Public Resources Code
Section 5097.98, are also to be treated according to this statute.
In accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, any discoveries of human skeletal material shall be immediately reported to the County Coroner and all ground-disturbing activities shall immediately halt and shall remain halted until the coroner has determined the nature of the remains. If the coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe they are Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission, and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 shall be followed.
Consistent with California Public Resources Code
section 5097.98(d)(2), any items associated with the human During ground-
disturbing activities
Construction contractor County Coroner; NAHC; City
of Arcadia Development
Services Department
44 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 4-10
Table 4--1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Monitoring
Implementation
Timing
Party Responsible for
Implementation
Agency Responsible for
Monitoring Implementation
remains that are placed or buried with the Native American human remains are to be treated in the same manner as the remains, but do not by themselves constitute human remains.
Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment for discovered human remains and/or burial goods.
Any discovery of human remains/burial goods shall be kept confidential to prevent further disturbance.
MM--TCR--3
If the Tribe is designated by the Native American Heritage Commission (“NAHC”) as the Most Likely Descendant (“MLD”), the Koo-nas-gna Burial Policy shall be implemented. To the Tribe, the term “human remains” encompasses more than
human bones. In ancient as well as historic times, Tribal Traditions included, but were not limited to, the preparation of the soil for burial, the burial of funerary objects with the deceased, and the ceremonial burning of human remains.
Accordingly, if the Tribe is designated as the MLD for discovered human remains, the prepared soil and cremation soils are to be treated in the same manner as bone fragments that remain intact. Associated funerary objects are objects that, as part of the death rite or ceremony of a culture, are reasonably believed to have been placed with individual human remains either at the time of death or later; other items made exclusively for burial purposes or to contain human remains can also be considered as associated funerary objects. Cremations will either be removed in bulk or by means as necessary to ensure complete recovery of all sacred materials.
If the Tribe is designated by the NAHC as the MLD, the following condition will apply: If the discovery of human remains includes During ground-
disturbing activities
Construction contractor NAHC’s “Most Likely
Descendant” Tribe; City of
Arcadia Development
Services Department
44 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 4-11
Table 4--1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Monitoring
Implementation
Timing
Party Responsible for
Implementation
Agency Responsible for
Monitoring Implementation
four or more burials, the discovery location shall be treated as a cemetery and a separate treatment plan shall be created.
If the Tribe is designated by the NAHC as the MLD, the following condition will apply: In the case where discovered human remains cannot be fully documented and recovered on the same day, the remains will be covered with muslin cloth and a steel plate that
can be moved by heavy equipment placed over
the excavation opening to protect the remains. If this type of steel plate is not available, a 24-hour guard should be posted outside of working hours. The Tribe will make every effort to recommend diverting the project and keeping the remains in situ and protected. If the project cannot be diverted, it may be determined that burials will be removed.
If the Tribe is designated by the NAHC as the MLD, the following condition will apply: In the event preservation in place is not possible despite good faith efforts by the project
applicant/developer and/or landowner, before ground-
disturbing activities may resume on the project site, the landowner shall arrange a designated site location within the footprint of the project for the respectful reburial of the human remains and/or ceremonial objects. If the Tribe is designated by the NAHC as the MLD, the following condition will apply: Each occurrence of human remains and associated funerary objects will be stored using opaque cloth bags. All human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony will be removed to a secure container on site if possible. These items should be retained and reburied within six months of recovery. Where the Tribe is designated as the MLD, the site of reburial/repatriation shall be on the project site but at a location agreed upon between the Tribe and the 44 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project Final EIR 11663.03 June 2022 4-12
Table 4--1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Monitoring
Implementation
Timing
Party Responsible for
Implementation
Agency Responsible for
Monitoring Implementation
landowner at a site to be protected in perpetuity. There shall be no publicity regarding any cultural materials recovered.
If the Tribe is designated by the NAHC as the MLD, the following condition will apply: The Tribe will work closely with the project’s qualified archaeologist to ensure that the excavation is treated carefully, ethically and respectfully. If data recovery is approved by the Tribe, documentation shall be prepared and shall include (at a minimum) detailed descriptive notes and sketches. All data recovery and data recovery-related forms of
documentation shall be approved in advance by the Tribe. If any data recovery is performed, once complete, a final report shall be submitted to the Tribe and the NAHC. The Tribe does NOT authorize any scientific study or the utilization of any invasive and/or destructive diagnostics on human remains.
MEMORANDUM
TTo: Lisa Flores, Planning and Community Development Administrator FFrom: Kristin Starbird, Sr. Project Manager
SSubject: Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project – Comment Letters DDate: June 6, 2022
AAttachment: Letters 1 and 2
The Alexan Mixed-Use Development Project was considered by the City of Arcadia (City) Planning Commission on May 10, 2022. On the day of the scheduled public hearing, the City received two comment letters: from Lozeau Drury, LLP (May 10, 2022) representing Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility and from Mitchell M.
Tsai (May 10, 2022) representing the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters.
The letter from Mr. Tsai is almost identical to the prior letter Mr. Tsai submitted on the Draft EIR which was responded to in the Final EIR. The letter submitted by Lozeau Drury, LLP raises new comments relating to hazards, air quality, greenhouse gases, and population/growth inducement.
The City has prepared responses to both letters; however, the Letter from Mr. Tsai (Letter 2) is not bracketed because it does not raise any new comments. A response to Letter 2 is provided that addresses a small addition that was added to the prior letter submitted by Mr. Tsai. The comments in Letter 1 are ordered numerically, and the individual comments are bracketed and numbered. The City’s responses to comments represent a good-faith, reasoned effort to address the environmental issues identified by the comments.
After review of both comment letters, the City has determined that the commenters fail to identify any deficiencies of the Final EIR related to the adequacy of the environmental analysis. Therefore, the commenters assertions that the Draft EIR must be revised and recirculated is not based on substantial evidence. CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, Recirculation of an EIR Prior to Certification, describes the thresholds for recirculation of an EIR. Pursuant to Section 15088.5, a lead agency is required to recirculate an EIR when significant new information 1 is added to
the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the Draft EIR but before certification.
The Draft EIR describes the Project at length, in full compliance with Section 15121 of the CEQA Guidelines, to inform public agency decision makers and the public of the significant environmental effects of the Project, identify ways to minimize (or mitigate) the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the Project. No changes have been made to the Project, and no changes have occurred in the environmental setting such that a 1 As stated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, new information can include changes to a project or the environmental setting, a new significant environmental impact or a new mitigation measure, a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact, a feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clear ly lessen the environmental impacts of the project (but the project’s proponents decline to adopt it), or the Draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: ALEXAN MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT COMMENT LETTERS 11663.03 2JUNE 2022
new significant impact would occur or such that a substantial increase in the severity of an impact would occur. No additional data or other information has been added such that a new significant impact would occur or such that a substantial increase in the severity of an impact would occur. Additionally, no feasible Project alternatives or mitigation measures considerably different from those in the Draft EIR that would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the Project have been identified. Lastly, the Draft EIR is not fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature. The Draft EIR includes extensive environmental analysis that was conducted by qualified professionals. The Draft EIR discloses a number of significant impacts that would result from the proposed Project and identifies feasible mitigation that would reduce these significant impacts below a level of significance. As such, the Draft EIR is not required to be revised and recirculated, and the commenters have not presented substantial evidence to support a need for recirculation.
Letter 1 Lozeau Drury
11-1 This comment notes the letter is on behalf of the Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) and asserts the Final EIR fails as an informational document and does not impose feasible mitigation measures to reduce impacts and requests a revised environmental impact report be prepared. Additionally, the comment notes further assistance in drafting comments was provided by Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (“SWAPE”) (included as Comments 1-22 through 1-40). Please see Responses to Comments 1-22 through 1-40 for more discussion. The comment does not raise any specific concerns nor provide any evidence related to the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the EIR; therefore, no further response to this comment is required.
1-2 This comment provides a brief summary of the proposed Project. The comment does not raise any specific concerns related to the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the EIR; therefore, no further response to this comment is required.
1-3 This comment provides a general summation of the requirements under CEQA which requires the lead agency to inform decision makers and the public of potential impacts of a project and to identify ways to avoid or reduce environmental impacts of a project. The comment cites various excerpts of case law related to CEQA’s legislative intent and concludes that the Final EIR prepared for the Project is inadequate based on the comments addressed in the responses below. The EIR for the proposed Project was prepared in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, codified in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, section 15000 et seq. The comment does not raise any specific concerns or provide any evidence related to the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the EIR; therefore, no further response to this comment is required. 1-4 This comment states there is substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant adverse impact regarding hazards and hazardous materials, air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gases and goes on to state an analysis of soil contamination that may be disturbed by a project must be analyzed. The comment states the EIR fails to adequately evaluate and mitigate the Project’s potential hazards and hazardous materials impacts and cites various excerpts of case law, code sections, and guidelines informing CEQA’s requirements. The comment concludes the Draft EIR failed to adequately investigate hazardous conditions at the Project site and relies on deferred mitigation.
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: ALEXAN MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT COMMENT LETTERS 11663.03 3JUNE 2022
The Draft EIR was prepared using multiple technical documents (Draft EIR Appendix F) which identified potential hazards on the Project site (P hase I ESA, Appendix F-1) and quantified those hazards (Lead-Based Paint Testing, Appendix F-2, Asbestos Survey, Appendix F-3, and Subsurface Soil and Soil Vapor Investigation, Appendix F-4). In summary, the mitigation measures provided in the Draft EIR are based on data provided within these technical documents. Mitigation measures are defined with performance-based benchmarks and defined completion standards, and construction and operation of the Project is contingent upon proper implementation of the mitigation measures. As such, the existing hazardous conditions have been identified, disclosed, assessed, and mitigation has been provided, as appropriate. 1 1-5 The comment generally states the baseline is incomplete because it fails to identify the location, extent, and source of existing soil and soil vapor contamination. The comment does not, however, explain how the EIR fails to properly identify baseline conditions.
The baseline for the Project was defined in Section 2, Environmental Setting and Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials using the data from the technical documents (Draft EIR Appendices F-1 through F-4). The historical uses of the subject property and existing environmental conditions of the Project site with regard to hazardous materials have been defined to the extent that the Project’s anticipated impacts can be identified and mitigated. 1-6 The comment states additional soil and soil vapor sampling is required to identify and disclose the source of contamination and lateral and vertical extent of the existing contamination, and the Draft EIR should be revised to include this information. The commenter is referred to the discussions in Draft EIR Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and the associated appendices that disclose historic uses on the site, contaminants and hazardous materials often associated with such uses, the results of significant investigations to identify contaminants, and the Draft EIR’s acknowledgement that contaminated soils may be encountered.
The existing conditions present on the Project site have been defined such that Project impacts are identified, and mitigation is proposed which would reduce impacts to a less than significant. All soil excavation and handling would be managed under a Soil Management Plan, as defined in MM-HAZ-2, the implementation of which would ensure contaminated soil impacts would be mitigated. Soil vapor barrier systems would be installed, as defined in MM-HAZ-3, such that soil vapor impacts would be mitigated. Additional evaluation of the nature and extent of contamination is not necessary, as it would not change the finding of any Project impacts or proposed mitigation.
The commenter is also referred to Comments 1-12 and 1-24 for additional information. Please see Responses to Comments 1-12 and 1-24 for more discussion. 1-7 The comment indicates the impact (Threshold 4.7b) was determined to be significant without proper evidence of the nature and extent or consequences to human health.
As discussed in the Impact Analysis Threshold 4.7b starting on page 4.7-20 of the Draft EIR, detected concentrations of contaminants of concern in soil and soil vapor are compared to existing regulatory screening levels. These screening levels have been developed by state regulatory agencies based on existing policies and regulations and models that are protective of human health and the environment. The Draft EIR explains the substance and development of the
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: ALEXAN MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT COMMENT LETTERS 11663.03 4JUNE 2022
screening levels in significant detail. Exceeding the screening levels can affect health, depending upon chemical type, concentration, and duration of high exposure. Headaches, nausea, and shortness of breath may result from prolonged or significant exposure. Use of these screening levels is appropriate when evaluating risk associated with cleanup sites under regulatory oversight and is appropriate in a variety of regulatory scenarios to conservatively determine acceptable risk to human health and the environment. As such, use of these screening levels appropriately evaluated significance of Project impacts. To ensure vapor levels are below applicable screening thresholds which, as noted above, are devised to be protective of public health, the Draft EIR incorporates specified mitigation.
1 1-8 The comment indicates MM-HAZ-2 as written is deferred mitigation and that the Soil Management Plan (SMP) should be prepared prior to approval of the EIR.
MM-HAZ-2 on page 4.7-23 of the Draft EIR begins with “prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project applicant/developer…shall prepare a [SMP]…” As such, Project construction cannot be permitted, and the Project can therefore not be initiated, without completion of the SMP. The mitigation measure does set forth specific requirements and standards that must be met (i.e., performance standards) that are practical and feasible. With respect to workers, the SMP requires periodic monitoring for VOCs for exceedance of applicable screening level thresholds (as set by the state and federal government) and requires remedial action to be taken if screening levels are exceeded. The SMP would also ensure compliance with applicable federal, state, and local laws that, as described in the Draft EIR, ensure any contaminated soils are handled and disposed of appropriately. Compliance with these rigorous regulations, as described, will further ensure no significant impacts would result from exposure of contaminated soils. Therefore, the mitigation is adequate to address the impact and would not be considered deferral. Please see also Response to Comment 1-1.
1-9 The comment indicates MM-HAZ-3 is written as deferred mitigation, and that it should be prepared prior to approval of the EIR.
MM-HAZ-3 on page 4.7-24 of the Draft EIR outlines the requirements of the vapor mitigation, including the DTSC documents and guidelines which it is required to comply with. As with MM-HAZ-2, it also begins with “prior to issuance of a grading permit…”, therefore the Project cannot be permitted nor initiated without completion of the mitigation. The DTSC Vapor Intrusion Mitigation Advisory outlines appropriate protective measures required for vapor mitigation, which can vary depending on the proposed construction of the building. The mitigation measure does set forth specific requirements and standards – levels below DTSC screening levels and compliance with DTSC regulations – that must be met (i.e., performance standards) that are practical and feasible.
The Draft EIR describes the DTSC screening levels, as well as applicable standards and regulations, in the preceding Section 4.7 discussions. The standards are not loose or open-ended, and the mitigation measure requires that they be achieved to demonstrate compliance. The mitigation measure also requires approval of the proposed mitigation by the permitting agency(ies) prior to issuance of both construction permits and certificates of occupancy. As such, completion of the Project is contingent upon completion of the mitigation.
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: ALEXAN MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT COMMENT LETTERS 11663.03 5JUNE 2022
11-10 The comment states the Draft EIR does not explain why the SMP and vapor mitigation design have not been completed, and indicates this is contrary to CEQA as it is considered deferred. The comment also indicates there is a lack of evidence to support MM-HAZ-2 and MM-HAZ-3, and the full nature and extent of the contamination are not defined.
Please see Responses to Comments 1-7, 1-8, and 1-9.
1-11 The comment states the Project may result in significant air quality impacts due to unsubstantiated assumptions relied upon for the CalEEMod modeling conducted to estimate potential operational emissions. Specifically, the comment notes a change to one of the default values that, in their opinion, was inconsistent with information provided in the Draft EIR because no mention of the Project including an on-site solar system was included in the EIR, apart from inclusion in the EIR’s CalEEMod analysis.
The Draft EIR notes a 100-kW solar onsite system on pages 4.4.13 and 4.4-14 in Section 4.4, Energy and on page 4.6-23 in Section 4.6, Greenhouse Gases. On page 4-14 it states the following:
“In addition, the proposed Project would be built in accordance with the current Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24) at the time of construction, which include robust requirements for energy efficiency. Also, the provisions of the CALGreen code apply to the planning, design, operation, construction, use and occupancy of every newly constructed building or structure. In mixed occupancy buildings, such as the proposed Project, each portion of a building must comply with the specific green building measures applicable to each specific occupancy. The project would also include a 100-kW onsite solar system.”
As such, the commenter is incorrect in stating that the “EIR makes no mention of the Project including an on-site solar system apart from inclusion of a system in the EIR’s CalEEMod analysis.” Furthermore, the inclusion of solar onsite is part of the Project and also represents regulatory compliance strategies. The City will mandate that the solar system be constructed, as it is proposed as a component of the Project and will be included as a Condition of Approval for the Project. Lastly, the omission of this component of the Project in the Project Description was an oversight.
Therefore, section 3.2-5 on page 3-9 in Chapter 3, Project Description is revised to read as follows:
The Project would include a 100-kW solar generation system on the roof of the multi-family residential building.
1-12 This comment states there is substantial evidence that the Project may have a significant health impact as a result of diesel particulate emissions. The comment further defines diesel particulate matter (DPM), its source of emissions, and exposure risk to human health. The comment concludes that the EIR failed to provide input parameters and modeling assumptions for the construction health risk assessment (HRA).
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: ALEXAN MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT COMMENT LETTERS 11663.03 6JUNE 2022
The comment incorrectly states that the EIR failed to provide input parameters and modeling assumptions for the construction HRA. HRA files were included in Appendix C-2 of the EIR and include the following modeling files:
AERMOD ADO
AERMOD Sum
HARP2 Residential Cancer Output
HARP2 Residential Cancer SumbyRec
HARP2 Chronic Output
HARP2 Chronic SumbyRec.
Emissions are based on CalEEMod modeling provided in Draft EIR Appendix C-1, dispersion modeling assumptions are identified in the AERMOD ADO file and health risk HARP2 modeling assumptions are identified in the Cancer and Chronic Output files. Therefore, the Final EIR’s analysis is adequate as presented.
11-13 The comment states that EIR did not prepare a quantified operational HRA to evaluate potential toxic air contaminant impacts.
As discussed in CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective2, CARB states that “[w]e believe that with careful evaluation, infill development, mixed use, higher density, transit-oriented development, and other concepts that benefit regional air quality can be compatible with protecting the health of individuals at th e neighborhood level.” Furthermore, CARB provides recommendations for siting of “sensitive land uses” near specific sources of air pollution; namely:
High traffic freeways and roads
Distribution centers
Rail yards
Ports
Refineries
Chrome plating facilities
Dry cleaners
Large gas dispensing facilities.
The proposed Project does not include any of these specific land uses, or sources of emissions associated with any of these specific sources and would not be located adjacent to any such uses identified as a concern by CARB. Once the Project becomes operational and all construction activities are complete, Project operation does not include any stationary sources of DPM emissions or other potential toxic air contaminants. The only potential for DPM during operation would occur from infrequent delivery vehicles. In addition, deliveries would occur with delivery vehicles already operating and providing service in the area, therefore any contribution estimated from the Project would be speculative. Of note, no acute (i.e., 1-hour) reference exposure level 2 https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: ALEXAN MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT COMMENT LETTERS 11663.03 7JUNE 2022
values are established for DPM; therefore, only longer-term exposure (e.g., 1-year or 30-years) is relevant for DPM meaning that the volume of diesel vehicles and associated diesel particulate concentration would need to be regular and substantial, which would not be applicable to the Project. In addition, delivery vehicles operate on a variety of fuels including non-diesel fuels of gasoline, compressed propane, and electric power.
For these reasons DPM emissions are not considered to be emitted by Project operation and as such an operational HRA is not appropriate for the Project. It should also be noted that the Draft EIR does include significant discussions of health impacts associated with emissions that may result from the Project. The commenter also presents no evidence that Project operation would generate substantial quantities of toxic air contaminants (TACs).Therefore, the Final EIR’s analysis is adequate as presented.
11-14 The comment states that a revised EIR is required because the Project is expected to last over 6 months.
As stated in Response to Comment 1-13, the Project is largely a residential project and operation would only result in extremely de minimis DPM emissions given its non-industrial nature. According to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), HRAs should be based on a 30-year exposure duration based on typical residency period; however, such assessments should be limited to the period/duration of activities associated with a project (OEHHA 2015). For construction, the Draft EIR includes evaluation of construction DPM emissions. As shown in Table
4.2-12 on page 4.2-33, Project construction activities would result in a Residential Maximum Individual Cancer Risk of 9.52 in 1 million, which is less than the significance threshold of 10 in 1 million. Therefore, the Final EIR’s analysis is adequate as presented.
It should also be noted that the OEHHA Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments, as referenced by the commenter, is largely intended to assess health risk from industrial stationary sources, including those within the Air Toxics Hot Spots Program. The title of that publication expressly exists under the Air Toxics Hot Spots Program . Generally, a facility is subject to the Hot Spots Program if it: (1) manufactures, formulates, uses, or releases a substance subject to the Act (substance which reacts to form such a substance) and emits 10 tons or more per year of total organic gases, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides or sulfur oxides; (2) is listed in any district's existing toxics use or toxics air emission survey, inventory or report released or compiled by a district; or (3) manufactures, formulates, uses, or releases a substance subject to the Hot Spots Program (or substance which reacts to form such a substance) and emits less than 10 tons per year of criteria pollutants and is subject to emission inventory requirements. HRAs are often prepared in conjunction with CEQA review for facilities that will emit sources of contaminants in significant quantities, consistent with the concepts and facilities identified in the Air Toxics Hot Spot Program Guidance Manual. As discussed in the Draft EIR, the Project would not generate significant sources of contaminants that could lead to health risks, as further evidenced by the analysis comparing project-level emissions (including operational) to applicable SCAQMD thresholds.
Finally, it should be noted that the Draft EIR evaluates operational emissions, including PM10 and PM2.5 against applicable SCAQMD thresholds. These thresholds are intended to be protective of public health and correlate to DPM emissions. CARB notes that more than 90% of DPM is a subset
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: ALEXAN MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT COMMENT LETTERS 11663.03 8JUNE 2022
of PM2.5. “Because it is part of PM2.5, DPM also contributes to the same non-cancer health effects as PM2.5 exposure.”3
11-15 The comment states that the EIR fails to evaluate combined construction and operational HRA impacts.
As stated in Response to Comment 1-13 and noted on page 4.2-34 of the Draft EIR, Project operation would not result in substantial DPM emissions. The Project, which proposes a new multi- family residential building, does not propose uses associated with DPM emissions (or other TAC emissions). The commenter has not provided any evidence to the contrary. Regarding construction, the Draft EIR included a construction-HRA that concluded that applicable significance criteria would not be exceeded. Therefore, the Final EIR’s analysis is adequate as presented. 1-16 The comment states that the consulting firm, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) prepared a screening level HRA analysis to evaluate the potential impact from Project construction.
The comment states that the excess lifetime cancer risk from construction and operation is approximately 52.27 in one million.
However, the SWAPE analysis is flawed based on the following reasons. First, as stated in Response to Comment 1-13, only de minimis DPM emissions or other TACs, which are primarily associated with industrial or diesel-sources, would be expected from the Project due to its proposed uses; SWAPE incorrectly applied the CalEEMod operational mobile source exhaust emissions as DPM.
The Project is primarily a residential project and the resulting mobile source emissions from the CalEEMod analysis would be primarily from gasoline fueled vehicles and, as such, it is incorrect to be considered diesel-fueled vehicles and associated DPM for health risk analysis.
Second, the commenter uses a screening model, known as AERSCREEN, to evaluate health risk impacts from diesel emissions during construction and from the proposed Project. While the AERSCREEN model is an acceptable model by the EPA and the Southern California Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), it is a screening model. As a screening model, it overestimates impacts with the general understanding that if AERSCREEN does not show impacts, then impacts would also not occur if a more detailed analysis is conducted using a more refined model.
AERSCREEN is a simplified model in that it does not consider meteorological data or topographical data. AERSCREEN assumes calm wind conditions at all times and a stable atmosphere (i.e., no atmospheric mixing). AERSCREEN also has simplified emissions input fields such that it typically overestimates emission impacts from varying activities. In addition, SWAPE modeled mobile emissions as onsite when they are typically dispersed offsite. This appears to be a result of the limitations in the AERSCREEN model, which is limited to modeling a single point, capped stack, horizontal stack, rectangular area, circular area, flare, or volume source. 4 Construction health risks were evaluated in the EIR using the EPA and SCAQMD refined model, known as AERMOD. This model takes into account meteorological data and topographical data. It also accounts for the geography of a Project site, locations of emissions sources, the time of day emissions would occur, locations of sensitive receptors, and other factors to a much greater degree 3 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/overview-diesel-exhaust-and-health. 4 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2021. AERSCREEN User’s Guide. EPA-454/B-21-005. Section 2.1, Source Inputs. Page 9.
April 2021.
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: ALEXAN MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT COMMENT LETTERS 11663.03 9JUNE 2022
than AERSCREEN, which better represents the real world environment. Based on the construction HRA using this refined model, AERMOD, using AERMOD methodologies from the SCAQMD, and using the age sensitivity factors and other health risk evaluation parameters recommended by the SCAQMD and the OEHHA, health risk impacts were determined to be less than the SCAQMD significance thresholds for cancer risk and non-cancer chronic risk for diesel particulate matter.
Therefore, the Final EIR’s analysis is adequate as presented. 1 1-17 The comment states that SWAPE’s analysis constitutes substantial evidence that the Project may have a significant health impact as a result of diesel particulate emissions and that SWAPE recommends that an updated EIR be prepared.
As discussed in Responses to Comments 1-12 through 1-16, the Project, as defined, is not a source of concern of DPM per CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. Only extremely de minimis DPM emissions, if any, may be emitted by the operation of the Project and SWAPE incorrectly modeled gasoline fuel vehicle emissions as DPM to represent operational DPM impacts from the Project. As such, the commentors presented analysis is not correct, does not represent the Project, and does not constitute substantial evidence that the Project may have a significant health impact. Therefore, the Final EIR’s analysis is adequate as presented.
1-18 The comment identifies three reasons why, according to the commenter, the Project’s analysis of greenhouse gases (GHGs) is not correct.
Please see Reponses to Comments 1-34 through 1-37 that address these comments. 1-19 The comment re-states the requirement under CEQA to evaluate growth-inducing impacts of a project and adds this includes potential impacts on public services, transportation and greenhouse gases.
The commenter is correct, the growth-inducing impacts of a project must be addressed in an EIR.
The Draft EIR evaluates the Project’s potential to induce growth in Chapter 5, Other CEQA Considerations. As explained on page 5-5, “growth-inducing impacts are commonly associated with the extension of new public services, utilities, and roads into areas that have previously been undeveloped. The extension of such infrastructure into a non-serviced area can represent the elimination of a growth-limiting factor, thereby inducing growth. Increases in the population may tax existing community service facilities, requiring construction of new facilities and ultimately resulting in an increase in the pace of development or the density of the existing surrounding development. Indirect growth-inducing impacts include an increased demand for housing, commodities, and services that new development causes or attracts by increasing the population or job growth in an area.”
The Project proposes development of 319 units where housing currently does not exist. The Project is located on a 2.95-acre parcel in a dense, urbanized area of the City surrounded by commercial and residential uses. The Project does not expand any roadway or utility infrastructure such that it would enable new development to be built in previously undeveloped and unserved areas.
Construction of water, sewer, stormwater, electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications infrastructure for the Project would be limited to the Project site boundaries and its immediate
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: ALEXAN MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT COMMENT LETTERS 11663.03 10JUNE 2022
street frontages and would occur during the Project’s construction phase. As such, impacts associated with installation of such facilities necessary for the Project are analyzed throughout the EIR as part of the Project. No additional impacts outside of those analyzed and disclosed throughout this Draft EIR would occur as a result of construction of infrastructure facilities.
Therefore, the Project would not indirectly induce growth through extension of infrastructure which would also include the potential to impact public services, air quality, and an increase in transportation which would result from new growth. Separately, the Draft EIR evaluates the potential for the Project to result in a need for additional services or facilities to accommodate any additional services.
Regarding the potential for the Project to induce growth through the expansion of jobs, as explained on page 5-6 of the Draft EIR, the Project would result in 30 new full-time employees; however, the redevelopment of the Project site would result in a net deficit of 20 jobs with the demolition of existing office and commercial buildings. As such, the loss of employment opportunities on site would not contribute to the overall expected growth in the City and would not exceed the SCAG or the City’s General Plan employment projections. Therefore, the Draft EIR determined based on the type of project and location the Project would not be considered growth inducing and would not lead to any direct or indirect impacts associated with new growth. This issue has been adequately addressed in the Final EIR.
1 1-20 The comment re-states the requirement under CEQA that a project’s cumulative impacts need to be evaluated. The comment goes on to raise a concern with the number of housing units the City has allocated relative to growth projections estimated by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The comment concludes the Project will have a significant cumulative impact on population and housing.
The comment correctly states that the Project’s cumulative impacts are required to be evaluated.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 requires that a project’s cumulative impacts be discussed when the incremental effect is cumulatively considerable. According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a)(3), the term cumulatively considerable means “that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.” Specifically, CEQA Guidelines Section 15355 defines cumulative impacts as two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. As shown in Table 4.11-5 on page 4.11-4 of the Draft EIR, the City’s 2010 General Plan anticipates up to 22,535 residential units at buildout of the General Plan in 2035 (based on SCAG’s 2012-2035 RTP/SCS). SCAG is a Joint Powers Authority under California state law, established as an association of local governments and agencies that voluntarily convene as a forum to address regional issues. Generally, SCAG develops long-range regional transportation plans including sustainable communities strategy and growth forecast components, regional transportation improvement programs, and regional housing needs allocations. The 2020–2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS - also referred to as Connect SoCal) was adopted in September 2020. SCAG completes a comprehensive update of the plan every 4 years to update the growth forecast, integrate new projects and programs funded by the six county transportation commissions, confirm alignment with federal and state performance
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: ALEXAN MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT COMMENT LETTERS 11663.03 11JUNE 2022
standards and environmental requirements, and to review and refine regional strategies to address gaps in achieving the region’s vision for greater mobility, sustainability and economic prosperity.
According to SCAG, for the purpose of determining consistency with Connect SoCal for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), lead agencies such as local jurisdictions have the sole discretion in determining a local project’s consistency; consistency should be evaluated utilizing the goals and policies of Connect SoCal and its associated Program EIR. Connect SoCal does not supersede or otherwise affect local jurisdiction authority or decisions on future development, including entitlements and development agreements. There is no obligation by a jurisdiction to change its land use policies, General Plan, or regulations to be consistent with Connect SoCal (SCAG 2020a).
Moreover, a local jurisdiction is free to change or amend its general plan, zoning, or local land use regulations to accommodate additional housing, at the agency’s discretion. The RTP/SCS does not have preemptive effect on local regulations and, as noted above, is updated to reflect changes in growth based upon local agency general plans.
As described on page 4.11-14 of the Draft EIR, SCAG projects that the City would have an increase of 1,111 housing units between 2020 and 2045 for a total of 22,400 housing units by 2045 (Table 4.11-3, p. 4.11-3). The Project’s 319 residential units would represent 28.7% of the projected new housing for the City during this timeframe. 5 Therefore, the proposed Project’s
housing units would not exceed the projections for housing within the City, as set forth in the 2020– 2045 RTP/SCS. The City anticipates reasonably foreseeable development of up to 486 housing units, as listed in Section 2.5, Cumulative Projects and Section 4.11, Population and Housing (see Table 4.11-9). Including the Project’s 319 residential units, this totals 805 additional residential units anticipated in the City and considered in the Draft EIR for cumulative projects.
The General Plan includes 22,535 residential units at buildout by 2035 which is higher than SCAG’s 2020-2045 projections. According to Table 2-30 (p. 2-32) in the City’s draft 6th Cycle Housing Element Update Technical Background Report, as of 2019 there are 21,386 housing units in the City. With the addition of 805 units, which includes the Project’s 319 units, this would increase the City’s housing stock to 22,191 units, which is within the City’s adopted General Plan housing projections of 22,535 and SCAG’s housing projections of 22,400. Therefore, the Draft EIR adequately assesses the cumulative projects in the context of approved plans and growth projections.
Further, as noted above, Connect SoCal does not supersede or otherwise affect local jurisdiction authority or decisions on future development and the RTP/SCS is updated on a 4-year cycle to capture changes growth, transportation and other regional issues. The Project’s incremental contribution of 319 housing units would not exceed the City’s current housing projections and would not induce substantial growth or displace people or housing at both a project level and also cumulatively. The Project would not contribute to an existing significant population and housing cumulative impact. Lastly, the state is experiencing a shortage of housing due to the inability to keep pace with the increase in demand and the Governor has signed into law three bills that expand housing production in California, streamline housing permitting, and increase density to create more inclusive and vibrant neighborhoods across the state. 5 1,111 / 319 = 0.287 (28.7%)
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: ALEXAN MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT COMMENT LETTERS 11663.03 12JUNE 2022
11-21 Based on the concerns raised in the letter, the commenter believes the EIR is inadequate and recommends the City not approve the Project.
The commenter’s opposition to the Project is noted and forwarded to the decision-makers for their consideration. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the analysis; therefore, no further response is required.
1-22 This comment includes an introduction for subsequent comments and provides a summary of the proposed Project. The comment asserts the EIR fails to adequately evaluate impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials, air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gases. The comment does not raise any specific concerns related to the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the EIR; therefore, no further response to this comment is required. 1-23 This comment cites the Project site’s former land uses which include a former industrial laundry/dry cleaning facility and an identified recognized environmental condition from the Phase I ESA (Appendix F-1 to the Draft EIR). The comment goes on to assert the mitigation provided is inadequate, as the full extent and source of contamination have not been identified.
Please see Response to Comment 1-6.
1-24 This comment states the further assessment of soil and soil vapor is necessary to identify the extent and source of contamination, and DTSC should be engaged under the voluntary cleanup program to oversee investigations, and the results of these investigations be disclosed in a recirculated EIR.
As discussed in the Draft EIR, historical use of the Project site was evaluated in the Phase I ESA (Draft EIR Appendix F-1), which identified recognized environmental conditions (RECs) that led to the subsurface investigation (Draft EIR Appendix F-4). Results of the subsurface investigation (i.e., Phase II investigation) confirmed the REC identified in the Phase I ESA. Impacts were evaluated and disclosed and mitigation was provided in the Draft EIR. As noted in Response to Comment 1-6, additional evaluation as to the nature and extent of contamination would not change the findings of Project impacts or proposed mitigation.
The comment indicates the Draft EIR’s statement “would not likely be exacerbated or disturbed during construction activities” is incorrect, as the source of contamination is unknown. This statement in the Draft EIR was with regard to the existing structures on the property, which are not to be removed as part of the proposed Project and are on the footprint of the former dry cleaning operation, which is the likely source of PCE contamination beneath the Project site. As evaluated in the Draft EIR, based on the findings in the technical documents, these existing conditions under the existing buildings would not be exacerbated during construction or operation of the proposed Project. In fact, site development and associated soil excavation would ultimately remove contaminated soils, thereby reducing existing contamination on site. 1-25 This comment acknowledges the EIR’s air quality emissions analysis quantifies the Project’s air emissions using CalEEMod, which provides recommended default values based on site-specific information. The comment asserts the CalEEMod output files are inconsistent with the information disclosed in the EIR. Specifically, the comment states that the Draft EIR makes no mention of the
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: ALEXAN MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT COMMENT LETTERS 11663.03 13JUNE 2022
Project including an on-site solar system apart from inclusion of a system in the EIR’s CalEEMod analysis.
Please see Responses to Comments 1-11 and 1-34.
11-26 The comment states that until the inclusion of an on-site solar system is formally included as a mitigation measure, it cannot be guaranteed that it would be implemented, monitored, and enforced on the Project site. The comment goes on to say inclusion of the on-site solar in the Project’s operational emissions analysis should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.
Please see Responses to Comments 1-11 and 1-34.
1-27 This comment cites the Draft EIR’s analysis on DPM emissions and related health risk impacts during construction activities. The comment states that the Draft EIR fails to mention or evaluate TACs emissions from Project operation and that the construction-related HRA is unsubstantiated.
Please see Responses to Comments 1-12 and 1-13.
1-28 The comment states that because the Draft EIR did not include a quantified operational HRA, the Project is inconsistent with CEQA’s requirements.
Please see Response to Comment 1-16.
1-29 The comment states that operation of the Project exceeds the 2-month and 6-month requirements set forth by OEHHA and should be evaluated for the entire 30-year residential exposure duration.
Please see Responses to Comments 1-13 and 1-14.
1-30 The comment states the Draft EIR fails to evaluate the combined lifetime cancer risk as a result of Project construction and operation together.
Please see Responses to Comments 1-13 and 1-14.
1-31 The comment states that SWAPE prepared a screening level HRA analysis to evaluate the potential impact from Project construction. The comment states that the excess lifetime cancer risk from construction and operation is approximately 52.27 in one million.
Please see Response to Comment 1-16.
1-32 The comment states that SWAPE’s analysis demonstrates that construction and operation of the Project could result in a potentially significant health risk impact.
Please see Responses to Comments 1-12 through 1-16, and 1-27 through 1-31 1-33 This comment asserts the Draft EIR fails to adequately evaluate greenhouse gas impacts and cites three reasons: (1) quantitative analysis relies on incorrect and unsubstantiated air model; (2) failure to consider performance-based standards under CARB’s Scoping Plan; and (3) failure to
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: ALEXAN MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT COMMENT LETTERS 11663.03 14JUNE 2022
consider performance-based standards under SCAG’s RTP/SCS. See Responses to Comments 1- 34 through 1-37 for more discussion.
1-34 The comment states that energy-related mitigation measures input in the model is not consistent with information disclosed in the Draft EIR.
Please see Response to Comment 1-11, which identifies that the Project would include a 100-kW solar onsite system as a part of the Project.
The commenter is incorrect in stating that energy-related mitigation measures input in the model is not consistent with information disclosed in the Draft EIR. Furthermore, the inclusion of solar onsite is a component of the Project and represents a Title 24 regulatory compliance strategy and is not required to mitigate an impact. In addition, the solar system will be included as a Condition of Approval for the Project.
1-35 The comment states that the Draft EIR fails to consider CARB 2017 Scoping Plan performance-based daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita projections and asserts that the Draft EIR’s claim that the proposed Project would not conflict with the 2017 Scoping Plan is therefore unsupported.
As discussed in the Draft EIR on page 4.6-19, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4 states that lead agencies have the discretion to determine, in the context of a particular project, whether to:
(1) use a model or methodology to quantify greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project, and which model or methodology to use; or (2) rely on a qualitative analysis or performance-based standards. The significance of GHG impacts relating to the Project are based the applicable regulatory plans and policies to reduce GHG emissions, which include CARB’s Climate Change Scoping Plan; the SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS; and the City’s General Plan, CALGreen, and EO S-3- 05 and SB 32. The GHG analysis is consistent with the CEQA Guidelines and adequately evaluates GHG impacts as required by CEQA. There is no requirement to evaluate the scoping plan VMT data.
Nevertheless, we offer the following additional information. As discussed in Section 4.13, Transportation of the Draft EIR, the VMT analysis is based on the City of Arcadia Transportation Study Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled and Level of Service Assessment (City of Arcadia 2020) and OPR’s Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (OPR 2018).
The City’s Guidelines provide three types of VMT screening that can be applied to the proposed Project to screen from a project-level VMT assessment. The screening criteria are consistent with the recommendations provided in OPR’s Technical Advisory. As presented in Draft EIR Section on page 4.13-11:
“Loww VMTT Areaa Screeningg
Residential and office projects located within a low VMT- generating area may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. In addition, other employment-related and mixed-use land use projects may qualify for the use of screening if the project can reasonably be expected to generate VMT per resident, per worker, or per service population that is similar to the existing land uses in the low VMT
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: ALEXAN MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT COMMENT LETTERS 11663.03 15JUNE 2022
area. This presumption may not be appropriate if the Project land uses would alter the existing built environment in such a way as to increase the rate or length of vehicle trips.
For this screening, the SCAG travel forecasting model was used to measure VMT performance for individual traffic analysis zones (TAZs). TAZs are geographic polygons similar to Census block groups used to represent areas of homogenous travel behavior.
Total daily VMT per service population (population plus employment) was estimated for each TAZ.
The SGVCOG screening tool (available at https://www.sgvcog.org/vmt-analysis-tool) was used to determine whether or not the proposed Project would be located in a low VMT-generating area. Per the City’s guidelines, a low VMT-generating area is determined as 15% below the subarea baseline home-based VMT per capita and VMT per employee.
As shown in Table 4.13-1, the VMT per Capita for the project TAZ is 11.78, and the subarea jurisdiction’s average is 15.61. Further, the VMT per Worker for the project TAZ is 15.45, and the subarea jurisdiction’s average is 19.17. Therefore, the TAZ would be 27.97% and
21.49% below the subarea threshold for VMT per Capita and per Worker, respectively, which would meet the required baseline screening criteria established in the City’s guidelines. As such, the proposed Project can be screened out using this criterium.” Table 4.13-1. Summary of Project TAZ VMT
BBasee Yearr (2021)
HHome--bbasedd VMTT perr
CCapita
HHome--bbasedd VMTT perr
WWorker
Project TAZ 11.78 15.45
Jurisdiction 15.61 19.17
%% Differencee (Projectt TAZZ ––
JJurisdiction)
--227.97% --221.49%
Threshold 13.27 16.30
SSource: SGVCOG VMT Screening Tool (Appendix K-1).
According to the transportation analysis provided in the Draft EIR, the proposed Project meets the City’s VMT screening criteria; therefore, no VMT analysis is required, and the Project is determined to have a less-than-significant VMT impact. This localized analysis better correlates Project VMT to local conditions, as opposed to statewide or regional data. The proposed Project was found to be consistent with all applicable strategies and measures of the 2017 Scoping Plan, according to the consistency analysis provided in Section 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions of the Draft EIR.
Therefore, the Final EIR’s analysis is adequate as presented. 1-36 The comment states that the Draft EIR fails to consider whether the proposed Project meets the specific performance-based goals of SCAG’s RTP/SCS and SB 375, including per capita GHG emission targets and daily per capita VMT benchmarks.
As discussed in Response to Comment 1-35, the significance of GHG impacts relating to the Project are based on the applicable regulatory plans and policies to reduce GHG emissions, which include
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: ALEXAN MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT COMMENT LETTERS 11663.03 16JUNE 2022
CARB’s Climate Change Scoping Plan; the SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS; and the City’s General Plan, CALGreen, and EO S-3-05 and SB 32. The GHG analysis is consistent with the CEQA Guidelines and adequately evaluates GHG impacts as required by CEQA.
Additionally, the proposed Project meets the City’s VMT screening criteria, and therefore no VMT analysis is required, and the project is determined to have a less-than-significant VMT impact. The Project is assumed to be consistent with the VMT goals of the RTP/SCS and the Project was found to be consistent with all applicable strategies and measures of the SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS.
Therefore, the Final EIR’s analysis is adequate as presented. 11-377 The comment claims the Draft EIR failed to evaluate the Project’s consistency with SCAG’s 2020 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita projections an updated EIR be prepared concluding GHG impacts would be less than significant.
The Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (OPR 2018) and the City of Arcadia Transportation Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled and Level of Service Assessment (Arcadia 2020) include screening criteria to determine whether a project is required to perform a project-level VMT assessment. Based on the City’s Guidelines, the Project meets the City’s screening criteria and impacts to VMT are presumed to be less than significant. This is because the Project is:
x Located within a Transit Priority Area (TPA)
x Located in a low VMT-generating area based on the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments screening tool
The Project also meets the intent of Senate Bill 743 and OPR’s Technical Advisory (OPR 2018), which was implemented to better align CEQA with statewide sustainability goals related to efficient land use, greater multi-modal choices, and greenhouse gas reductions. This is because the Project:
x Is an infill development (in part, replacing an existing surface parking lot and underutilized buildings in downtown Arcadia)
x Contains a mix of land uses (new residential and local serving café, adjacent to an existing office building)
x Is a high-density development
x Has access to high-quality transit (the project is located across the street from the Metro L Line Station, and near regional and local bus service)
x Includes 26 affordable housing units
x Includes project design features to reduce vehicle trips, including:
o A new pedestrian and bicycle paseo to facilitate connectivity between the Metro L Line Station and the City’s downtown amenities
o Secure bicycle parking
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: ALEXAN MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT COMMENT LETTERS 11663.03 17JUNE 2022
o On site-amenities such as an outdoor pool area, fire pit, barbeque dining area, game lounge, lawn area, outdoor plaza, and outdoor passive court” Therefore, impacts to VMT are less than significant and the Project is consistent with the goals and policies contained in the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS. The proposed Project was found to be consistent with all applicable strategies and measures of the 2017 Scoping Plan, according to the consistency analysis provided in Section 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions of the Draft EIR. Therefore, the Final EIR’s analysis is supported by substantial evidence and adequate as presented. 11-388 This comment provides a disclaimer for the analysis prepared within their report and asks to reserve the right to revise or amend when additional information becomes available. The comment does not raise any specific concerns related to the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the EIR; therefore, no further response to this comment is required. 1-399 This comment represents Attachments A and B of the SWAPE report, which includes health risk calculations and AERSCREEN output files. The comment does not raise any specific concerns related to the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the EIR; therefore, no further response to this comment is required.
1-400 This comment represents the curriculum vitae of Matt Hagemann and Paul E. Rosenfeld, included as Attachments C and D of the SWAPE report. The comment does not raise any specific concerns related to the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the EIR; therefore, no further response to this comment is required.
Letter 2 Mitchell M. Tsai
As stated previously, the comment letter from Mr. Tsai is almost identical to the prior letter Mr. Tsai submitted on the Draft EIR, which was comprehensively responded to in the Final EIR. The only substantive additional information provided in the March 10, 2022 letter relates to the commenter’s request for preparation of a “Phase III” environmental site assessment, as shown in track changes on pages 11, 12, and 13 of Letter 2. Therefore, the Final EIR presents all required responses to this comment letter, with the addition of the response below that relates to the additional comment.
The comment letter from Mr. Tsai notes a Phase III Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) is required for the Project.
The letter does not indicate why a Phase III ESA is warranted for the Project nor does it provide any evidence indicating the need to conduct this additional evaluation. The term “Phase III” is a general, rarely used term for remediation that does not have a definition nor a standard of practice. As addressed in Response to Comment 02- 9 in the Final EIR, three separate investigations were conducted as part of the EIR to evaluate the recognized environmental conditions (RECs) identified on the site, which included an asbestos survey, a lead-based paint survey, and a subsurface soil and soil vapor investigation (Phase II ESA). The Project has been designed and mitigation measures included in the Draft EIR to ensure the Project would not exacerbate existing hazards.
Soil vapor conditions are understood and construction of the Project would not increase or change the levels of existing contamination, nor exacerbate the existing condition of contamination present in the area. The existing conditions within areas of the site that would not be disturbed and would remain in place woul d not be exacerbated by the proposed construction and operation of the Project. . Mitigation has been included which
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: ALEXAN MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT COMMENT LETTERS 11663.03 18JUNE 2022
requires a soil management plan that outlines the proper screening, handling, characterization, transportation, and disposal procedures for contaminated soils on site (MM-HAZ-2) and vapor mitigation design features would be included in building plans to reduce potential vapor intrusion in buildings and enclosed structures on the Project site below Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Screening Levels (consistent with the DTSC Vapor Intrusion Mitigation Advisory).
Comment Letter 1
*"-"*,
$3K
0;#;@:3;D
"7@@7F::3@-;57:3;D
-;@57@F+EA;A??;EE;A@7D
D36+:A?BEA@A??;EE;A@7D
$3D;>K@@7.;>3@67DA??;EE;A@7D
'>3@@;@9A??;EE;A@
;FKA8D536;3
. G@F;@9FA@D;H7
D536;3
B>3@@;@93D536;353 9AH
#;E3
>AD7E
'>3@@;@93@6A??G@;FK7H7>AB?7@F
6?;@;EFD3FAD
;FKA8D536;3
. G@F;@9FA@D;H7
D536;3
>8>AD7E3D536;353 9AH
' 1//'0610+0#.08+410/'06#./2#%6
'2146.'9#0+9'&
!5''8'.12/'06
73D:3;D#;@3@6 A@AD34>7$7?47DEA8F:7'>3@@;@9A??;EE;A@ 3?ID;F;@9A@47:3>8A8*GBBADF7DE>>;3@578AD
@H;DA@?7@F3>)7EBA@E;4;>;FK
Q*
)RD793D6;@9F:7
;@3>
@H;DA@?7@F3> ?B35F)7BADFQ
)RBD7B3D768AD
F:7>7J3@$;J76,E77H7>AB?7@F'DA<75F*
;@5>G6;@93>>35F;A@E
D7>3F76ADD787DD;@9FAF:7BDABAE765A@EFDG5F;A@A83E7H7@EFADKD7E;67@F;3>4G;>6;@9 I;F:
G@;FE>A53F763F
%ADF:*3@F3@;F3H7@G7;@F:7;FKA8D536;3
Q'DA<75FR
8F7DD7H;7I;@9F:7
)I75A@5>G67F:3FF:7
)83;>E3E3@;@8AD?3F;A@3>
6A5G?7@F3@683;>EFA;?BAE73>>873E;4>7?;F;93F;A@?73EGD7EFAD76G57F:7'DA<75FTE ;?B35FE *
)D7CG7EFEF:3FF:7'>3@@;@9;H;E;A@366D7EEF:7E7E:ADF5A?;@9E;@ 3D7H;E767@H;DA@?7@F3>;?B35FD7BADFQ)
)R3@6D75;D5G>3F7F:7)
)BD;ADFA
5A@E;67D;@93BBDAH3>E8ADF:7'DA<75F
+:;E5A??7@F:3E477@BD7B3D76I;F:F:73EE;EF3@57A87@H;DA@?7@F3> 5A@EG>F;@98;D?*A;>
.3F7D
;D'DAF75F;A@
@F7DBD;E7Q*.'
R
J:;4;F .7
;@5ADBAD3F7F:7*.'
5A??7@FE:7D7;@4KD787D7@57
1-1