ADUs to Moderate Income categories. To assist the City’s ADU development projections, Arcadia has included Housing Program 5-12 , which explores actions the City will take to promote and monitor the development of ADUs during the planning period.
Selection of Sites to Accommodate Remaining Need
In addition to sites that can accommodate housing at their existing capacity, the City identified six (6) Focus Areas that would benefit from reside ntial development to apply strategies such as upzoning and rezoning to achieve the remaining unmet RHNA. These six (6) Focus Areas are (1) Downtown Mixed-Use Expansion and Overlay, (2) Mixed-Use Upzone, (3) Li ve Oak Corridor, (4) C-G Residential Flex Overlay, (5) R-3 Upzone, and (6) Arcadia Golf Course. (a) Downtown Mixed-Use Expansion & Overlay
The City has identified properties zoned as General Commercial and Commercial Manufacturing in and adjacent to Downtown Arcadia. These properties provide an opportunity to introduce high density residential flex overlays and Downtown Mixed-Use zoning that are compatible with adjacent Central Business District and Downtown Mixed-Use zoned parcels. The existing Central Business District and Downtown Mixed-Use zone d currently allow up to 80 units per acre in conjunction with a commercial development and other uses that will support residential development.
These parcels were identified due to dilapidated commercial uses and at an assumed density of 64 du/ac, the assumed capacity of these sites is projected at 1,480 units, 374 of which are projected to develop affordably for Low and Very Low-income households. Exhibit 4: Downtown Mixed-Use Expansion and Exhibit 5: Downtown Mixed-Use Overlay show the candidate housing sites identified within the Downtown Mixed-Use Focus Area which can help accommodate a portion of the City’s RHNA allocation.
Mixed-Use Upzone
The City has identified parcels in the Mixed-Use zone that have the potential to accommodate 477 units of development at an assumed density of 50 du/acre, 124 of which are projected to develop affordably. Exhibit 6: Map of Site Inventory - Mixed Use Upzone (1) and Exhibit 7: Map of Site Inventory - Mixed Use Upzone (2) show the candidate housing sites identified within the Mixed-Use Focus Area.
(b) Live Oak Corridor
The City has identified the Live Oak Corridor as an opportunity to both increase density and introduce residential density on viable commerci al properties. The adjacent Mixed-Use zoning and access to transit supports the increase of residential uses in the corridor. The City identified two opportunities based on adjacent use and densities to introduce Residential Flex Overlays on Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
commercial properties within the corridor. The two opportunity areas, referred to as Las Tunas Residential Flex Overlay and Live Oak Residentia l Flex Overlay, have the total capacity to accommodate up to 794 units, as shown on Exhibit 8: Map of Site Inventory – (Live Oak Corridor) Residential Flex Overlay.
(i) Las Tunas Residential Flex Overlay
The City identified parcels west of Santa Anita Avenue, along Las Tunas suitable for higher density development. The identified parcels within th e Las Tunas Residential Flex Overlay have the capacity to accommodate up to 609 units of development at an assumed density of 48 du/acre. (ii) Live Oak Residential Flex Overlay
The City identified parcels east of Santa Anita Avenue, along Live Oak Avenue suitable for higher density development. The identified parcels within the Live Oak Residential Flex Overlay have the capacity to accommodate up to 118 units of development at an assumed density of 40 du/acre. (c) C-G Residential Flex Overlay
The City has identified General Commercial zo ned properties as a redevelopment opportunity where underutilized, smaller scale commercial development can transition to support residential development. The identified parcels have the capacity to accommodate 992 units of development at an assumed density of 24 du/acre, as shown on Exhibit 9: Map of Site Inventory – C-G Residential Flex Overlay. An assumption of approximately 50% redevelopment has been applied considering development history, economic factors, and AFFH requirements. In addition, the 80% redevelopment limit would preserve commercial zoned parcels to maintain a commercial base throughout the City.
(d) R-3 Upzone
The R-3 Zone has been identified by the City as an area with the opportunity to support increased density that is compatible with adjacent higher density residential uses and other uses that support residential development. Higher density within this Focus Area can be expected to accommodate lower income units. The identified parcels within the Sites Inventory have the capacity to accommodate 810 units of developmen t at an assumed density of 32 du/acre, as shown on Exhibit 10: Map of Site Inventory – R-3 Upzone (1), Exhibit 11: Map of Site Inventory – R-3 Upzone (2), and Exhibit 12: Map of Site Inventory – R-3 Upzone (3). An assumption of approximately 25% redevelopment has been applied considering development history, economic factors, and AFFH requirements.
Arcadia Golf Course
The City has identified the Arcadia Golf Course as a site to accommodate residential units across all of the income categories. As shown on Exhibit 13 : Map of Site Inventory – Arcadia Golf Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
Course, the Arcadia Golf Course is approximately 25.86 acres in size and has the capacity to accommodate up to 192 units. However, future development of the Arcadia Golf Course may not generate the full 192 units due to the intention of retaining a portion of the site for open space and recreation uses.
(e) Goals and Policies
As required by State Housing Element law, the proposed Project includes a Housing Plan to facilitate and encourage the provision of housin g consistent with the RHNA. The plan would implement strategies and programs intended to address the City’s housing needs and meet the City’s current housing goals, which are:
Housing Goal #1 : Preservation, conservation, and enhanc ement of existing housing stock and residential neighborhoods within Arcadia.
Housing Goal #2 : Provide suitable sites for housing development to accommodate a range of housing for residential use that meet the City’s RHNA growth needs for all income levels.
Housing Goal #3 : A range of housing choices for all social and economic segments of the community, including housing for persons with special needs.
Housing Goal #4 : Mitigated governmental and non-governmental constraints to housing production and affordability.
Housing Goal #5: Equitable and fair housing opportunity in the City’s housing market.
The goals listed above are described throughout the Arcadia GP Chapter 5: Housing Element with accompanying policies and programs to achieve them. The goals and policies are provided in their entirety in Plan to The Housing Element Update (see Appendix A). (f) Implementation Programs
The Implementation Programs proposed to implement each goal and policy are included in their entirety in the Arcadia GP Chapter 10: Implementation Plan and Housing Element.
Housing Program 5-1: Home Rehabilitation
Housing Program 5-2: Code Enforcement
Housing Program 5-3: Residential Design Guidelines
Housing Program 5-4: Prevention of At-Risk Units
Housing Program 5-5: Preservation of Middle-Income Housing through New Housing Authorities Housing Program 5-6: Residential Sites Inventory
Housing Program 5-7: Establish and Overlay to Permit Residential Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
Housing Program 5-8: Expansion of the Downtown Mixed-Use Area to Permit Residential Use Housing Program 5-9: Expand and Update the Residential Flex Mixed Use Overly in the Live Oak Corridor
Housing Program 5-10: Encourage Development of Housing Sites Listed in Inventory Housing Program 5-11: Housing Density Bonus
Housing Program 5-12: ADU and JADU Incentive and Monitoring Housing Program 5-13: Candidate Sites Used in Prior Housing Element Planning Cycle Housing Program 5-14: Inclusionary Housing Policy
Housing Program 5-15: Lot Consolidation Incentives
Housing Program 5-16: Preservation of Rental Opportunities Housing Program 5-17: Public Information About Affordable Housing Housing Program 5-18: Emergency Shelters, Transitional, and Supportive Housing Housing Program 5-19: Participation in the San Gabriel Valley Housing Trust Housing Program 5-20: SB 35 Streamlining
Housing Program 5-21: Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program Housing Program 5-22: Affordable Housing for Families and Persons with Special Needs Housing Program 5-23: Homeless Program Assistance
Housing Program 5-24: Housing Sustainability
Housing Program 5-25: Fair Housing
Housing Program 5-26: Fair Housing Assistance
Housing Program 5-27: Supportive Housing/Low Barrier Navigation Centers Housing Program 5-28: Water and Sewer Service Providers
22.5 Development Capacity Projections for Future Site Development State CEQA Guidelines § 15378(a) defines a “pro ject” as “the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.” The proposed HEU Project does not propose new residential or other development on the 751 candidate sites evaluated in this IS/ND; rather, it provides capacity for future deve lopment consistent with State law. Future development would occur on these sites in in cremental phases over time depending upon Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
numerous factors such as market conditions, and economic and planning considerations, and at the individual property owners’ discretion. Addi tionally, future development facilitated by the proposed HEU Project would be required to undergo environmental review and evaluation under CEQA and other applicable federal, state and local regulations as each project is proposed.
22.6 Project Approvals
The City is the Lead Agency under CEQA and is responsible for reviewing, approving, and adopting this IS/ND. The City will consider the following discretionary approvals for the Project:
x Adoption of the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (2021-2029) The Project additionally requires the following approval from HCD following the City’s final adoption of the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update:
x Review of the draft 2021-2029 Housing Elem ent Update to determ ine compliance with state law and submittal of written findings to the City.
No discretionary approvals from other agencies are required.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
Exhibit 1: Regional Map
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
Exhibit 2: Vicinity Map
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration
Exhibit 3: Map of Candidate Housing Sites
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
Exhibit 4: Map of Downtown Mixed-Use Expansion
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
Exhibit 5: Map of Downtown Mixed-Use Overlay
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
Exhibit 6: Map Site Inventory – Mixed-Use Upzone (1)
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
Exhibit 7: Map of Site Inventory – Mixed-Use Upzone (2)
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
Exhibit 8: Map of Site Inventory – (Live Oak Corridor) Residential Flex Overlays
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
Exhibit 9: Map of Site Inventory – C-G Residential Flex Overlay
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
Exhibit 10: Map of Site Inventory – R-3 Upzone (1)
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
Exhibit 11: Map of Site Inventory – R-3 Upzone (2)
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
Exhibit 12: Map of Site Inventory – R-3 Upzone (3)
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
Exhibit 13: Map of Site Inventory – Arcadia Golf Course
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
3.0 INITIAL STUDY
1. Project Title: City of Arcadia 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (2021-2029)
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Arcadia
240 West Huntington Drive
Arcadia, CA 91007
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Lisa Flores at 626-574-5445
4. Project Location: City of Arcadia
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
City of Arcadia
240 West Huntington Drive
Arcadia, CA 91007
6. General Plan Designation: City-Wide 7. Zoning: City-Wide
8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off- site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary.) See Section 2.0 Project Description.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) The Project encompasses the entire City.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement):
California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
11. Have California Native American tribes tr aditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursua nt to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consul tation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.?
Note: Conducting consu ltation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process. (See Public Resources Code section 21080.3.2.) Information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per Public Resources Code section 5097.96 and th e California Historical Resources Information System administered by the Califor nia Office of Historic Preservation.
Please also note that Public Resources Code secti on 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.
On June 1, 2021, the City received the negative result of the Sacred Lands File (SFL) from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). On June 10, 2021, the City initiated tribal consultation with interested California Native American tribes consistent with Assembly Bill (AB) 52 and Senate Bill (SB) 18. No resp onses were received from any of the California Native American tribe representatives regarding AB 52 and SB 18.
EENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Signif icant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Agriculture/Forestry
Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology / Soils Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology / Water Quality
Land Use / Planning Mineral Resources Noise
Population / Housing Public Services Recreation
Transportation Utilities / Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance
Tribal Cultural Resources Wildfire Energy
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
EEVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a Lead Agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-sp ecific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project- specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole acti on involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) Once the Lead Agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than sign ificant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significan t Impact." The Lead Agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross- referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.
Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequate ly analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
7) Supporting Information Sources. A source list should be attached, and other sources used, or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead ag encies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
IIssues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. AESTHETICS. Except as provided in Public
Resources Code section 21099, would the
project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not limited
to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic
highway?
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character
or quality of public views of the site
and its surroundings? (Public views
are those that are experienced from
publicly accessible vantage point). If
the project is in an urbanized area,
would the project conflict with
applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?)
d) Create a new source of substantial
light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES -- In
determining whether impacts to agricultural
resources are significant environmental
effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the
California Dept. of Conservation as an optional
model to use in assessing impacts on
agriculture and farmland. In determining
whether impacts to forest resources, including
timberland, are significant environmental
effects, lead agencies may refer to information
compiled by the California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the
state’s inventory of forest land, including the
Forest and Range Assessment Project and the
Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest
carbon measurement methodology provided in
Forest protocols adopted by the California Air
Resources Board.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on
the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or
cause rezoning of, forest land (as
defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220(g)), timberland (as
defined by Public Resources Code
section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-
forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their
location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-
agricultural use or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
III. AIR QUALITY -- Where available, the
significance criteria established by the
applicable air quality management district or
air pollution control district may be relied upon
to make the following determinations. Would
the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any criteria pollutant
for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality
standard?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations?
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d) Result in other emissions (such as
those leading to odors adversely
affecting a substantial number of
people?
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on
any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local
or regional plans, policies, regulations
or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
state or federally protected wetlands
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation
plan?
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical
resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of dedicated
cemeteries?
VI. ENERGY. Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources,
during project construction or
operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or
local plan for renewable energy or
energy efficiency?
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer
to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or
the loss of topsoil?
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil
that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on-
or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code, creating substantial
direct or indirect risks to life or
property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of
wastewater?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature?
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS -- Would the
project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the
environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy
or regulation adopted for the purpose
of reducing the emission of
greenhouse gases?
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS --
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
the routine transport, use, or disposal
of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into
the environment?
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included
on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government
Code section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan
has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard or excessive noise for
people residing or working in the
project area?
f) Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires?
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would
the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade
surface or ground water quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the
basin?
c) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river or through
the addition of impervious surfaces, in
a manner which would:
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
i) result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site;
ii) substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in
flooding on- or offsite;
iii) create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity
of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche
zones, risk release of pollutants due to
project inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING -- Would the
project:
a) Physically divide an established
community?
b) Cause a significant environmental
impact due to a conflict with any land
use plan, policy, or regulation adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would
be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
locally-important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other
land use plan?
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIII. NOISE -- Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary
or permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the vicinity of the
project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
b) Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise
levels?
c) For a project located within the
vicinity of a private airstrip or an
airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public
use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the
project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned
population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through
extension of road or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of
existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES -- Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision
of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new
or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response
times or other performance objectives
for any of the public services:
Fire protection?
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
XVI. RECREATION --
a) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational facilities
such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities
which have an adverse physical effect
on the environment?
XVII. TRANSPORTATION -- Would the project:
a) Conflict with program plan, ordinance
or policy addressing the circulation
system, including transit, roadway,
bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines section 15064.39 or will
conflict with an applicable congestion
management program, including, but
not limited to, level of service
standards and travel demand
measures, or other standards
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated
roads or highways?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to
a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency
access?
9 CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3(c) provides that a lead agency “may elect to be governed by the provisions” of the section immediately; otherwise, the section’s provisions apply July 1, 2020. Here, the District has not elected to be governed by Section 15064.3. Accordingly, an analysis of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is not necessary to determine whether a proposed project will have a significant transportation impact.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the
project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources
Code section 21074 as either a site,
feature, place, cultural landscape that
is geographically defined in terms of
the size and scope of the landscape,
sacred place, or object with cultural
value to a California Native American
tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in
the California Register of
Historical Resources, or in a
local register of historical
resources as defined in Public
Resources Code section
5020.1(k), or
ii) A resource determined by
the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be
significant pursuant to
criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code section
5024.1. In applying the
criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code section
5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of
the resource to a California
Native American tribe.
XVIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -- Would the
project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded
water, wastewater treatment or
storm water drainage, electric power,
natural gas, or telecommunications
facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project and
reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry, and
multiple dry years?
c) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the
project's projected demand in
addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
d) Generate solid waste in excess of
State or local standards, or in excess
of the capacity of local infrastructure,
or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes
and regulations related to solid
waste?
XIX. WILDFIRE – If located in or near state
responsibility areas or lands classified as very
high fire hazard severity zones, would the
project:
a) Substantially impair an
adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds,
and other factors, exacerbate
wildfire risks, and thereby
expose project occupants to,
pollutant concentrations from
a wildfire or the uncontrolled
spread of a wildfire?
c) Require the installation or
maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads,
fuel breaks, emergency water
sources, power lines or other
utilities) that may exacerbate
fire risk or that may result in
temporary or ongoing impacts
to the environment?
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d) Expose people or structures to
significant risks, including
downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a
result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage
changes?
XX. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE --
a) Does the project have the potential to
substantially degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, substantially
reduce the number, or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that
are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means
that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed
in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current
project, and the effects of probable
future projects.)
c) Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Note: Authority cited: Public Resources Code sections 21083, 21083.05, 21083.09.
Reference: Gov. Code section 65088.4; Public Resources Code sections 21073, 21074, 21080(c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3, 21083, 21083.3, 21083.5, 21084.2, 21084.3, 21093, 21094, 21095 and 21151; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296; Leonoff v. Monterey Board of Supervisors (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1337; Eureka Citizens for Responsible Govt. v. City of Eureka (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 357; Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1109; San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City and County of San Francisco (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 656.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
EENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DISCUSSION
A brief discussion of each impact conclusion is included below based on the environmental issues listed above and in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines.
I. Aesthetics
Would the Project:
a. Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista? Less Than Significant Impact. According to the Arcadia GP, the City’s scenic resources and vistas include the San Gabriel Mountains and San Gabrie l Mountains foothills located to the north of the City. A substantial adverse effect to visual resources could result in situations in which a development project introduces physical features that are not characteristic of current development, obstructs an identified public scenic vista, impairs views from other properties, or has a substantial change to the natural landscape.
The project would not result in direct housing co nstruction but would facilitate and provide a policy framework for future housing development throughout the City. The proposed HEU would not result in a significant adverse effect on a scenic vista. All future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject en vironmental review under CEQA, the City’s development review process, and required to demonstrate consistency with Arcadia GP policies and compliance with Arcadia Municipal Code (Arc adia MC), including Article IX, Chapter 1 - Development Code (Arcadia DC) standards. The City contains policies within the Arcadia GP which focus on the preservation of scenic vistas. These scenic vistas are visible mainly from the Hillside area of the City and are the focus of the policies within the Arcadia GP. The Project, however, does not identify any candidate sites within the Hillside area of the City, as shown in Exhibit 3.
Furthermore, the Arcadia GP EIR notes that the City does not contain any scenic vistas.10 Although the Project would not result in direct housing construction, any future housing developments would be required to de monstrate consistency with the above General Plan policies and ensuring that any proposed building heights would be consistent with the scale of surrounding and existing development. The pr oposed HEU would not result in a significant adverse effect on a scenic vista. Therefore, impacts to scenic vistas would be less than significant. b. Substantially damage scenic resources, in cluding, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? Less Than Significant Impact. There are no officially designated State scenic highways within the City. The nearest officially designated highway is a portion of SR 2 transition from Los Angeles
10 City of Arcadia. (2010). City of Arcadia General Plan EIR. Page 4.1-5.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
County into San Bernardino C ounty through the San Gabriel Mountains, starting at and Los Angeles Post Mile (PM) 27.2 and finishing at PM 82.265. 11 The final location of the SR 2 is approximately 2.7 miles north of Route 210 in the City of La Canada Flintridge, approximately 8.4 miles northwest of the City. 12 This scenic highway is approximat ely 6.4 miles north of the City’s northernmost boundary. There are no highways wi thin the City which are eligible for scenic highway classification.
Despite the lack of officially designated and elig ible highways within the City, all future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subj ect to the City’s development review process and required to demonstrate consistency with Ar cadia GP policies and compliance with Arcadia MC standards, including those intended to pr otect scenic resources. Therefore, project implementation would not substa ntially damage scenic resources associated with a scenic highway, historic building, or scenic resource. A less than significant impact would occur. c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an ur banized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? Less Than Significant Impact. As previously noted, the project would not result in direct housing construction, but would facilitate future housing development, which is anticipated to occur in urbanized areas throughout the City. The Arcadia GP contains goals and policies that govern scenic quality. However, these goals apply to the Hillside area which has not been identified with any candidate sites.
All future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to the City’s development review process, which may include review pursuant to CEQA, and be required to comply with Arcadia GP policies, Arcadia MC standards, as well as be required to adhere to all federal, State, and local regulations for avoiding impacts to existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings., including those that protect against degradation of visual resources by requiring project modifica tions, conditions of approval or mitigation measures, as needed. Because future housing development consistency with General Plan policies and compliance with Arcadia MC standa rds would be verified through the City’s development review process, the project would not conflict with applicable policies or standards governing scenic quality. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
11 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). (2021). California State Scenic Highway System Map. Retrieved from:
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa. Accessed October 12, 2021 12 Ibid.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less Than Significant Impact. As previously noted, the Project would not result in direct housing construction, but would facilitate future housing development throughout the City. Future housing development could add a new source of su bstantial light and glare. Potential new light sources include exterior nighttime lighting fixtures, parking area lighting, light glow from windows, doors and skylights, and accent lighting. The introduction of concentrated or multiple sources of nighttime lighting near low-density areas could result in potential impacts.
All future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to the City’s development review process, which may include review pursuant to CEQA and be required to comply with all applicable requirements concerning light and glare, including the California Green Building Standards Code (Title 24 Part 11) and Arcadia MC §9103.01.120 – Exterior Lighting, which control light emissions in the City, and requires that lighting fixtures be shielded appropriately to eliminate light directed above the horizontal. Therefore, the HEU would not create a new source of substantial light or glare. Impacts would be less than significant.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
II. Agriculture and Forestry
Would the Project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause re zoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
d. Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
e. Would the project involve other changes in th e existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversi on of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest land?
No Impact. The Project would not result in direct hous ing construction but would facilitate and provide a policy framework for future ho using development throughout the City. The City is predominantly categorized as urban and build-up and there are no properties within or near the candidate housing sites designated Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as classified by the State Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP). 13 Therefore, Project implementation would not conflict with existing agricultural zoning or a Williamson Ac t contract, or result in the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use, or conversion or loss of forest land. Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would allow for residential development on vacant and developed sites that are zoned for residential development and sites zoned for non-residential development that would be amended through prospective discretionary actions to allow future residential development. Future discretionary actions would be implemented in a case-by-case basis for future housing developments facilitated by the Project. Consequently, the HE U would not conflict with existing zoning nor would it cause rezoning of forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production.
Project implementation would not rezone or conv ert forest land or timberland. Therefore, the HEU would result in no impact to agricultural or forest resources.
13 California Department of Conservation, California Important Farmland Finder. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/, Accessed October 7, 2021.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
III. Air Quality
Would the Project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less Than Significant Impact. The City is located in the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB). The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and SCAG are responsible for developing and implementing the clean air plans for attainme nt and maintenance of ambient air quality standards in the SoCAB - specifically, the State Implementation Plan (SIP) and SCAG’s Connect SoCal RTP/SCS, which includes the urbanized portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, Orange, and San Bernardino Counties.
The SCAQMD develops rules and regulations; establishes permitting requirements for stationary sources; inspects emissions sources; and enforces such measures through educational programs or fines, when necessary. In 2016, the SCAQ MD adopted the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) that integrated strategies and measures needed to meet the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and the California ambient ai r quality standards (CAAQS). The 2016 AQMP establishes a program of rules and regulations di rected at reducing air pollutant emissions and achieving State and national air quality standards. The primary purpose of an air quality plan is to bring an area that does not attain federal and State air quality standards into compliance with the requirements of the federal Clean Air Act and California Clean Air Act. In addition, air quality plans are developed to ensure that an area maintains a healthful level of air quality based on the NAAQS and CAAQS.
Air quality impacts were assessed in accordance with methodologies recommended by California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the SCAQMD. Wh ere criteria air pollutant quantification was required, emissions were modeled using the Cali fornia Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod).
The CARB mobile source emission projections and SCAG growth projections are based on population forecasts, vehicle trends, and land use plans developed by SCAG and the member counties, cities, as part of their general plan development.
As previously discussed, the HEU Project would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate and provide a policy framework for future housing development throughout the City. Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would allow for residential development on vacant and developed sites that are zoned for residential development and sites zoned for non-residential development that would be amended through prospective discretionary actions to allow future residential development. Future discretionary actions would be limited to the candidate housing sites.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
Additionally, all future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to environmental review under CEQA, the City’s development review process, and required to adhere to all federal, State, and local regulati ons for minimizing construction and operational pollutant emissions, including the SCAQMD Rules listed below:
x Rule 402 (Nuisance) – This rule prohibits the discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. This rule does not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals.
x Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) – This rule requires fugitive dust sources to implement best available control measures for all sources, an d all forms of visible particulate matter are prohibited from crossing any property line. This rule is intended to reduce PM10 emissions from any transportation, handling, construction, or storage activity that has the potential to generate fugitive dust. PM10 suppression techniques are summarized below. o Portions of a construction site to remain inactive longer than a period of three months will be seeded and watered until grass cover is grown or otherwise stabilized.
o All on-site roads are paved as soon as feasible, watered regularly, or chemically stabilized.
o All material transported off-site will be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
o The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations will be minimized at all times.
o Where vehicles leave a construction site and enter adjacent public streets, the streets will be swept daily or washed down following the workday to remove soil from pavement.
x Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings) – This rule requires manufacturers, distributors, and end-users of architectural and industrial maintenance coatings to reduce VOC emissions from the use of these coatings, primarily by placing limits on the VOC content of various coating categories.
Future housing development would be required to be consistent with the Arcadia GP, including Goals RS-1, RS-2, and RS-3 which encourages the reduction of toxic emissions and carbon Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
footprint. Therefore, air quality impacts from future development on candidate housing sites would be less than significant following compliance with the existing regulatory framework.
It is noted, the City’s goal for the Project is to achieve Housing and Community Development (HCD) HEU certification; therefore, the project must comply with applicable federal, State, regional, and local housing laws, and policies. As a result, it is not anticipated that future housing development facilitated by the HEU would interfere with SCAQMD goals for improving air quality in the SoCAB or conflict with or obstruct im plementation of applicable air quality plans.
Therefore, anticipated air quality impacts would be less than significant. b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net incr ease of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainme nt under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard?
Less Than Significant Impact. As previously noted, the project would not result in direct housing construction, but would facilitate future housing development throughout the City, which would occur as market conditions allow and at the discretion of the individual property owners. Future housing development could result in temporary, short-term pollutants from construction-related soil disturbance, fugitive dust emissions, and co mbustion pollutants from on-site construction equipment, as well as from off-site trucks hauling construction materials. Construction emissions would be temporary, with construction activities and associated emissions ceasing once housing development is complete. Further, construction emissions can vary substantially from day to day depending on activity level, the specific oper ation type, and, for dust, prevailing weather conditions.
California has 35 specific air districts, which are each responsible for ensuring that the criteria pollutants are below the NAAQS and CAAQS. Air basins that exceed either the NAAQS or the CAAQS for any criteria pollutants for set periods are designated as “non-attainment areas” for that pollutant. The cumulative setting for air quality includes Arcadia and the SoCAB. The SoCAB is designated as a nonattainment area for State standards of ozone, PM10, and PM2.5. Cumulative growth in population and vehicle use could inhibit efforts to improve regional air quality and attain the ambient air quality standards.
The SCAQMD’s approach to assessing cumulative impacts is based on the AQMP forecasts of attainment of ambient air quality standards in ac cordance with the requirements of the federal and California Clean Air Acts. The AQMP is designed to assist the region in attaining the applicable State and national ambient air quality standard s and is intended to bring the SoCAB into attainment for all criteria pollutants.
All future housing development facilitated by th e HEU would be subject the City’s development review process and required to demonstrate compliance with federal, State, and local regulations in effect at the time of development, including the Arcadia GP policies and Arcadia MC standards.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
The City’s Environmental Assessment process ou tlined in the Arcadia MC §9107.03.070 and development process may require future housing development conduct air quality (and other technical) studies to demonstrate compliance with SCAQMD air quality construction thresholds.
SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 (e.g., prohibition of nuisances, watering of inactive and perimeter areas, track out requirements, etc.) would be a pplied to future developments on a project-by- project basis in order to minimize those potential negative air quality effects. Emissions resulting from construction would be temporary and constr uction activities and associated emissions would cease following completion of each housing development.
Concerning operational thresholds, future hous ing development facilitated by the HEU would likely generate VOC, NO X, CO, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5 operational emissions from mobile sources (i.e., vehicle trips), use of consumer products, architectural coatings for repainting, and landscape maintenance equipment; and energy sources (i.e., combustion of fuels used for space and water heating and cooking appliances). In analyz ing cumulative impacts for future housing development facilitated by the HEU, an analysis must specifically evaluate a development’s contribution to the cumulative increase in poll utants for which the SoCAB is designated as nonattainment for the CAAQS and NAAQS. The nonattainment status is the result of cumulative emissions from all sources of these air pollutants and their precursors within the SoCAB. Future housing developments would be requi red to demonstrate that VOC, NO X, CO, SO X, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions would be below the significance thresholds for both construction and operational activities.
All future housing development would require further evaluation under this criterion to demonstrate that both daily construction emissions and operations would not exceed SCAQMD’s significance thresholds for any criteria air po llutant. Additionally, future housing development construction activities would be subject to SCAQMD Rule 403: Fugitive Dust, which requires actions to restrict visible emissions of fugitive dust beyond the property line. Compliance with Rule 403 would limit fugitive dust (i.e., PM 10 and PM 2.5) that may be generated during grading and construction activities.
Future housing developments would also be subject to SCAQMD Rule 1113: Architectural Coatings, which establishes maximum VOC contents . All future development facilitated by the HEU would also be subject to environmental review under CEQA, the City’s development review process, and required to adhere to relevant fe deral, State, and local regulations for minimizing construction and operational pollutant emissions. Future housing development, at a minimum, would be required to meet California Green Bu ilding Standards Code (CALGreen) and Energy Code (Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations) mandatory energy requirements in effect at the time of the development applicatio n. Projects would benefit from the efficiencies associated with these regulations as they rela te to building heating, ventilating, and air conditioning mechanical systems, water heatin g systems, and lighting. Considering these Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
requirements, future development housing development facilitated by the HEU would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the SoCAB is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed above, the Project does not propose any development; however, the Project facilitates future housing development consistent with State Housing laws. The candidate housing sites were evaluated in this IS/ND at a programmatic level, as discussed above. Future housing development would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. As a result, no air modeling was conducted for this analysis Toxic Air Contaminants
Future housing development facilitated by the Project could include emissions of pollutants identified by the State and federal government as toxic air contaminants (TACs) or hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). The greatest potential for TAC emissions during construction would be diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions from heavy equipment operations and heavy-duty trucks and the associated health impacts to sensitive receptors. Compliance with various measures (e.g., 13 California Code of Regulations (CCR) 2449 and 13 CCR 2485) would be required by State law to reduce DPM emissions. It is unlikely that futu re housing development facilitated by the HEU would require the extensive operation of heavy- duty construction equipment, or extensive use of diesel trucks, which would be subject to a CARB Airborne Toxics Control Measure for in-use diesel construction equipment to reduce diesel particulate emissions. The following measures are required by State law to reduce DPM emissions:
x Fleet owners of mobile construction equipm ent are subject to the CARB Regulation for in-use off-road diesel vehicles (13 CCR 2449), the purpose of which is to reduce DPM and criteria pollutant emissions from in-use (existing) off-road diesel-fueled vehicles. x All commercial diesel vehicles are subject to Title 13, Section 2485 of the California Code of Regulations, limiting engine idling time. Idling of heavy-duty diesel construction equipment and trucks during loading and unloading shall be limited to five minutes; electric auxiliary power units should be used whenever possible.
Carbon Monoxide Hot Spots
Mobile-source impacts, including those related to CO, occur essentially on two scales. Regionally, construction travel associated with future ho using development would add to regional trip generation and increase the vehicle miles travelled (VMT) within the local airshed and the SoCAB.
Locally, construction traffic would be added to the roadway system in the vicinity of future housing development sites. There is a potential for the formation of microscale CO “hotspots” to Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
occur immediately around points of congested traffi c. Hotspots can form if traffic occurs during periods of poor atmospheric ventilation that is composed of a large number of vehicles cold- started and operating at pollution-inefficient sp eeds, and/or is operating on roadways already congested with existing traffic.
Typically, high CO concentrations are associated with congested roadways. Traffic associated with future housing development facilitated by the HEU could contribute to traffic congestion that could result in the formation of CO hotspots. Because of continued improvement in vehicular emissions at a rate faster than the rate of vehicle growth and/or congestion, the potential for CO hotspots in the SoCAB is steadily decreasing.
All future housing development facilitated by the HEU would require further evaluation under this criterion through the City’s development review process to demonstrate that both daily construction emissions and operations would not exceed SCAQMD’s significance thresholds for any criteria air pollutant.
Future construction activities would be subject to environmental review under CEQA and comply with SCAQMD Rules. Therefore, future housing development facilitated by the HEU would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less than Significant. The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook identifies certain land uses as sources of odors. These land uses include ag riculture (farming and livestock), wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemic al plants, composting facilities, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The Project would not include any of the land uses that have been identified by the SCAQMD as odor sources.
However, future housing development facilitated by the Project could result in odors generated from vehicles and/or equipment exhaust emis sions during construction. These odors are a temporary short-term impact that is typical of construction projects and would disperse rapidly.
The HEU Project does not propose any development nor include any of the land uses that have been identified by the SCAQMD as odor sour ces. Therefore, the Project would not create objectionable odors and a less than significant impact would occur.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
IV. Biological Resources
Would the Project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either direct ly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the Cali fornia Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less Than Significant Impact. According to the Arcadia GP EIR, the City is nearly built out and only approximately one (1) percent of the total land area in the City and its SOI remain as vacant and undeveloped.14 As such, the majority of plant and animal habitats are located in urban environments with non-native and ornamental landscaping. 15 Outdoor recreation areas in the City include the Arboretum of Los Angeles County, Arcadia County Park, Santa Anita County Golf Course, Wilderness Park (which includes high qu ality alder riparian forest), and a few other smaller parks and a private golf course. 16 Although the vegetation consists mainly of non-native ornamental landscaping in these areas, some pa tches of native vegetation remain, and many native trees exist including coast live oaks and western sycamores. 17 There are open spaces are found along the Sierra Madre, Santa Anita, and Arc adia Washes, with larger areas in the upper Santa Anita Wash in the northeastern portion of the City and Peck Road County Park in the southeastern portion of the City. 18 The Santa Anita Wash open space area consists mainly of mechanically disturbed areas that function as access routes and spreading grounds for flood control activities. It also supports many coast live oak and western sycamore trees, along with patches of native habitat, including oak-sycamo re riparian forest with native understory components and high quality coastal sage scrub. 19 Peck Road County Park was once a gravel mining pit, and now consists of a large lake fed by the Santa Anita and Sawpit Washes. The park is utilized by the public for fishing and bird -watching and supports a few stands of willow (Salix spp.) riparian forest and scrub vegetation at the lake margins.20 The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (C DFW) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) may list species as threatened or endangered under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) or Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA), respectively. The USFWS can designate critical habitat that identifies specific areas that are essential to the conservation of a listed species.
14 City of Arcadia. 2010 General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. Available at https://www.arcadiaca.gov/shape/development_services_department/planning___zoning/general_plan.php#outer-708. Accessed November 2021.
15 Ibid.
16 Ibid.
17 Ibid.
18 Ibid.
19 Ibid.
20 Ibid.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
The HEU is a policy document and would not resu lt in direct housing construction but would facilitate and provide a policy framework for future housing development on candidate housing sites throughout the City. However, given the Ci ty is predominantly urban and developed, the candidate housing sites mostly include properties that have either been developed, disturbed, and/or adjacent to existing development. However, future housing development could potentially impact candidate, sensitive, or special status wildlife or plan species through direct or indirect disturbance or elimination of essential habitat.
Additionally, future housing development facilitated by the HEU may have the potential to impact nesting birds which have acclimated to urban li fe and nest and forage in the local trees and shrubs. These bird species are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Although the MBTA is no longer interpreted to protect mi gratory birds and raptors from incidental take, State Fish and Game Commission §3503 and §3503.5 still provide these protections. If vegetation clearing would occur during the bird breeding season (February 1 to July 15 for raptors and January 15 to August 31 for other birds), direct impacts to nesting birds could occur.
The City has identified the Arcadia Golf Course as a site to accommodate residential units across all of the income categories. As shown on Exhibit 2-13, the Arcadia Golf Course is approximately
25.86 acres in size and has the capacity to accommodate up to 192 units. Future development of the Arcadia Golf Course facilitated by the HEU would be subject to project-specific CEQA review and would be required to comply with site-specific applicable mitigation measures, if any. Future development of the Arcadia Golf Course site wo uld also be subject to the City’s development review process. However, as stated above, the HEU is a policy document and would not result in direct housing construction but would facilita te and provide a policy framework for future housing development on candidate housing sites throughout the City, including the Arcadia Golf Course.
All future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to the City’s development review process, which may include re view pursuant to CEQA that includes site- specific analysis and would be required to demonstrate compliance with federal, State, and local regulations aimed at protecting biological resources.
Following compliance with the established regu latory framework described above, future housing development would not result in substantial adverse effect, either directly or indirectly, or through habitat modifications to special status wildlife and plants. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant level.
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any ri parian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
Less Than Significant Impact. The HEU Project would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate future housing development throughout the City. All future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to the City’s development review process, which may include environmental review under CEQA which includes site-specific analysis where sensitive vegetation communities are assumed to be present. Surveys would verify and confirm the presence of sensitive vegetation communitie s and determine the extent of any potential impacts and the need for mitigation.
All future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be required to demonstrate compliance with federal, State, and local requirements aimed at protecting biological resources, including those in the Arcadia GP, as discussed in Threshold 4(a) above. Therefore, the HEU would not result in substantial adverse effect, either di rectly or indirectly, on any sensitive vegetation communities and impact would be less than significant in this regard. c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Less Than Significant Impact. As previously noted, the project would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate future housin g development throughout the City. All future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to the City’s development review process, which may include environmental review under CEQA, and required to demonstrate compliance with relevant federal, State, and lo cal regulations for avoiding and minimizing impacts to wetlands and other waters of the U.S. and State. Following compliance with the established regulatory framework future housin g development would not result in substantial adverse effect, either directly or indirectly, on any known wetlands or ot her waters of the U.S. and State. A less than significant impact would occur.
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Less Than Significant Impact. Future projects are not expected to substantially interfere with the movement of any native species. All future ho using development facilitated by the HEU would also be subject to environmental review under CEQA, the City’s development review process, and required to adhere to relevant federal, State, and local regulations for avoiding and minimizing interference with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish and wildlife species, migratory wildlife species, or migratory wildlife corridors. Future housing development where the City has determined a potential for im pacts to a wildlife corridor, would be required to comply with the established regulatory framework and mitigation measures of the Arcadia GP and Arcadia MC. Therefore, future housing develo pment would result in a less than significant impact on wildlife corridors. Anticipated impacts would be less than significant.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City has policies and ordinances for the protection of trees.
The City’s Oak Tree Regulations protect Engelm ann oaks, coast live oaks, and other oak trees.
The City also has a Comprehensive Tree Management Program for the protection of street trees.21 As previously stated, the HEU is a policy document and would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate and provide a policy framework for future housing development on candidate housing sites throughout the City. All future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to the City’s deve lopment review process which may include environmental review under CEQA and be required to demonstrate compliance with the Arcadia GP goals and policies, Arcadia MC standards, federal, State, and local regulations. Future housing development would also be required to comp ly with the Oak Tree Regulations and the Comprehensive Tree Management Program. Ther efore, HEU would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological re sources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance, and impacts would be less than significant.
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan? No Impact. Currently, the City does not have Habita t Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans, or other approved local, regi onal, or State habitat conservation plans that cover habitats located within the City. As discussed above, the project would not result in direct housing construction, but would facilitate future housing development throughout the City. All future housing development facilitated by the HE U would be subject to the City’s development review process, which may include environmen tal review under CEQA, and be required to demonstrate compliance with federal, State, and local regulations regarding biological resources and policies. The Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, and no impact is anticipated in this regard.
21 City of Arcadia. 2010 General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. Available at https://www.arcadiaca.gov/shape/development_services_department/planning___zoning/general_plan.php#outer-708. Accessed November 2021
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
V. Cultural Resources
Would the Project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Less Than Significant Impact. The HEU is a policy document and would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate and provide a policy framework for future housing development throughout the City. Therefore, future housing development facilitated by the HEU could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, as defined in CEQA Guidelines §15064.5, through demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration, if such a resource is present on or near the site. There are 31 cultural resources, including both archaeological and historic resources, recorded at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC). In addition, there are three (3) built environmental historic reso urces that are eligible for listing or listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The potential impacts to known cultural resources resulting from future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be assessed on a case-by-case basis at the time of the projects are proposed. All future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to the City’s development review process, which may include environmental review under CEQA and be required to adhere to all federal, State, and local regulations for avoiding impacts to historical resources, including the National Historic Preservation Act. Arcadia GP Goal PR-9aims to retain and preserve the City’s significant historical and cultural resources and provide public understanding and involvement of the unique heritage of the City.
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the si gnificance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Less Than Significant Impact. As previously noted, the HEU is a policy document and would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate future housing development throughout the City. Therefore, ground-disturbing activities such as grading or excavation, associated with future housing development facilitated by the HEU could impact archaeological resources. The likelihood of encountering archeological resource s on undeveloped sites is greatest given these have been minimally disturbed in the past (e.g ., undeveloped parcels, vacant lots, and lots containing undeveloped areas). Alternately, prev iously disturbed sites are generally considered to have a lower potential for archeological resources, since previous construction activities may have already removed or disturbed soil that may have contained resources. A majority of the candidate housing sites are located in areas urba n and built areas that have been developed, except for the approximately 25.86-acre Arcadia Golf Course. However, future development of the proposed 192-unit within the Arcadia Golf Course facilitated by the HEU would be subject to project-specific CEQA review and would be requ ired to comply with site-specific applicable Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
mitigation measures, if any. Future development of the Arcadia Golf Course site would also be subject to the City’s development review process. However, as stated above, the HEU is a policy document and would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate and provide a policy framework for future housing developmen t on candidate housing sites throughout the City, including the Arcadia Golf Course.
Future housing development could distur b and potentially destroy subsurface prehistoric/historic archaeological resources through ground disturbances. All future housing development facilitated by the HEU would therefore be subject to the City’s development review process, which may include environmental review under CEQA, and be required to adhere to all federal, State, and local requirements for avoidi ng impacts to archeological resources. This includes compliance with the Arcadia GP, which includes goals aimed at reducing archeological impacts. Compliance with the established regu latory framework would reduce any potential impacts to less than significant.
c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Less Than Significant Impact. According to the Arcadia GP EIR, no known human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, have been identified in the City.22While it is not expected human remains within a formal cemetery would be disturbed as a result of future development facilitated by the Project, human remains could be accidentally uncovered during grading and ground moving activities occurring during future housing development facilitated by the Project. Thus, future construction of the candidate housing sites has the potential to disturb sacred human remains through grading, thereby resulting in a potentially significant impact.
In the unlikely event that human remains are discovered, the provisions set forth in California PRC §5097.98 and State HSC §7050.5 would be im plemented in consultation with the assigned most likely descendant as identified by the NAHC. In this event, no further construction activities would be permitted until the coroner is contacte d, as well as any applicable Native American tribes. The City would be required to comply with the California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (2001) and the Federal Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (1990). These regulations would address inadvertent uncovering of human remains during grading. Compliance with the established regulatory framework would result in a less than significant impact.
22 City of Arcadia. 2010 General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. Available at https://www.arcadiaca.gov/shape/development_services_department/planning___zoning/general_plan.php#outer-708. Accessed November 2021.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
VI. Energy
Would the Project:
a. Result in a potentially significant environmen tal impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Construction
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate and provide a policy framework for future housing development throughout the City. Therefore, future housing development faci litated by the HEU would result in the direct consumption of electricity and natural gas resour ces. Energy use from construction activities would primarily result from the use of diesel fuel (e.g., mobile construction equipment), fuel use by vehicles and construction equipment and vehicle trips associated with workers commuting to and from construction sites, and electricity (e.g., power tools) and fuel use. During construction, some incidental energy conservation would occur through compliance with State requirements.
Construction equipment would also be required to comply with the latest Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and CARB engine emissions standards. Construction-related energy consumption associated with future housing de velopments would be su bject to project-level review, approval by the City, and environmental review under CEQA.
Future construction activities associated wi th future housing development would also be required to monitor air quality emissions using applicable regulatory guidance per SCAQMD. This requirement indirectly relates to construction energy conservation because when air pollutant emissions are reduced as a result of monitoring and the efficient use of equipment and materials, this results in reduced energy consumption. There are no aspects of the HEU that would foreseeably result in the inefficient, wastef ul, or unnecessary consumption of energy during construction activities of future housing developments.
There are no unusual characteristics that woul d necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less energy efficient than at comparable construction sites in the region or State.
Future housing developments would be subjec t to environmental review under CEQA and project-specific review and approval to ensure compliance with applicable City goals, policies, and code requirements. Therefore, it is expected that construction fuel consumption associated with the HEU would not be any more inefficien t, wasteful, or unnecessary than other similar projects of this nature. Impacts to energy reso urces associated with the future developments’ construction activities would be less than sign ificant. Project implementation would not grant any entitlements or building permit issuances th at would result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
Operations
Less Than Significant Impact. As previously noted, the project would not result in direct housing construction, but would facilitate future hous ing development. Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would consume energy dur ing operations through building electricity, water, and natural gas usage, as well as fuel usage from on-road vehicles. Passenger vehicles would be mostly powered by gasoline, with some fu eled by diesel or electricity. Public transit would be powered by diesel or natural gas and could potentially be fueled by electricity. All future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to the City’s development review process and required to adhere to all federal, State, and local requirements for energy efficiency, including Senate Bill (SB) 32’s Scoping Plan that includes a 50 percent reduction in petroleum use in vehicles and the latest Title 24 standards. It is also be noted that the project design and materials would be subject to compliance with the most current Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the City would review and verify that the project plans demonstrate compliance with the current version of the Building and Energy Efficiency Standards. The project would also be required adhere to the provisions of CALGreen, which establishes planning and design standards for sustainable site development, energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code requirements), water conservation, material conservation, and internal air contaminants. Therefore, project implementation would not result in a substantial increase in transportationǦrelated energy uses, such that it would result in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. b. Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Less Than Significant Impact. As previously discussed, the Project would not result in direct housing construction, but would facilitate future housing development. Future housing development facilitated by the Project would be required to comply with State Building Energy Efficiency Standards, appliance efficiency regu lations, and green building standards. Project development would not cause inefficient, wast eful, and unnecessary energy consumption, and no adverse impact would occur. Further, the Proj ect would also be required to comply with the policies included in the Arcadia GP Goal RS-5 aimed at reducing energy consumption.
Future housing development facilitated by the proposed project would be required to obtain permits and comply with federal, State, and local regulations aimed at reducing energy consumption. Federal and State energy regulations, such as the California Energy Code Building Energy Efficiency Standards (CCR Title 24, Part 6), the CALGreen Code (CCR Title 24, Part 11), and SB 743 transportation-related impact analysis requirements would also be imposed through future development permit review to minimize future energy consumption. Therefore, future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be required to be consistent with applicable federal, State, and local laws, policies, and regu lations related to renewable energy and energy efficiency. No direct physical environmental impacts would occur.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
VII. Geology and Soils
Would the Project:
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substant ial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by th e State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (Act) was passed in 1972 to address the hazard of surface faulting to structures for human occupancy. Alquist-Priolo fault zones are those that contain active faults that have erupted within the last 11,000 years.
Alquist-Priolo fault zones prohibit the deve lopment of structures which allow for human occupancy within their boundaries or along their fault lines. The City c ontains two fault zones; the Arcadia – Colton Fault, and a portion of the San Jacinto Fault. The City contains two fault zones; the Raymond Fault, and a portion of the Sierra Madre Fault. The portion of the Sierra Madre Fault is not considered an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone, the Raymond Fault is. A portion of the candidate housing sites in are located in the Alquist-Priolo fault zone. However, these areas were previously evaluated in the Arcadia GP EIR anal ysis and future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be required to adhere to the applicable mitigation measures to reduce impacts to less than significant. Furthermore, the Project would comply with applicable goals and policies contained within the Arcadia GP including Goal S-1, Policy S-1.2, and Policy S-1.3.
All other future housing development outside of the Alquist-Priolo fault zone area would also be required to demonstrate conformance with seismic design guidelines and requirements contained in the current Title 24 - California Standards Building Code (CBC). The CBC contains design and construction regulations pertaining to seismic safety for buildings, which covers issues such as ground motion, soil classifications, redundancy, drift, and deformation compatibility. The City’s Geotechnical Investigation Ordinance re quires new developments to fully analyze the geological condition of their project sites as well as any potential effect associated with development of their project sites. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
iii. Seismic related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides?
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
Less Than Significant Impact. Liquefaction is the loss of strength where loose, saturated, relatively cohesion-less soil deposits lose shear strength during strong ground motions. According to the Arcadia GP’s Figure S-3, Liquefaction an d Landslide Hazards, the Project site contains a general area designated as an Area of Modera tely Liquefication Susceptibility in the City’s northern and southern portions. The project would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate future housing development thro ughout the City. Therefore, future housing facilitated by the HEU could be subject to liquefaction. All future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to environmenta l review under CEQA, the City’s development review process, and required to adhere to all federal, State, and local requirements. The City requires inclusion of a Soils Report, per the Arcadia MC §9105.09.110, to be included in grading plans. Therefore, future housing development would be subject to the requirements of the Arcadia MC §9105.09.110. Considering these requirements, including the preparation of Soils Reports for future housing developments, as required by City Codes, future housing development facilitated by the HEU would not create substant ial risks to life or property associated with expansive soils. The Project candidate housing focu s areas are relatively flat and not within an area susceptible to landslides. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact. The Project would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate future housing development throughout the City. Therefore, future development facilitated by the HEU would involve grading acti vities that would disrupt soil profiles, and thereby result in potential increased exposure of soils to wind and rain. Erosion on graded slopes could cause downstream sedimentation impacts. Other related impacts resulting from substantial short-term erosion or loss of topsoil include topography changes and the creation of impervious surfaces. As previously noted, all future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to environmental review under CEQA, the City’s development review process, and required to adhere to all federal, State, an d local requirements for avoiding and minimizing impacts concerning soil erosion or loss of topsoil.
Prior to initiation of ground disturbing activities , future project applicants would be required to demonstrate compliance with the Arcadia MC in cluding requirements pertaining to erosion control to the satisfaction of the City engineer s. Short-term construction-related erosion would be addressed through compliance with the NPDES program, which requires implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWP PP) and best management practices (BMPs) intended to reduce soil erosion. Considering these requirements, future housing development facilitated by the HEU would not result in substa ntial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Less Than Significant Impact . Subsidence occurs when a large portion of land is displaced vertically, usually due to the withdrawal of groundwater, oil, or natural gas. Soils that are particularly subject to subsidence include those wi th high silt or clay content. The potential for liquefaction is greatest in the northeast portion of the City, away from potential candidate sites.
The project would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate future housing development throughout the City. All future h ousing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to environmental review under CEQA , the City’s development review process, and required to adhere to all federal, State, and local requirements, including the City’s Building and Construction codes (Arcadia MC Article VIII). Considering these requirements, including the preparation of Soils Reports for future housing developments, future housing development facilitated by the HEU would not create substant ial risks to life or property associated with expansive soils. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
No Impact. The Project would not result in direct hous ing construction but would facilitate and provide a policy framework for future housing development throughout the City. All future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be in areas served by the City’s sanitary sewer system and would therefore not use septic tank s or other alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, no impact would occur.
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleonto logical resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Less Than Significant Impact. While the Project would not result in direct housing construction, it would facilitate and provide a policy framework for future housing development throughout the City. Therefore, there is a likelihood that earthwork activities associated with future housing development facilitated by the HEU would encounter a paleontological resource. Direct impacts to paleontological resources could occur when ea rthwork activities (e.g., grading) cut into sensitive paleontological areas, thereby dire ctly damaging the resource, or exposing paleontological resources to potential indirect impacts (e.g., surficial erosion, uncontrolled specimen collection). All future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to environmental review under CEQA, the City’s development review process, and relevant federal Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
and State regulations regarding paleontological resources. The City’s development review process may require additional studies if paleontological resources are suspected to be impacted by future development on future candidate ho using sites. Compliance with the established regulatory framework would ensure potentia l impacts from future housing development concerning the destruction of a unique paleonto logical resource or unique geologic feature would be less than significant.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Would the Project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate and provide a policy framework for future housing development throughout the City. As noted in Section 14: Population and Housing, the future housing development facilitated by the HEU could potentially result in a populat ion growth of 17,346 persons or approximately 30 percent from the estimated 2020 population of 57,820, as shown in Table 1.
Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would result in an increase in GHG due to increased VMT, construction activities, stationary area sources (i.e., natural gas consumption for space and water heating devices, landscape ma intenance equipment operations, and use of consumer products), energy consumption, wate r supply, and solid waste generation. Increased GHG emissions could contribute to global clim ate change patterns and the adverse global environmental effects thereof. GHG emissions associated with future development are anticipated to include CO2, N2O, and CH4. Future housing development would be subject to the City’s discretionary review process, CEQA evaluation, and plan check process, which may require future applicants prepare air quality and greenh ouse gas emission studies using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). CalEEMod relies upon project-specific land use data to calculate emissions. Site-specific details are not av ailable for this analysis of the HEU, which is programmatic in nature.
The SCAG’s Connect SoCal: The 2020 – 2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) is a long-range visioning plan that balances future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental and public health goals. 23 The City’s existing zoning
designations could potentially facilitate housing developing in certain commercially zoned areas, and therefore reduce VMT and GHG impacts by creating housing opportunities in areas with pedestrian connectivity between residential and commercial uses and in proximity to public transportation, along established transportation co rridors, near recreation opportunities, and away from environmentally sensitive resources. Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be required to meet the mandatory energy requirements of California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) and the Energy Code (CCR Title 24, Part 6) in effect at the time of development. These regulations require that new development incorporate design features to capture energy efficiencies associated with bui lding heating, ventilating, and air conditioning mechanical systems, water heating systems, an d lighting. Future housing development would
23 SCAG. Connect SoCal (2020). Retrieved from https://scag.ca.gov/connect-socal. Accessed on August 25, 2021.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
also be required to implement strategies outlined in the City's climate action plan, which includes several measures that have the potential to reduce GHG emissions. As a result, fewer VMT results in fewer GHGs. Therefore, future developmen t facilitated by the HEU would not generate significant greenhouse gas emissions impacts. Impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. b. Conflict with applicable plan, policy or regula tion adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project does not include physical alterations to the City which could directly create changes to the City’s existing air quality or regional air quality. Instead, the Project proposes multiple regulatory changes to the City’s General Plan. The City has identified candidate housing sites which would allow for the future development of additional DUs. These candidate housing sites are spread throughout the City. Exhibit 3: Map of Candidate Housing Sites shows the location of the identified candidate housing sites within the City.
As summarized in Section 14: Population and Housing , additional housing developments facilitated by the Project would exceed the City’s buildout growth projections in 2035. Therefore, the additional housing associated with the Projec t could inherently generate GHG at a rate that exceeds previous estimates or established limitations. Future housing development facilitated by the Project would result in an increase in GHG due to increased vehicle miles traveled (VMT), construction activities, stationary area sources (i.e., natural gas consumption for space and water heating devices, landscape maintenance equipment operations, and use of consumer products), energy consumption, water supply, and solid waste generation. Increased GHG emissions could contribute to global climate change patterns and the adverse global environmental effects thereof. GHG emissions associated with future development are anticipated to include CO2, N2O, and CH4. At the time of their initiation, new developments facilitated by the Project would be required to comply with applicable federal, State, and local regulations regarding GHG emission.
This includes policies instituted by SCAQMD in which developers would be required to comply with one of five exclusion tiers in order to avoid significant environmental impacts. Furthermore, future projects facilitated by the Project would continue to be required to comply with the California Building Code, which includes Title 24, Part 11. This requires residential developments to be planned and developed in a manner that is consistent with any applicable regulations involving energy efficiency, water efficiency/conservation, material conservation and resource efficiency, and environmental quality.
The HEU is a policy document and would not direct ly generate additional GHG emissions within the City. The Project is being created in accordance with the State Housing Law and general plan laws. To comply with the laws, the Project wo uld need to be created within the framework provided by State law and would therefore not conflict with other established State laws such as GHG regulations. Further, future development facilitated by the Project would be required to comply with existing GHG regulations and with the proposed additions to the Arcadia GP.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
Therefore, potential impacts to GHG levels as a result of Project implementation would be less than significant without mitigation.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would the Project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less Than Significant Impact. Exposure of the public or the environment to hazardous materials can occur through transportation accidents; environmentally unsound disposal methods; improper handling of hazardous materials or hazardous wastes (particularly by untrained personnel); and/or emergencies, such as explosions or fires. The severity of these potential effects varies by type of activity, concentration and/or type of hazardous materials or wastes, and proximity to sensitive receptors.
The Project would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate and provide a policy framework for future housing development throughout the City. Demolition and construction activities associated with future housing development facilitated by the HEU would require transport of hazardous materials (e.g., asbestos containing materials, lead-based paint, and/or contaminated soils). This transport wo uld be limited in duration. Compliance with handling measures is required by the City and the State Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) during construction and operational phas es of future development projects. These measures include standards and regulations re garding the storage, handling, and use of hazardous materials.
Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would not involve ongoing or routine use of substantial quantities of hazardous materials duri ng operations (occupancy of future housing).
Only small quantities of hazardous materials wo uld be anticipated including cleaning solvents, fertilizers, pesticides, and other materials used in regular maintenance. Impacts associated with the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant. b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate future housin g development throughout the City. Therefore, excavation and grading activities associated with future development facilitated by the HEU could expose construction workers and the general public to unknown hazardous materials present in soil or groundwater. All future housing development fa cilitated by the HEU wo uld be subject to the City’s development review process, which may include environmental review under CEQA, and be required to demonstrate consistency with the regulatory framework for minimizing upset associated with hazardous materials. Following compliance with the established regulatory Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
framework potential impacts involving the accide ntal discovery of unknown wastes or suspect materials during construction would be less than significant. c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less Than Significant Impact. The Project would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate future housing development throughout the City. The future housing development facilitated by the HEU would have a potentially significant impact on the environment if it would emit hazardous emissions or substances within 0.25-mile of an existing or proposed school. However, by its nature, and compared to existing land uses, future residential uses from the proposed candidate housing sites would not typically emit hazardous materials, substances, and wastes that are more hazardous than that of more intense uses such as commercial, industrial, and mixed uses. Further, all future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to the City’s development review process, which may include environmental review under CEQA, and be required to adhere to regulations related to the emissions or handling of hazardous materials, subs tances, or wastes near schools to reduce the potential for impacts to schools. Adherence to California Hazardous Waste Control Law, California Health and Safety Code, and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations would reduce potential impacts associated with the accidental release of hazardous materials. As a result, future housing development facilitated by the HEU would not conflict with any State or local plan aimed at preventing emis sions or handling of hazardous materials near schools. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to the responses above. The Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) is a department of Cal/EPA and is the primary agency in California that regulates hazardous waste, clean-up existing contaminatio n, and looks for ways to reduce the hazardous waste produced in California. Government Code §65962.5 (commonly referred to as the Cortese List) includes DTSC-listed hazardous wast e facilities and sites, the State Department of Health Services’ lists of contaminated drinki ng water wells, sites listed by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) as having unde rground storage tank leaks and having had a discharge of hazardous wastes or materials into the water or groundwater; as well as, lists from local regulatory agencies of sites that have had a known migration of hazardous waste/material.
As previously noted, the HEU is a policy docu ment and would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate and provide a policy framework for future housing development throughout the City. As Such, all future development would be subject to verification of the site(s) none-inclusion on the list of hazardous waste sites (Cortese List) compiled by the DTSC pursuant Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
to CGC §65962.5. Per Arcadia GP Goal S-4 an d Implementation Actions 8-6 and 8-7, future housing development facilitated by the HEU wo uld be required to comply with existing regulations; as well as prepare Environmental Site Assessments to identify and abate hazardous material releases from prior land uses. 24 In addition, compliance with applicable federal, State, and local regulations would result in a less than significant impact concerning hazardous materials sites.
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in the Arcadia GP EIR, the nearest airport to the City is the El Monte Airport; however, the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) for the El Monte Airport does not extend into the City of Arcadia. 25 However, future housing development facilitated by the HEU in the southern section of the City, incl uding development within the Live Oak Corridor and the Arcadia Golf Course may extend into the navigable airspace (within two (2) miles) of the El Monte Airport and could affect aircraft landing and take-off operations. 26 As such, future housing development facilitated by the HEU in these areas would be required to comply with the height limitations in the FAR Part 77.27 Further, all future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to the City’s develo pment review process, which may include environmental review under CEQA, and be required to adhere to all applicable regulations. A Less than significant impact would occur in this regard.
f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate future housing development th roughout the City. Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would increase allowable housing capacity in certain areas located throughout the City. This increase in density could result in an increased demand on emergency evacuation services in the event of a citywide or partial city emergency. However, the increased housing capacity associated with the HEU woul d predominantly occur within areas that have already been developed with residential and non-residential uses. Therefore, no changes in the City’s existing circulation network are proposed or required under the HEU and no impact to emergency response or evacuation is anticipated. All future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to the City’s development review process, which may include
24 City of Arcadia. 2010 General Plan – Section 10 Implementation Plan. Available at https://cms9files.revize.com/arcadia/Shape%20Arcadia/Development%20Services/general%20plan/Implementation%20Plan.pdf. Accessed November 2021.
25 City of Arcadia. 2010 General Plan Environmental Impact Report – Section 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Available at https://cms9files.revize.com/arcadia/Shape%20Arcadia/Development%20Services/eir/Hazards.pdf. Accessed November 2021. 26 Ibid.
27 Ibid.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
environmental review under CEQA, Arcadia MC, in cluding §9103.07 which requires developers to include suitable site access for emergency vehicles. As a result, future housing development facilitated by the HEU would not conflict with any State, County, or local plan aimed at preserving and maintaining adopted emerge ncy response or emergency evacuation plans. Impacts would be less than significant.
g. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Section 20: Wildfire . Future housing development facilitated by the Project would not directly or indirectly expose people or structures to a risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. The City has significant interface areas where a proactive approach to preventing the start and spread of wildland fire is vital to protecting lives and property. The northern portion of the City’s area is designated as Very High fire hazard severity zones, as mapped by CAL FIRE. The candidate housing sites may be developed in these areas adjacent to areas near open space; therefore, risk of wildfire could occur.
Federal, State, and county fire suppression agencies have responsibility areas in the City. To protect the City and its residents from fire hazards, the City has building and fire codes that must be followed. Using fire-resistant building materi als, implementing fuel modification zones, and maintaining vegetation clearance around structures is required to protect buildings and reduce the potential loss of life and property. New development in wildland and urban-wildland interface areas must be consistent with the existing regulations, including the State Fire Code, to meet fire safety standards for building constructi on. Additionally, the California Building Code includes sections on fire-resistant construction material requirements based on building use and occupancy. The construction requirements a re a function of building size, purpose, type, materials, location, proximity to other structur es, and the type of fire suppression systems installed. Because the State of California, C ounty of San Bernardino, and the City require adherence to building codes and review by the fire department to reduce wildland fires, fire hazard impacts would be less than significant.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
X. Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the Project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or wa ste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate and provide a policy framework for future housing development throughout the City. Future housing development could result in potential impacts related to water quality over three (3) different periods:
x During the earthwork and construction phase, where the potential for erosion, siltation, and sedimentation would be the greatest;
x Following construction, before the establishment of ground cover, when the erosion potential may remain relatively high; and
x After project completion, when impacts related to sedimentation would decrease markedly but those associated with urban runoff would increase.
Urban runoff, both dry and wet weather, discharges into storm drains, and in most cases, flows directly to creeks, rivers, lakes, and the ocean.
Construction
Short-term impacts related to water quality ca n occur during the earthwork and construction phases of future housing development projects. During this phase, the potential for erosion, siltation, and sedimentation would be the greatest. Additionally, impacts could occur prior to the establishment of ground cover when the erosion potential may remain relatively high. All future housing development facilitated by the HEU woul d be subject to environmental review under CEQA, the City’s development review process, and compliance with the established regulatory framework pertaining to water quality. If future developments disturb more than one acre of land surface, they would be required to obtain coverage under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) storm water prog ram. The NPDES Construction General Permit program calls for the implementation of best management practices (BMPs) to reduce or prevent pollutant discharge from these activities to the Maximum Extent Practicable for urban runoff and meeting the Best Available Technology Economically Achievable and Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology standards for construction storm water. Construction activities would be required to comply with a project-specific St ormwater Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) that identifies erosion-control and sediment-control BMPs that would meet or exceed measures required by the Construction Activity General Pe rmit to control potential construction-related Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
pollutants. Erosion-control BMPs are designed to prevent erosion, whereas sediment controls are designed to trap sediment once it has been mobilized.
Additionally, the future development projects facilitated by the HEU would be required to comply with the City’s Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (Arcadia MC Article VII Chapter 8). The Stormwater Ordinance esta blishes requirements for the management of storm water flows from development projects, both to prevent erosion and to protect and enhance existing water-dependent habitats. The Ordinance assures consistency with the purpose and intent of this chapter and shall implement the requirements of an NPDES Permit.
Operations
Due to the built-out nature of the City, most surface flows are directed toward existing stormwater drainage facilities. The project would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate future housing development throughout the City.
All future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to environmental review under CEQA, the City’s development review proce ss, to install, implement, and maintain the BMPs identified in Arcadia MC §7823 includi ng, but not limited to erosion management; materials storage; inspection, maintenance, repair, upgrade of BMPs; and preparation of SWPPP.
Additionally, future developments would be required to comply with Arcadia MC §7823 pertaining to Residential BMP requirements including minimum BMPs specified for landscaping, home care and maintenance, and motor vehicle maintenance.
All new development would also be required to comply with existing water quality standards and waste discharge regulations set forth by the State Water Quality Control Board (SWQCB). Future developments facilitated by the HEU would comply with these regulations and waste discharges would be connected to the public wastewater system.
Future housing development facilitated by the HE U would be required to adhere to all federal, State, and local requirements for avoiding violation of water quality standards during construction and operations. Considering these requirements, future housing development facilitated by the HEU would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrad e surface or groundwater quality. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Less Than Significant Impact. In 2014, the State of California adopted the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) to help manage its groundwater. The SGMA requires that local Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSAs) be formed for all high and medium priority basins Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
in the State. These GSAs must develop and impl ement Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) for managing and using groundwater without causing undesirable results.
The City’s potable water supply is served by the City via the Public Works Services Department.
These water utilities acquire their water from groundwater basins in the area, surface water, and from importing water from surrounding utilities and water districts. While potential projects could increase water demand by increasing resi dential density and population, the City would need to meet this demand without increasing groundwater withdrawal significantly. Examples of achieving this would be to increase the amount of water imported, implementing water conservation measures, increase recycled water use, and/or implement groundwater recharging projects.
Future developments facilitated by the Projec t could potentially increase the amount of impervious surface area in the City from devel opment of undeveloped parcels, particularly the
25.86-acre Arcadia Golf Course. As such, future development within the Arcadia Golf Course will be required to comply with the Arcadia MC §7554.9 – Stormwater Management and Rainwater Retention and implement BMPs into the landscape and grading design plans to minimize runoff and to increase on-site infiltration that rech arges groundwater and improves water quality.
However, a large portion of the identified candidate housing site areas have been developed into residential and non-residential uses. Because rede velopment of existing structures is a primary effort, any potential project would not signific antly interfere substantially with groundwater recharge.
Additionally, construction of any potential proj ect that would involve excavation into or below the water table would require dewatering and those dewatering operations would need to comply with all dewatering requ irements to protect groundwater quality and supply. This is coupled with the BMPs that will be utilized during construction as laid out in the SWPPP to limit the amount of pollution in stormwater that recharges groundwater basins. With the proper implementation of stormwater BMPs, the impact of potential projects on groundwater resources would be minimized and these impacts would be less than significant. c. Substantially alter the existing drainage patter n of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or pr ovide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate future housing development th roughout the City. Most candidate housing candidate sites are developed and contain impe rvious surfaces, which direct surface flows toward existing City facilities. Due to the primar ily built-out nature of the City, construction of future housing developments facilitated by the HEU would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern through the addition of impervious surfaces. The drainage areas, as well as the drainage characteristics/patterns in the implem entation condition would be similar to existing conditions.
All future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to environmental review under CEQA, the City’s development review process, and required to adhere to all federal, State, and local requirements for avoiding impacts that could substantially alter the existing drainage pattern or alter the course of a stream or river, including the City’s Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (Arcadia MC Article VII Chapter 8).
Considering these requirements, future housing development facilitated by the HEU would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area. This includes no alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site, substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off-site, create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drai nage systems, or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, or impede or redirect flood flows. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Arcadia is located approximately 23.6 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean. Given the distance from the coast, the potential for the Project site to be inundated by a large, catastrophic tsunami is extr emely low. No steep slopes are in the vicinity of the City; therefore, the risk of mudflow is in significant. Additionally, as previously noted the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) iden tifies the entire City of Arcadia to be in Flood Hazard Zone X, which is identified as 500-year Floodplain, an area of minimal flood hazard.
28 Furthermore, all future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to the City’s development review process, which may includ e environmental review under CEQA, and be required to adhere to all federal, State, and local requirements for avoiding and minimizing
28 FEMA. (2008). FEMA Flood Map Service Center: Search By Address. Retrieved from:
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=arcadia#searchresultsanchor Accessed October 12, 2021.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
impacts related to flood hazards, tsunami, or seiches, including the Arcadia GP policies and Arcadia MC codes. Considering these requirement s, the future housing development facilitated by the HEU would not result in significant increased risk concerning release of pollutants due to inundation, tsunami, or seiche zones. Therefore, HEU impacts would be less than significant. e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. As previously noted, in 2014, the SGMA was passed, The SGMA provides authority for agencies to develop and implement groundwater sustainability plans (GSP) or alternative plans that demonstrate the water basins are being managed sustainably. As discussed under Threshold 10b, the City is unli kely to face groundwater impacts through the implementation of the Project. Therefore, futu re housing development facilitated by the HEU would not obstruct implementation of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) and would comply with the Arcadia MC §7554.9 – Stormwater Management and Rainwater Retention.
The City’s Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (Arcadia MC Arcadia MC Article VII Chapter 8) aims to protect water resources and improve water quality. The ordinance causes use of management practices by the city and its citizens that will reduce the adverse effects of polluted runoff discharges on waters of the State and control contribution of pollutants to City’s municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s), and to ensure that the City is compliant with RWQCB and with applicable State and federal law.
Future developments facilitated by the HEU would be required to prepare a stormwater management plan and incorporate stormwater standards manual requirements into design documents to minimize potential impacts to water quality. Submitted materials would be required to demonstrate how the requirements of this stormwater ordinance would be met, and the permit or approval would not be approved unless the decision maker determines that the application complies.
Further, dischargers whose projects disturb one or more acres of soil or whose projects disturb less than one acre but are part of a larger common plan of development that in total disturbs one or more acres, are required to comply with th e General Permit for Discharges of Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ). The Construction General Permit requires the development of a SWPPP by a certified Qualified SWPPP Developer.
All future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to environmental review under CEQA, the City’s development review process, and required to adhere to all federal, State, and local requirements for avoiding and mini mizing conflicts with or obstruction of implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
Further, future housing development facilitated by the HEU would not prevent the City’s Clean Water Program from ensuring that MS4 Permit, and Basin Plan requirements are met. As a result, future housing development facilitated by the HEU would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
XI. Land Use and Planning
State Housing law requires that the Housing Elemen t identify specific sites that are potentially suitable for residential development. The City has compiled an inventory of candidate housing sites, which includes properties that are disp ersed throughout the community to minimize the potential for adverse changes to the neighborho od character and aesthetics and reduce the potential for adverse environmental impacts. As part of the initial site investigation, the candidate housing sites inventory encompassed six focus areas that were identified as potentially suitable areas for future housing expansion (see Exhibit 3). The opportunity area locations and candidate housing sites are summarized here and described later in this section Would the Project:
a. Physically divide an established community?
Less Than Significant Impact. Projects that divide an estab lished community can involve large scale linear infrastructure, such as freeways, high ways, and drainage facilities, that bisect an established community or crate barriers to mo vement within that community. Additionally, “local undesirable land uses,” such as prisons or landfills sites within economically depressed areas can also divide an established community.
As previously noted, the HEU does not propose any development. The Project would not result in direct housing construction but would facilit ate and provide a policy framework for future housing development throughout the City. All future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to discretionary permits and would occur as market conditions allow and at the discretion of the individual property owners. However, the HEU would identify a series of implementation actions that would increase housing capacity. Future housing development would largely occur in developed areas and in areas currently zoned with allowed residential uses; therefore, an increase in housing capacity would be consistent with existing zoning and would not divide an established community. Furthe r, it is not anticipated that future housing development facilitated by the HEU would require substantial road-widenings or other features which could divide the established community. As well, candidate housing sites have been identified throughout the City, rather than concen trated in a single area, thus would not divide an established community. For this reason, a less than significant impact would occur. b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less Than Significant Impact. The HEU includes focus areas for future housing development to meet the City’s RHNA allocation of 3,214 units. a. As noted above, the project would not result in direct housing construction, but would facilitate future housing development. Future housing Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
development facilitated by the HEU, which woul d occur as market conditions allow and at the discretion of the individual property owners. However, the HEU would identify a series of implementing actions to increase the City’s hous ing capacity. As part of the HEU, additional housing units would be accommodated on the candidate housing sites that are ultimately selected through revisions to the City’s Housing Element. Future housing development facilitated by the HEU is anticipated to increase the City’s housing stock where capacity exists.
Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be the City’s development review process, which may include discretionary permit approval and environmental review under CEQA, as well as, be required to comply with app licable federal, State, and local laws and local policies and regulations, as applicable to new housing development. The HEU is subject to comply with applicable State Housing law. As such, the HEU would be consistent with applicable land use and planning policies in the State, regional, and local context as necessary to meet that legislation. This includes consistency with the General Plan. Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would therefore be consiste nt with all applicable land use and planning policies and regulations intended to minimize environmental effects; therefore, a less than significant impact would occur.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
XII. Mineral Resources
Would the Project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State?
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? Less Than Significant Impact. According to the Arcadia GP EIR, there are no mining operations currently ongoing in the City. The Rodeffer Quarry operated at the southern end of the City from 1967 to 1990.29 In 1994, the City approved the reclamation plan for the quarry that allowed the import of inert materials to fill the quarry pit. 30 Landfilling operations are regulated by the RWQCB, CalRecycle, the California Department of Mines and Geology (CDMG). 31 To date, the Rodeffer Quarry is partly filled and landfilling operations are ongoing. 32 The Project would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate and provide a policy framework for future housing development throughout the City. As previously noted, future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be su bject the City’s development review process, which may include discretionary permit review and approval and environmental review under CEQA, as well as, be required to comply with app licable federal, State, and local laws and local policies and regulations, as applicable to new housing development. Future housing development will also be required to adhere to Arcadia GP Goals RS-7 and Policies RS-7,1 through 7,3 which aim to prevent the loss of availability of regionally or locally significant aggregate recourses. Therefore, impact would be less than significant with respect to mineral resources.
29 City of Arcadia. 2010 General Plan Environmental Impact Report Section 4.10 – Mineral Resources. Available at https://cms9files.revize.com/arcadia/Shape%20Arcadia/Development%20Services/eir/MineralResources.pdf. Accessed November 2021. 30 Ibid.
31 Ibid.
32 Ibid.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
XIII. Noise
Would the Project:
a. Generate a substantial temporary or permanen t increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies?
Less Than Significant Impact.
Construction Noise . The project would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate and provide a policy framework for future housing development throughout the City.
Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would result in construction noise generated from development activities.
In general, construction would typically involve the following construction sequences: (1) site preparation and/or demolition; (2) grading and utilities construction; (3) building construction; (4) paving; and (5) architectural coatings. Ty pical construction equipment would include backhoes, excavators, graders, loaders, compac tors, cranes, trucks, pavers, pneumatic tools, generator sets, and air compressors. With except ion to pile-driving activities, construction equipment with substantially higher noise-generation characteristics (such as rock drills and blasting equipment) would not be anticipate d for construction of typical residential developments. Typical construction equipment generates maximum noise levels at 50 feet from the noise source ranging between 80 dBA for ba ckhoes and loading trucks, to 85-90 dBA for graders and excavators, as shown in Table 8, Maximum Noise Levels Generated by Construction Equipment below.
Table 8: Maximum Noise Levels Generated by Construction Equipment Equipment Acoustical Use Factor Lmax at 50 Feet (dBA) Lmax at 100 Feet (dBA) Concrete Saw 20 90 84
Crane 16 81 75
Concrete Mixer Truck 40 79 73
Backhoe 40 78 72
Dozer 40 82 76
Excavator 40 81 75
Forklift 40 78 72
Paver 50 77 71
Roller 20 80 74
Tractor 40 84 78
Water Truck 40 80 74
Grader 40 85 79
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
Equipment Acoustical Use Factor Lmax at 50 Feet (dBA) Lmax at 100 Feet (dBA) General Industrial Equipment 50 85 79
Notes:
1. dBA: A-weighted decibels; Lmax: maximum noise level.
2. The Acoustical Use Factor (percent) estimates the fraction of time each piece of construction equipment is operating at full power (i.e., its loudest condition) during a construction operation.
Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, 2020.
In general, construction noise can vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity and the specific type of equipment in operation. Additi onally, construction activities associated with future housing development faci litated by the HEU is anticipated to occur in incremental phases over time based on market demand, economic, and planning considerations.
As a result, construction-related noise would not be concentrated in any one particular area of the City.
All future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to the City’s development review process, which may includ e environmental review under CEQA, and be required to comply with the Arcadia MC Chapter 6, Noise Regulation. Construction associated with future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be required to comply with the Arcadia MC §4610.3 (Noise Limits) and adhere to Arcadia GP Goal N-1 and Policies N-1,1 through N-1.5 would reduce any potential impacts with regard to noise to less than significant.
For some future housing developments, such as those near sensitive noise receptors, the City may choose to require conditions of approval to include measures under its development review process such as temporary sound barriers and sh ielding to reduce potential noise impacts on sensitive receptors. For example, acoustically designed enclosures and buildings can provide up to approximately 50 dBA of noise reduction, depending on the noise abatement treatments implemented. The Arcadia Noise Ordinance exempts construction noise that occurs between the hours of 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM on any day except Sundays and major holidays.
Operations Noise. The project would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate future housing development throughout the City. Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would result in additional housing, people, pets, and automobiles in the City. Noise would be generated by stationary operation-related sour ces, such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units, tankless water heater s, generators, lawn maintenance equipment, and swimming pool pumps. All future housing development facilitated by the HEU may be subject to discretionary permits and environmental review under CEQA and would be required to demonstrate compliance with Arcadia MC Chapter 6.
Noise is also likely to occur from line sources, such as motor vehicle traffic. Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would result in increased traffic volumes on local city roadways, thereby increasing cumulative noise levels. Given the City’s largely developed nature, new housing development would not be expected to significantly increase traffic volume on local Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
roadways. Additional average daily trips (ADT) fr om future housing development facilitated by the HEU would need to more than double current ADT for there to be a discernable difference in noise levels (i.e., more than 3 dBA increase). Furthermore, most of the identified focus areas are within previously developed portions of the City already generating traffic volumes and mobile noises. All future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to environmental review under CEQA, the City’s development re view process. Compliance with Arcadia MC Chapter 6 would ensure future construction and operations related noise impacts would be less than significant.
b. Generate excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. The project would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate future housing development th roughout the City. Construction activities associated with future housing development fa cilitated by the HEU could result in varying degrees of groundborne vibration impacts from heavy equipment operations, depending on the construction procedure and equipment used . Construction equipment operations would generate vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in amplitude with distance from the source. The effect on buildings located near a construction site often varies depending on soil type, ground strata, and construction characteristics of the receiver building(s). Groundborne vibrations from construction activities rarely reach levels that damage structures.
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has published standard vibration velocities for construction equipment operations. In general, the FTA architectural damage criterion for continuous vibrations (i.e., 0.2 in/sec) appears to be conservative. The types of construction vibration impacts include human annoyance an d building damage. Human annoyance occurs when construction vibration rises significantl y above the threshold of human perception for extended periods of time. Building damage can be cosmetic or structural. Ordinary buildings that are not particularly fragile would not experience any cosmetic damage (e.g., plaster cracks) at distances beyond 30 feet. This distance can vary substantially depending on the soil composition and underground geological layer between vibrati on source and receiver. In addition, not all buildings respond similarly to vibration generate d by construction equipment. For example, for a building that is constructed with reinforced concrete with no plaster, the FTA guidelines show that a vibration level of up to 0.20 in/sec is c o n s i d e r e d s a f e a n d w o u l d n o t r e s u l t i n a n y construction vibration damage.
Ground-borne vibration generated by construc tion equipment spreads through the ground and diminishes in magnitude with increases in distance. Based on FTA data, vibration velocities from typical heavy construction equipment operations that would be used during Project construction range from 0.003 to 0.089 in/sec PPV at 25 feet from the source of activity.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
As previously discussed, the Project does not include physical alterations to the City. If proposed buildout were to occur, the additional allowable residential density at the candidate housing sites would remain within the expected population growth of the City and Region (See Section 14:
Population and Housing. The increase in density is not anticipated to change the overall impact of growth in the City compared to what was assumed in the Arcadia GP and SCAG’s Connect SoCal RTP/SCS. Any future development within the ca ndidate housing sites would be subject to the City’s standard development review process, including compliance with the City’s GP, compliance with the municipal code, and site-specific CEQA review. Therefore, impacts are less than significant.
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Less Than Significant Impact. Currently, there are no airports within the City of Arcadia. As previously discussed, the closest airport to Arcad ia is the El Monte Airport, which is located approximately 1.25 miles to the south of the Ci ty boundary. Per the Arcadia GP EIR, aircraft operations at this airport are audible at the southern section of the City, and flyovers at low levels are audible over the City of Arcadia. Future housing development within the Live Oak Corridor and the Arcadia Golf Course would be subject to the City’s development review process on a case-by-case basis, which may include disc retionary permit review and approval and environmental review under CEQA. The HEU is a policy document and does not directly involve housing construction. The HEU would not contain policies that would conflict with airport land use plans nor would it promote development near any airports. Therefore, less than significant impact related to exposing people to excessive as a result of airport land use would occur.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
XIV. Population and Housing
Would the Project:
a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Less Than Significant Impact. The HEU is a policy document and would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate and provide a policy framework for future housing development on candidate housing sits throughout the Ci ty and would not directly induce any population growth. To meet the City’s RHNA allocation of 3,214 units, the HEU identifies a series of implementing actions to increase the City’s ho using capacity that would induce some planned population growth in the City. As a component of Statewide housing legislation, any housing growth associated with the Project would be in accordance with State-level regulation and would therefore not be considered unplanned.
Any future housing development facilitated by the HEU would occur in urbanized locations near existing infrastructure (roads, utilities) and serv ed by fire and other emergency responders. As shown in Table 7, the City has identified the total pote ntial housing development capacity of approximately 7,222 housing units. As previously noted, because the Project does not propose physical alterations, direct population growth wo uld not be induced solely due to the Project’s implementation.
Table 9, Population Increase from Housing Element below summarizes the projected population growth associated with the implementation of the Project and future buildout of the City’s proposed 7,222 candidate housing units.
Table 9: Population Increase from Housing Element
Definition 6th Cycle Housing
Element
Number of RHNA Allocation Units 3,214
Number of Potential Candidate Housing Units 7,222
Existing Capacity including ADUs 2,386
New Housing Units 4,836
Persons per household (Department of Finance, 2020) 2.86 Population (Department of Finance, 2020) 57,820
Total Population Forecast with HEU 71,651
Forecasted Population Increase with HEU 13,831
Population Growth Forecast by Percentage with HEU 24%
2035 Development Capacity of 2010 Arcadia GP (Maximum Buildout) 61,995 Unplanned Additional Population Growth Forecast from 2035 Maximum Buildout with HEU 9,656 Population Growth Forecast (2020-2035) percentage without HEU 7.2% Population Growth Forecast (2020-2035) by Percentage with HEU 15.6% Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
Total Forecasted SCAG Population 2045 62,200
Total Forecasted SCAG Population 2045 with HEU 76,031
SCAG 2045 Population Growth Forecast Percentage with HEU 22.2% As shown in Table 9, future development facilitated by the Project would therefore enable the development of a total of 7,222 additional housing units within the City. When multiplied by the Department of Finance (2020) average persons per household of 2.86, the 7,222 housing units facilitated by the HEU would generate an ap proximately 13,831-person population increase within the City. When combined with the 2020 total population of 57,820 persons, the City would potential grow to a total population of approximately 71,651 during this HEU planning period.
This would create an approxim ate 24 percent increase in the 2020 population. However, the Arcadia GP EIR discussed the projected maximum population growth within the City in 2035 and estimated the maximum buildout to be approximately 61,995 persons.33 The proposed candidate housing sites are predominantly situated in urba nized and developed areas in the City within existing land use and zoning designations, consistent with the Arcadia GP and were evaluated as part of the total planned population and housin g growth in the GP. Therefore. the HEU would result in an increase of approximately 9,656 persons or 15.6 percent in unplanned population increase.
Without implementation of the Project, the Ci ty is anticipated to experience a population increase of approximately 7.2 percent to the projected 2035 maximum buildout population, as shown in Table 9. The HEU would result in a significant impact if it would “induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area.” While the HEU could potentially increase the population forecast by 15.6 percent, this increa se would not be considered substantial as the growth would occur over an extended period and the HEU is intended to help the City meet its RHNA allocation. Future housing development facilitated by the HEU is intended to be dispersed throughout the community in areas suited for residential development. As previously discussed, future housing development facilitated by the HEU would occur incrementally through 2029, based on market conditions and other constraints.
The implementation of the HEU would potentia lly increase the City’s projected population estimated by the SCAG RTP/SCS. The SCAG RTP/SCS anticipates the City’s population to be 62,200 people by 2045. With the inclusion of the Projec t this number will be increased by 22.2 percent to reach a total of 76,031 people. As with other projections, this number is a conservative estimate based on the development of the entire set of candidate sites.
It is noted that the Project would facilitate development of affordable housing units, in accordance with State law. The increase in affordable housing units would provide housing opportunities in proximity to jobs for those employed within the City that meet these household income categories, including those working in local retail/commercial service businesses, hotels,
33 City of Arcadia. 2010 General Plan Environmental Impact Report Section 4.12 – Population and Housing. Available at https://cms9files.revize.com/arcadia/Shape%20Arcadia/Development%20Services/eir/Population.pdf. Accessed November 2021.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
caregivers, property caretakers, and public occupations. Therefore, job availability would not be readily affected by the implementation of th e Project and would not lead to unexpected population growth.
As a component of Statewide housing legislatio n, any housing growth and population growth associated with the Project would be in acco rdance with State-level regulation and would therefore not be considered unplanned. Additionally, future housing development facilitated by the HEU would occur in urbanized locations near existing utilities and service systems, and areas already served by public services (e.g., po lice and fire protection, and other emergency responders).
Future housing development would be subject to discretionary permits and would be assessed on a case-by-case basis for potential effects concerning population growth. Additionally, future housing development would be subject to co mpliance with all Federal, State, and local requirements for minimizing growth-related impacts. Local requirements include those Stated in the Arcadia GP and Arcadia MC.
As discussed throughout this IS/ND, all future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to the City’s development review pr ocess, which may include environmental review under CEQA, and would be assessed on a project-by-project basis for potential effects concerning population growth. Additionally, future housin g development would be subject to compliance with all federal, State, and local requirements for minimizing growth-related impacts. Therefore, the HEU would not induce substantial unplanne d population growth in the City directly or indirectly, a less than significant impact would occur. b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Less Than significant Impact. Senate Bill (SB) 166 (2017) requires a City or County to ensure that its Housing Element inventory can accommodate its share of the regional housing need throughout the planning period. It prohibits a City or County from reducing, requiring, or permitting the reduction of the residential densit y to a lower residential density than what was utilized by the HCD for certification of the Housing Element, unless the City or County makes written findings supported by substantial evidence that the reduction is consistent with the adopted General Plan, including the Housing Elem ent. The City has identified sites which can meet the 1,672 unit low and very-low income RHNA need and can also accommodate a three percent buffer for those income categories, as demonstrated in Table 7. The City understands that should a “No Net Loss” scenario occur during the 2021-2029 planning period and they will be required to identify additional sites to acco mmodate any shortfall of capacity should that scenario occur. Therefore, the HEU’s potential impacts, including from future development facilitated by the HEU, concerning displacement of existing people or housing, and need to construct replacement housing elsewhere would be less than significant.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
XV. Public Services
Would the Project:
a. Result in substantial adverse physical impact s associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or need for new or physical altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for fire protection?
Less Than Significant Impact . The Project is a policy document and would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate and provide a policy framework for future housing development throughout the City. Future housing development facilitated by the Project would increase demand for fire protection services over time. Fire protection services are provided by the Arcadia Fire Department. The Arcadia Fire Department would continue to provide services to the future housing developments facilitated by the Project.
Future development in the Arcadia Golf Course would incrementally increase the demand for fire protection services to area. However, the proposed golf course site is already being serviced by existing infrastructure (e.g., roads and utilit ies) and already served by the Arcadia Fire Department.
All future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to development review process, which may include review pursuant to CEQA, and be required to comply with GP Goal S- 5 and Policies S-5.1 through S-5.12 and to adhere to the 2019 California Fire Code and Arcadia MC §3122.7 (Fire Code). Future projects would al so be subject to impact fees and tax revenue will be generated from their development. These sources of revenue will support public goods, like fire protection services, to continue and improve. Future proj ects will also incorporate fire preventative designs and will provide access for emergency services. The Project’s impact on fire protection is anticipated to be less than significant.
b. Result in substantial adverse physical impact s associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or need for new or physical altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for police protection?
Less Than Significant Impact . The City receives police protection services through the Arcadia Police Department. Future residential-based Projects may slightly increase demand of protective services, but it is not expected to negatively impact the ability of the police department to provide services to the City. Similar to fire serv ices, the identified focus areas are in urbanized locations near existing infrastructure (e.g., ro ads and utilities) and would be located near areas already served by the Arcadia Police Department.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
As well, the addition of future development will pay development fees, as well as continued tax revenue that will support public services, such as the police officers, facilities, and supplies. All future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to development review process, which may include review pursuant to CEQA, and be required to comply with GP Goal S-5 and Policies S-5.1 through S-5.12. Therefore, the Housing Element would result in a less than significant impact on police protective services.
c. Result in substantial adverse physical impact s associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or need for new or physical altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for schools?
Less Than Significant Impact. As previously noted, the project would not result in direct housing construction, but would facilitate future housing development. Future housing development facilitated by the HEU and the resulting unplanned population growth of approximately 13,205 persons and could generate student population growth in Arcadia Unified School District (AUSD).
The student population growth would increase the demand for school services. Any future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be required to comply with Senate Bill (SB) 50 requirements, which allow school districts to collect impact fees from developers of new residential projects to offset the cost of ne w development. Because th e construction of new school facilities to serve the future housing development facilitated by the HEU is not included in the Project, no physical impacts in this regard . Less than significant impact is anticipated to concerning construction of school facilities.
d. Result in substantial adverse physical impact s associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or need for new or physical altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for parks?
Less Than Significant Impact. Please refer to Section XVI: Recreation below. e. Result in substantial adverse physical impact s associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or need for new or physical altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for other public facilities?
Less Than Significant Impact. As previously noted, the project would not result in direct housing construction, but would facilitate future housing development. Future housing development facilitated by the HEU and the resulting unplanned population growth of approximately 13,205 and would incrementally increase the demand for library facilities. Any future housing development facilitated by the HEU would occur in urbanized locations near existing facilities Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
that currently provide service to these areas. Therefore, it is anticipated that the increased demand would not be substantial or such that it would warrant construction of a new facility.
Although future Projects may increase demands on library facilities, demand would be at least partially offset by funding generated by development fees and by tax revenue of higher numbers of residents. Therefore, the HEU would not re sult in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new library facilities. Impacts would be less than significant.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
XVI. Recreation
Would the Project:
a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Less than Significant Impact. The Project is a policy document and would not directly impact recreation for the City of Arcadia. Future resi dential projects may induce increased demand of parks and other recreational facilities. It is possible that future developments will include the construction of additional recreational facilities and developer-produced parks, but it is presently unknown until future housing projects are prop osed. Future development facilitated by the Project would be required to pay development im pact fees and any tax revenue generated will benefit the funding for parks and facilities to offset potential increases in demand.
The City of Arcadia offers a variety of recreational parks and facilities. Arcadia has mini- park/pocket parks, neighborhood parks, communi ty parks joint use parks and facilities, and County parks and facilities. As of Arcadia’s 2010 General Plan, Arcadia has a total of 32 parks, excluding 7 recreational facilities. Arcadia has a standard ratio of 2.43 acres of parks per 1,000 residents. This ratio is used for park dedication and fee requirements. The built-out nature of Arcadia’s environment makes it challenging to find opportunities for more recreational facilities.
According to the recommendations from the National Recreation and Parks Association (NRPA), a park should cover a ¼ to ½ mile service area radius. Arcadia satisfies this recommendation in most cases.34
Additionally, the HEU’s candidate housing sites are dispersed throughout the community to minimize the potential for adverse changes in the neighborhood character and reduce the potential for adverse impacts on recreation am enities. Adherence to mandatory discretionary permit requirements and regulations for providing recreation would support the City’s goals for providing sufficient recreation opportunities for residents. For these reasons, the HEU and future housing development facilitated by the HEU would not result in substantial physical deterioration of existing neighborhood or regional parks. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. b. Include recreational facilities or require th e construction or expa nsion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Less than Significant. See answer (a) above. The HEU would not lead to direct impacts, but future projects that may necessitate the expansion of recreational facilities would be required to undergo environmental review and comply with any applicable di scretionary actions related to
34 City of Arcadia. (2010). City of Arcadia General Plan. Pages 7-4 through 7-15. Retrieved from:
https://www.arcadiaca.gov/shape/development_services_department/planning___zoning/general_plan.php#outer-446 Accessed October 12, 2021
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
the expansion of recreational facilities. As the Project does not directly propose the creation, modification, or removal of recreational facilities, a less than significant impact is anticipated.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
XVII. Transportation
Would the Project:
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadways, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? Less Than Significant Impact . The Project is a policy document and not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate and provide a policy framework for future housing development throughout the City. Further, the HEU does not include any goals, policies, or implementation programs that would conflict with plans or other regulations that address the circulation system.
Future development projects would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to ensure consistency with applicable regulations that address the circulation system.
Bus services are provided to the City via th e Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA), a public agency that provides services to Los Angeles County. The LACMTA provides six (6) bus routes and four (4) Foothill Transit routes, which primarily serve the commercial areas and corridors in the City. In a ddition, the City also operates Arcadia Transit, which provides a curb-to-curb se rvice in response to individual travel requests. The service is open to the general public and operates to all destinations within the City limits and give (5) designated medical facilities located beyond the City limits.35 The Metro Gold Line provides light rail transit services from downtown Los Angeles to the City Azusa, with a stop in the City of Arcadia. The Metro Gold Line currently plans to extend the services from Azusa to Pomona, which is expected to be completed in 2025. Implementation of the Project would not conflict with the service capacity of these transportation providers.
All future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to City’s development review process, which may include environmental review under CEQA, and comply with applicable General Plan, Municipal Code, policies/standards concerning public transit and pedestrian facilities. This includes policies and regulations required to improve public access and safety for people who walk and bike, and improv e the transportation system, as applicable.
Future housing development on the candidate hous ing sites would be required to adhere to all State requirements for consistency with transportation plans.
The City’s review process would examine projec t compatibilities with the surrounding areas.
Conditions of approvals may include requirements for street improvements and dedications and traffic circulation. As a result, future housing development on the candidate housing sites facilitated by the HEU would not conflict with an adopted program, plan, ordinance, or policy
35 City of Arcadia. 2010 General Plan EIR. Retrieved from:
https://cms9files.revize.com/arcadia/Shape%20Arcadia/Development%20Services/eir/Transportation.pdf, Accessed November 2021.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
addressing the circulation system, including transi t, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Less Than Significant Impact. Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) was approved by the California legislature in September 2013. SB 743 requires changes to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), specifically directing the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop alternative metrics to the use of vehicular “level of service” (LOS) for evaluating transportation projects. OPR has prepared a technical advisory (“OPR Techni cal Advisory”) for evaluating transportation impacts in CEQA and has recommended that Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) replace LOS as the primary measure of transportation impacts. The Natural Resources Agency has adopted updates to CEQA Guidelines to incorporate SB 743 th at requires use of VMT for the purposes of determining a significant transportation impact under CEQA.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(a) states th at VMT is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts. As such, Section 15064.3(b) provides criteria for analyzing transportation impacts. The proposed candidate housing sites could potentially result in increased traffic compared to existing conditions. Trips generated as a result of increased density or new development under the HEU have the potential to increase vehicle miles traveled (VMT) within the City. However, a majority of the proposed candidate housing sites are within urban and developed areas with existing roadways, public transit services, and infrastructures and therefore would not be expected to result in an increase in VMT. Further, future housing development in some areas of the City would provide more housing closer to employment and commercial areas, further increasing opportunities to reduce VMT and increase the ease of walking, cycling, and using public transit.
The HEU would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate and provide a policy framework for future housing development throughout the City. The candidate housing sites are dispersed throughout the City to reduce the potential for adverse environmental impacts. The intent is to reduce impacts by placing housing near public transportation and recreation opportunities and away from environmentally sensitive resources. Future development projects would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to ensure consistency with application regulations that address the circulation system, including Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT).
All future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be required to adhere to all State and local requirements for avoiding significan t impacts related to VMT. Any traffic demand measures required for mitigation would be required to comply with Arcadia GP Goals CI-11, CI- 2, and CI-5, which encourage the maintenance of efficient roadway capacities and minimization of traffic hazards near residential uses. A less than significant is anticipated in this regard.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geomet ric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less than Significant Impact. The Project would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate future housin g development throughout the City. Because future housing development facilitated by the HEU would occur on mostly developed properties use existing roadways that are connected and adjacent to the existing transportation network, hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses are not anticipated. All future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to environmental review under CEQA, the City’s development review process, and be eval uated at the project-level for its potential to increase hazards due to a geometric design feature and to verify compliance with City development requirements within the Arcadia MC.
Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be required to comply with applicable building and fire safety regulations required for the design of new housing and emergency access; and would be required to adhere to all State and local requirements for avoiding construction and operations impacts related to design and in compatible uses. As a result, future housing development facilitated by the HEU would not su bstantially increase hazards due to design features or incompatible uses. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. d. Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less Than Significant Impact . The project would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate future housin g development throughout the City. Because future housing development facilitated by the HEU would occur on mostly developed properties, it is not anticipated that future housing development wo uld result in inadequate emergency access.
Additionally, all future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to the City’s development review process and required to de monstrate consistency with the Arcadia GP and Arcadia MC.
The City has adopted the California Fire Code (CFC) under Arcadia MC §3122.11. The CFC sets standards for road dimension, design, grades, an d other fire safety features. Additionally, more stringent CBC standards also apply regarding ne w construction and development of emergency access issues associated with earthquakes, flooding, climate/strong winds, and water shortages.
Future housing development would be required to comply with applicable building and fire safety regulations required for the design of new housing and emergency access. Thus, compliance with the Arcadia MC would ensure adequate access is sues, including emergency access. As a result, future housing development facilitated by the HEU would not result in inadequate emergency access. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources
Would the Project:
a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or b. 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 se t forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall cons ider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Less Than Significant with Mitigation. Pursuant to Government Code §21080.3.2(b) and §21074(a)(1)(A) -(B) (AB 52] the City has provid ed formal notification to California Native American tribal representatives that have pr eviously requested notification from the City regarding projects within the geographic area trad itionally and culturally affiliated with tribe(s).
Native American groups may have knowledge about cultural resources in the area and may have concerns about adverse effects from development on tribal cultural resources as defined in PRC §21074. To determine whether there are sensitive or sacred Native American resources on or near that site that could be affected by the HEU, the City also requested the NAHC to perform a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search. The NAHC utiliz es the United State Geological Survey (USGS) Geologic Maps as reference for the search. On June 1, 2021, the City received the negative result of the Sacred Lands File (SFL) from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). On June 10, 2021, the City initiated tribal consultation wi th interested California Native American tribes consistent with Assembly Bill (AB) 52 and Senate Bill (SB) 18. No responses were received from any of the California Native American tribe representatives regarding AB 52 and SB 18.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
XIX. Utilities and Service Systems
Would the Project:
a. Require or result in the relocation or constr uction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Less Than Significant Impact.
Water
The City is the sole provider of water and provides water services to over 50,000 people. The City owns and operates its water distribution system through the Public works Services Department.
The Project would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate and provide a policy framework for future housing developm ent throughout the City. Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be located in developed areas of the City where water infrastructure already exists. Further, most of the candidate housing sites are developed and include existing connections to the District’s system. Accordingly, future housing development facilitated by the HEU is not anticipated to require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water facilities that could cause significant environmental effects.
Notwithstanding, all future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to environmental review under CEQA, the City’s development review process, and required to adhere to General Plan policies and Arcadia MC regulations. A less than significant impact would occur. Water supply is further discussed in impact discussion (b) below.
Wastewater
Future projects may be required to implement at Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) to ensure that water quality is not degraded and so that storm water flowing from the site would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements. The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) also has requirements. Wastewater from the City is treated by the Whittier Narrows Water Reclamation Plant (WNWRP), the San Jose Creek Water Reclamation Plant (SJCWRP), and the Joint Water Pollution Cont rol Plant (JWPCP), however, the percentage breakdown between these three plants in treating the City’s wastewater in unknown. The Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (LACSD) estimates approximately 69 gallons of wastewater is generated per person per day within LACSD’s service area. Based on a 2020 population of 53,998 within the City, the estimated amount of wastewater collected within the City’s service area is approximately 3.7 million gallons (MG) per day (or approximately 4,200 AFY). 36 The City is
36 City of Arcadia. (2021). Final 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Page 6-40 through 6-41. Retrieved from:
https://cms9files.revize.com/arcadia/Shape%20Arcadia/Public%20Works%20Services%20Department/Water%20&%20Sewer%20Services/Fi nal%202020%20UWMP.pdf (Accessed November 10, 2021)
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
expected to be able to accommodate future projects, such as those proposed under the Project.
Impacts are less than significant. Wastewater capacity is further discussed in impact (c) below.
Dry Utilities
Southern California Edison (SCE) provides electricity and Southern California Gas Company (SoCal Gas) services gas utilities. Telecommunications service is provided by AT&T.37 The project would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate future housing development throughout the City. The housing development facilitated by the HUE would increase the demands for dry utilities. However, the candidat e housing sites are located in developed areas of the City that are already served by electr ic power, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities. Further, most of the candidate housing sites are developed and connect to existing dry utility infrastructure. While future development facilitated by the HEU would increase population within the City and increase service demand, growth projections are consistent with regional and local plans used to guide infrastructure development. All future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be required to meet the mand atory requirements under the City’s various programs aimed at ensuring adequate supplies a nd service infrastructure are available to serve the development. A less than significant impact would occur. b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? Less Than Significant Impact. According to the 2021 City of Arcadia Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the City’s per capita water usage rate is approximately 230 gallons per day (gpd).38 The Project would therefore generate a demand of 3,992,800 gpd or approximately 4,428 acre- feet (AF) of water per year (AFY). This would constitute approximately 32 percent of the current water demand of 13,935 AF. 39 During dry years, City is able to source water from the Raymond Basin Area and the Main Basin Area. As well, the City’s diverse water supply (imported water, surface water, and groundwater) is anticipated to provide an adequate water supply through 5 dry years. 40 Because the Project is a required component of Statewide planning efforts, the increased water demands, and supply would be increased as a result. Notwithstanding, all future housing development facilitated by the HEU woul d be subject to environmental review under
37 City of Arcadia. (2010). Arcadia General Plan Update Draft Program EIR. Page 4.16-1. Retrieved from:
https://www.arcadiaca.gov/shape/development_services_department/planning___zoning/general_plan.php#outer-708 38 City of Arcadia. (2021). Final 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Page 4-13. Retrieved from:
https://cms9files.revize.com/arcadia/Shape%20Arcadia/Public%20Works%20Services%20Department/Water%20&%20Sewer%20Services/Fi nal%202020%20UWMP.pdf (Accessed November 10, 2021)
39 City of Arcadia. (2020). City of Arcadia 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Retrieved from:
https://www.arcadiaca.gov/Shape%20Arcadia/Public%20Works%20Services%20Department/Water%20&%20Sewer%20Services/Final%2020 20%20UWMP.pdf Accessed October 12, 2021
40 City of Arcadia. (2021). Final 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Page 7-6. Retrieved from:
https://cms9files.revize.com/arcadia/Shape%20Arcadia/Public%20Works%20Services%20Department/Water%20&%20Sewer%20Services/Fi nal%202020%20UWMP.pdf (Accessed November 10, 2021)
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
CEQA, the City’s development review process, an d required to adhere to General Plan policies and Arcadia MC regulations. A less than significant impact would occur.
Stormwater
Implementation of future projects will likely requ ire the construction of storm drainages to tie into existing stormwater drainage facilities within existing rights-of-way. Water discharged from the site will not negatively affect off-site or downstream flows. See Hydrology and Water Quality Impact (a) for further discussion. Impacts are to be considered less than significant. c. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City is served by the Whittier Narrows Water Reclamation Plant (WNWRP), the San Jose Creek Water Reclamation Plant (SJCWRP), and the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP), however, the percentage breakdown between these three plants in treating the City’s wastewater in unknown. LACSD estimates approximately 69 gallons of wastewater is generated per person per day within LACSD’s service area. Based on a 2020 population of 53,998 within the City, the estima ted amount of wastewater collected within the City’s service area is approx imately 3.7 million gallons (MG) per day (or approximately 4,200 AFY).41
Future housing development under the HEU would be subject to discretionary permits and required to adhere to all federal, State, and local requirements related to wastewater treatment during construction and operations, including the City’s Sewer System guidelines (Arcadia MC Chapter 4) and required construction permits. Considering these requirements, and the available capacity discussed above, the project would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that it has inadequate capaci ty to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. No new expansions of infrastructure facilities are required, and impacts would be less than significant. No direct physical impact to the environment would occur.
d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Less Than Significant Impact . Trash and recycling services are provided by multiple companies within the City. Solid waste generated during construction activities typically includes demolition of existing on-site structures, vegetation clearing, and grading would generate solid waste. Such waste would be source separated on-site for reuse, recycling, or proper disposal. The nearest
41 City of Arcadia. (2021). Final 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Page 6-40 through 6-41. Retrieved from:
https://cms9files.revize.com/arcadia/Shape%20Arcadia/Public%20Works%20Services%20Department/Water%20&%20Sewer%20Services/Fi nal%202020%20UWMP.pdf (Accessed November 10, 2021)
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
landfill to the City is the Puente Hills Landfill and Materials Recovery Facility (MRF). However, this facility is currently closed. The next nearest fac ility is the Scholl Canyon Landfill, approximately
6.9 miles west of the City.
Under the Project, it is not expected that future projects will lead to inadequate landfill capacity at the Scholl Canyon Landfill, which has a daily capacity of 3,400 tons per day. The landfill has the capacity for 58.9 million cubic yards an d has an operational life through 2030. 42 Solid waste generated at future housing developments fac ilitated by the HEU would represent a nominal increase in disposal rates. Existing landfill capacity would be sufficient to serve future development within the City.
Further, AB 341 requires Cities and Counties to implement recycling programs, reduce refuse at the source, and compost waste to achieve the es tablished 75 percent diversion of solid waste from landfills. Waste disposal is handled by multiple franchised waste haulers within the City. For future development, the City, in conjunction with those approved waste haulers, would perform outreach, education and monitoring pursuant to this regulation.
Future housing development facilitated by the HE U would be subject to the City’s development review process, which may include discretiona ry permit review and approval; as well as environmental review under CEQA, and be required to adhere to all federal, State, and local requirements for solid waste reduction and recycling. Considering these requirements, the HEU implementation would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of local infrastructure’s capacity. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. e. Comply with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less Than Significant Impact. State, County, and local agencies with regulatory authority related to solid waste include the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) and the City. Regulations specifically applicable to the proposed project include the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939), Section 4.408 of the CalGreen Code, and SB 341, which requires multi Ǧfamily residential development and commercial uses to implement recycling programs.
The Integrated Waste Management Act, which requ ires every City and Co unty in the State to prepare a Source Reduction and Recycling Elemen t (SRRE) to its Solid Waste Management Plan, identifies how each jurisdiction will meet th e State’s mandatory waste diversion goal of 50 percent by and after the year 2000. The diversion goal has been increased to 75 percent by 2020 by SB 341.
42 CalRecycle. (2011). SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details Scholl Canyon Landfill (19-AA-0012). Retrieved from:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/3531?siteID=1000 Accessed October 12, 2021 Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
The 2019 CalGreen Code Section 4.408 requires preparation of a Construction Waste Management Plan that outlines ways in which the contractor would recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhaza rdous construction and demolition debris. As previously noted, the project would not result in direct housing construction, but would facilitate future housing development. During the construction phase of future housing development, projects would comply with the CalGreen Code through the recycling and reuse of at least 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and de molition debris from the project site. No conflict with statutes and regulations related to solid waste would occur.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
XX. Wildfire
Would the Project:
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less Than Significant Impact. Undeveloped Areas are more likely to be high fire risk areas. Infill development will be proposed and prioritized th rough the housing element. These areas are in developed areas which reduces risk for wildland fire in the wildland urban interface. It is unlikely that emergency services traveling from the city to undeveloped areas and edges of the city will be impeded by construction activities or increa sed traffic created as a result of residential development under the housing element.
According to CalFire Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map43, most candidate housing sites, except those in the northernmost portion of the City, are not within a State responsibility area or a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. However, future developments facilitated by the Project would be required to continue assessing potential fire risks associated with their individual developments.
The established permitting process will assist future developers in further identifying any potential construction barriers or obstructions in the rights of way and paths for emergency access. Future developments may require the creation of a traffic control plan which will mitigate any concerns related to impeding emergency access. Fire prevention measures are also included in Goal S-3 of the Arcadia GP.
Furthermore, future development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to discretionary permits and required to meet the mandatory requirements related to the prevention of wildfire impacts. All future housing development would be required to comply with e CFC and CBC. As a result, HEU implementation would not substantia lly impair an adopted local or county-wide emergency response or evacuation plan. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concen trations from wildlife or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
Less Than Significant Impact. To further minimize risk from wildfire, future development on the candidate housing sites in high hazard severity zones are required to adhere to the 2019 California Fire Code, Title 24, Part 9, §304.1.2, which States the following:
x “Any person that owns, leases, controls, operates, or maintains any building or structure in, upon, or adjoining any mountainous area or forest-covered lands, brush covered lands,
43 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, California Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer Available at:
https://gis.data.ca.gov/datasets/789d5286736248f69c4515c04f58f414, Accessed February 5, 2021.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
or grass-covered lands, or any land which is covered with flammable material, shall at all times do all of the following:”
o Maintain around and adjacent to such bu ilding or structure a firebreak made by removing and clearing away, for a distance of not less than 30 feet on each side thereof or to the property line, whichever is nearer, all flammable vegetation or other combustible growth. This section do es not apply to single specimens of trees, ornamental shrubbery, or similar plants which are used as ground cover, if they do not form a means of rapidly transm itting fire from the native growth to any building or structure.
o Maintain around and adjacent to any such building or structure additional fire protection or firebreak made by removi ng all bush, flammable vegetation, or combustible growth which is located from 30 feet to 100 feet from such building or structure or to the property line, whichever is nearer, as may be required by the enforcing agency if he finds that, because of extra hazardous conditions, a f i r e b r e a k o f o n l y 3 0 f e e t a r o u n d s u c h building or structure is not sufficient to provide reasonable fire safety. Grass and other vegetation located more than 30 feet from such building or structure and less than 18 inches in height above the ground may be maintained where necessary to stabilize the soil and prevent erosion.
o Remove that portion of any tree which extends within 10 feet of the outlet of any chimney or stovepipe.
o Cut and remove all dead or dying portions of trees located adjacent to or overhanging any building.
o Maintain the roof of any structure free of leaves, needles, or other dead vegetative growth.
o Provide and maintain at all times a scre en over the outlet of every chimney or stovepipe that is attached to any fireplac e, stove, or other device that burns any solid or liquid fuel. The screen shall be constructed of nonflammable material with openings of not more than 0.5 inch in size.
o Hazardous vegetation and fuels around all applicable buildings and structures shall be maintained in accordance with applicable regulations.44
44 California Office of Administrative Law (2019). 2019 California Fire Code, Title 24, Part 9, §304.1.2. Retrieved from https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/CFC2019P4/chapter-3-general-requirements. Accessed on August 25, 20201.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
Future development facilitated by the Project would be required to adhere to all applicable fire prevention requirements and regulations, including California Fire Code requirement and would result in less than significant impacts.
c. Require the installation or maintenance of asso ciated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water resources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? Less Than Significant Impact. As previously noted, the project would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitat e future housing development. The need for installation and maintenance of new infrastructure (such as ro ads, fuel breaks, emergency water resources, power lines, or other utilities) would be evalua ted as part of the discretionary development permit review process. It is anticipated that future housing development facilitated by the Project would be served by the extension of existing utility infrastructure located primarily in existing rights-of-way, because of the predominately de veloped nature of the City. Through compliance with applicable development regulations in the case of future development, impacts are anticipated to be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. d. Expose people or structures to significan t risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Less Than Significant Impact. As previously noted, the project would not result in direct housing construction, but would facilita te future housing development. According to the California Geological Survey, The City does not contain any areas identified as having a severe potential for landslides.45 As well, as Stated in Geology and Soils Impact (a)(iv), The Project candidate housing focus areas are relatively flat and not within an area susceptible to landslides. Adherence to State and City codes, and emergency and evacuation plans set by the City and the County of San Bernardino would prevent impacts to people or structures from risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
45 California Geological Survey, Geologic Hazards Data and Maps Data Viewer. Available at https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/geologichazards/, Accessed October 12, 2021
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance
Would the Project:
a. Have the potential to substantially degrade th e quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fi sh or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number, or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Less Than Significant Impact. On the basis of the foregoing analysis, the proposed project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten or eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. All future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to the City’s development review process and required to adhere to all federal, State, and local requirements. The HEU would not result in any direct environmental impacts that would substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major period s of California history or prehistory. Impacts are less than significant.
b. Have impacts that are individually limited, bu t cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past proj ects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Less than Significant Impact. State CEQA Guidelines §15065(a)(3) defines “cumulatively considerable as times when “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.” This document provides a programmatic analysis of the effects of the proposed HEU and the future housing development facilitated by its implementation.
The project would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate and provide a policy framework for future housing developm ent throughout the City. Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would occur as market conditions allow and at the discretion of the individual property owners; be subject to the City’s development review process; be Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
subject to environmental review under CEQA; and does not propose changes to current land use designations and zoning. Based on these factor s, and since all future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to the City’s development review process, the project would not result in environmental effects, wh ich are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable.
c. Have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less Than Significant Impact. There are no known substantial adverse effects on human beings that would be caused by the proposed projec t. The project would facilitate future housing development throughout the City but would not result in direct housing construction. The HEU provides capacity for future housing developm ent consistent with State Housing law. The candidate housing sites are dispersed throughout the community to minimize the potential for adverse environmental impacts. The provision of a dditional housing in the City is intended to create adequate housing availability at all income levels. The creation of more economically and socially diversified housing choices is a goal of the HEU and is intended to provide new housing opportunities for low-income households. Implementation of the HEU would provide additional housing options for a variety of income levels, as allocated by RHNA.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
XXII. References
California Department of Conservation, California Important Farmland Finder . https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/, Accessed October 7, 2021.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, California Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer Available at:
https://gis.data.ca.gov/datasets/789d5286736248f69c4515c04f58f414, Accessed February 5, 2021
California Department of Transportation (Caltr ans). (2021). California State Scenic Highway System Map. Retrieved from:
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46c c8e8057116f1aacaa. Accessed October 12, 2021
California Geological Survey, Geologic Hazard s Data and Maps Data Viewer. Available at https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/geologichazards/, Accessed October 12, 2021 California Office of Administrative Law (2019). 2019 California Fire Code, Title 24, Part 9, §304.1.2.
Retrieved from https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/CFC2019P4/chapter-3-general- requirements. Accessed on August 25, 20201.
CalRecycle. (2011). SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details Scholl Canyon Landfill (19-AA-0012).
Retrieved from:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/3531?siteID=1000 Accessed October 12, 2021
City of Arcadia. (2021). Final 2020 Urban Water Management Plan . Retrieved from:
https://cms9files.revize.com/arcadia/Shape%20Arcadia/Public%20Works%20Services% 20Department/Water%20&%20Sewer%20Services/Final%202020%20UWMP.pdf (Accessed November 10, 2021)
City of Arcadia. (2010). City of Arcadia General Plan . Retrieved from:
https://www.arcadiaca.gov/shape/development_services_department/planning___zoni ng/general_plan.php#outer-446 Accessed October 12, 2021 City of Arcadia. 2010 General Plan – Sectio n 10 Implementation Plan. Available at https://cms9files.revize.com/arcadia/Shape%20Arcadia/Development%20Services/gene ral%20plan/Implementation%20Plan.pdf. Accessed November 2021.
City of Arcadia. 2010 General Plan Update En vironmental Impact Report. Available at https://www.arcadiaca.gov/shape/development_services_department/planning___zoni ng/general_plan.php#outer-708. Accessed November 2021.
Arcadia 6th Cycle HEU
Administrative Draft Initia l Study/Negative Declaration
FEMA. (2008). FEMA Flood Map Service Center: Search By Address. Retrieved from:
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=arcadia#searchresultsanchor Accessed October 12, 2021
SCAG. Connect SoCal (2020). Retrieved from https://scag.ca.gov/connect-socal. Accessed on August 25, 2021
Appendix A
CITY OF ARCADIA 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE – INVENTORY OF CANDIDATE HOUSING SITES Multiple candidate sites were identified throughout the City which were found to be suitable to accommodate future development in order to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation. These candidate sites are chosen based on their ability to accommod ate very low, low, moderate, and above moderate income housing sites.
ID APN Existing
Zoning
Existing
General
Plan
Land
Use
Vacancy Existing
Units Gross Acreage
HCD
Sizing
Criteria
Existing
Zone
Density
(Assumed)
Rezoned
Density
(Assumed)
Inventory
Category
Potential
Rezoned
Unit
Yield
Assumed
Net Yield LVL Mod Above
Mod
15 5773-010-901 DMU DMU No 0 0.36 No 64 N/A Pipeline
Project N/A
139 0 0 139
19 5773-010-007 CBD C 1.0 No 0 0.51 Yes 64 N/A Pipeline Project N/A
3 5773-010-008 CBD C 1.0 No 0 0.14 No 64 N/A Pipeline
Project N/A
4 5773-010-018 DMU DMU No 0 0.18 No 64 N/A Pipeline
Project N/A
6 5773-010-019 DMU DMU No 0 0.18 No 64 N/A Pipeline
Project N/A
7 5773-010-020 DMU DMU No 0 0.19 No 64 N/A Pipeline
Project N/A
26 5776-001-012 C-G C No 0 2.821949019 Yes 0 N/A Pipeline Project N/A 80 0 80 0
17 5775-022-032 DMU DMU Yes 0 0.38 No 64 N/A Pipeline
Project N/A 22 0 0 22
21 5783-002-013 R-3 HDR No 1 0.68 Yes 24 N/A Pipeline
Project N/A 12 0 0 13
Appendix A
ID APN Existing
Zoning
Existing
General
Plan
Land
Use
Vacancy Existing
Units Gross Acreage
HCD
Sizing
Criteria
Existing
Zone
Density
(Assumed)
Rezoned
Density
(Assumed)
Inventory
Category
Potential
Rezoned
Unit
Yield
Assumed
Net Yield LVL Mod Above
Mod
20 5788-020-015 R-2 MDR No 0 0.66 Yes 12 N/A Pipeline
Project N/A
33 0 0 33
25 5788-020-029 R-2 MDR No 0 2.23 Yes 12 N/A Pipeline
Project N/A
10 8573-024-005 MU MU Yes 0 0.21 No 24 N/A Pipeline
Project N/A
12 0 0 12
9 8573-024-006 MU MU Yes 0 0.20 No 24 N/A Pipeline
Project N/A
1 5775-025-033 CBD C 1.0 No 2 0.05 No 64 N/A Pipeline
Project N/A
157 0 0 157
2 5775-025-034 CBD C 1.0 No 0 0.11 No 64 N/A Pipeline
Project N/A
11 5775-025-038 CBD C 1.0 No 1 0.22 No 64 N/A Pipeline
Project N/A
12 5775-025-032 CBD C 1.0 No 0 0.23 No 64 N/A Pipeline
Project N/A
16 5775-025-031 CBD C 1.0 No 0 0.37 No 64 N/A Pipeline
Project N/A
22 5775-025-029 CBD C 1.0 No 0 1.14 Yes 64 N/A Pipeline Project N/A
23 5775-025-037 DMU DMU No 0 1.67 Yes 64 N/A Pipeline
Project N/A
13 5772-002-001 R-3 HDR No 4 0.34 No 24 N/A Pipeline
Project N/A 2 0 0 6
8 5779-012-030 R-3 HDR No 2 0.19 No 24 N/A Pipeline
Project N/A 2 0 0 4
5 5779-010-010 R-3 HDR No 1 0.18 No 24 N/A Pipeline
Project N/A 2 0 0 3
18 5778-010-017 R-3 HDR No 2 0.48 No 24 40 Pipeline
Project N/A 9 0 0 10
Appendix A
ID APN Existing
Zoning
Existing
General
Plan
Land
Use
Vacancy Existing
Units Gross Acreage
HCD
Sizing
Criteria
Existing
Zone
Density
(Assumed)
Rezoned
Density
(Assumed)
Inventory
Category
Potential
Rezoned
Unit
Yield
Assumed
Net Yield LVL Mod Above
Mod
14 5779-019-007 R-2 MDR No 3 0.36 No 12 N/A Pipeline
Project N/A 1 0 0 8
24 5773-006-036 DMU DMU No 0 2.18 Yes 64 80 Pipeline
Project N/A 319 26 0 293
27 5777-038-012 C-G C No 0 4.78 Yes 0 30 Pipeline
Project N/A
297 0 0 297
28 5777-038-014 C-G C No 0 6.74 Yes 0 30 Pipeline
Project N/A
29 5773-014-037 CBD C 1.0 No 2 0.51 Yes 64 N/A Propensity 32 30 8 3 19 30 5773-007-038 DMU DMU No 2 0.51 Yes 64 N/A Propensity 32 30 8 3 19 31 5773-013-034 CBD C 1.0 No 0 0.52 Yes 64 N/A Propensity 32 32 8 3 21 32 5773-012-023 DMU DMU No 0 0.54 Yes 64 N/A Propensity 34 34 9 3 22 33 5773-011-062 DMU DMU No 0 0.54 Yes 64 N/A Propensity 34 34 9 3 22 34 5773-006-053 DMU DMU No 0 0.57 Yes 64 N/A Propensity 36 36 9 4 23 35 5773-014-038 CBD C 1.0 No 0 0.58 Yes 64 N/A Propensity 36 36 9 4 23
Appendix A
ID APN Existing
Zoning
Existing
General
Plan
Land
Use
Vacancy Existing
Units Gross Acreage
HCD
Sizing
Criteria
Existing
Zone
Density
(Assumed)
Rezoned
Density
(Assumed)
Inventory
Category
Potential
Rezoned
Unit
Yield
Assumed
Net Yield LVL Mod Above
Mod
36 5773-013-018 CBD C 1.0 No 0 0.58 Yes 64 N/A Propensity 37 37 9 4 24 37 5773-012-022 CBD C 1.0 No 0 0.59 Yes 64 N/A Propensity 37 37 9 4 24 38 5775-022-035 DMU DMU No 0 0.61 Yes 64 N/A Propensity 38 38 10 4 24 39 5775-022-031 DMU DMU No 1 0.62 Yes 64 N/A Propensity 39 38 10 4 24 40 5773-006-907 DMU DMU No 0 0.66 Yes 64 N/A Propensity 42 42 11 4 27 41 5773-006-065 DMU C 1.0 No 0 0.72 Yes 64 N/A Propensity 46 46 12 5 29 42 5773-007-036 DMU DMU No 0 0.73 Yes 64 N/A Propensity 46 46 12 5 29 43 5773-006-067 DMU DMU No 0 0.74 Yes 64 N/A Propensity 47 47 12 5 30 44 5773-006-929 DMU DMU No 0 0.79 Yes 64 N/A Propensity 50 50 13 5 32
Appendix A
ID APN Existing
Zoning
Existing
General
Plan
Land
Use
Vacancy Existing
Units Gross Acreage
HCD
Sizing
Criteria
Existing
Zone
Density
(Assumed)
Rezoned
Density
(Assumed)
Inventory
Category
Potential
Rezoned
Unit
Yield
Assumed
Net Yield LVL Mod Above
Mod
45 5775-022-805 DMU DMU No 0 0.87 Yes 64 N/A Propensity 55 55 14 6 35 46 5773-007-033 DMU DMU No 0 0.90 Yes 64 N/A Propensity 57 57 14 6 37 47 5773-006-068 DMU DMU No 0 0.94 Yes 64 N/A Propensity 60 60 15 6 39 49 5773-014-051 CBD C 1.0 No 1 1.15 Yes 64 N/A Propensity 73 72 18 7 47 50 5773-006-064 DMU DMU No 0 1.22 Yes 64 N/A Propensity 77 77 19 8 50 51 5773-011-036 DMU DMU No 0 1.22 Yes 64 N/A Propensity 77 77 19 8 50 52 5773-012-901 DMU DMU No 0 1.26 Yes 64 N/A Propensity 80 80 20 8 52 332 5773-005-034 C-G C 1.0 Yes 0 0.52 Yes 0 64 Focus Area 33 33 8 3 22 333 5775-022-049 SP-AP C 1.0 No 0 0.55 Yes 64 Focus Area 35 35 9 4 22 334 5773-015-053 C-G C No 0 0.63 Yes 0 64 Focus Area 40 40 10 4 26 335 5775-022-047 SP-AP C 1.0 No 0 0.68 Yes 64 Focus Area 43 43 11 4 28
Appendix A
ID APN Existing
Zoning
Existing
General
Plan
Land
Use
Vacancy Existing
Units Gross Acreage
HCD
Sizing
Criteria
Existing
Zone
Density
(Assumed)
Rezoned
Density
(Assumed)
Inventory
Category
Potential
Rezoned
Unit
Yield
Assumed
Net Yield LVL Mod Above
Mod
336 5773-015-054 C-G C No 0 0.75 Yes 0 64 Focus Area 48 48 12 5 31 337 5773-015-049 C-G C No 0 0.76 Yes 0 64 Focus Area 48 48 12 5 31 338 5773-008-014 C-G C No 0 0.81 Yes 0 64 Focus Area 52 52 13 5 34 339 5773-008-013 C-G C No 0 0.83 Yes 0 64 Focus Area 52 52 13 5 34 340 5773-009-065 C-G C No 0 0.89 Yes 0 64 Focus Area 57 57 14 6 37 341 5775-022-045 C-G C 1.0 No 0 0.93 Yes 0 64 Focus Area 59 59 15 6 38 342 5773-008-012 C-G C Yes 0 0.96 Yes 0 64 Focus Area 61 61 15 6 40 343 5775-022-046 C-M C 1.0 No 0 0.98 Yes 0 64 Focus Area 62 62 16 6 40
Appendix A
ID APN Existing
Zoning
Existing
General
Plan
Land
Use
Vacancy Existing
Units Gross Acreage
HCD
Sizing
Criteria
Existing
Zone
Density
(Assumed)
Rezoned
Density
(Assumed)
Inventory
Category
Potential
Rezoned
Unit
Yield
Assumed
Net Yield LVL Mod Above
Mod
345 5773-015-052 C-G C No 0 1.21 Yes 0 64 Focus Area 77 77 19 8 50 346 5773-009-070 C-G C No 0 1.34 Yes 0 64 Focus Area 85 85 21 9 55 347 5773-009-081 C-G C No 0 1.35 Yes 0 64 Focus Area 86 86 22 9 55 348 5773-009-080 C-G C No 0 1.65 Yes 0 64 Focus Area 105 105 26 11 68 349 5773-009-062 C-G C No 0 2.07 Yes 0 64 Focus Area 132 132 33 13 86 350 5773-015-026 C-G C No 0 2.24 Yes 0 64 Focus Area 143 143 36 14 93 351 5773-008-011 C-G C No 0 2.34 Yes 0 64 Focus Area 149 149 37 15 97 352 5773-009-064 C-G C No 0 3.23 Yes 0 64 Focus Area 206 206 52 21 133
Appendix A
ID APN Existing
Zoning
Existing
General
Plan
Land
Use
Vacancy Existing
Units Gross Acreage
HCD
Sizing
Criteria
Existing
Zone
Density
(Assumed)
Rezoned
Density
(Assumed)
Inventory
Category
Potential
Rezoned
Unit
Yield
Assumed
Net Yield LVL Mod Above
Mod
353 5773-009-082 C-G C No 0 3.74 Yes 0 64 Focus Area 239 239 60 24 155 354 5773-009-069 C-G C No 0 3.75 Yes 0 64 Focus Area 239 239 60 24 155 355 5773-015-055 C-G C No 0 5.18 Yes 0 64 Focus Area 331 331 83 33 215 392 5775-022-012 C-M C 1.0 No 0 0.08 No 0 64 Focus Area 5 5 1 1 3 400 5773-002-059 C-G C 1.0 No 0 0.17 No 0 64 Focus Area 10 10 3 1 6 426 5775-022-003 C-M C 1.0 No 0 0.19 No 0 64 Focus Area 12 12 3 1 8 430 5773-005-033 C-M C 1.0 No 0 0.21 No 0 64 Focus Area 13 13 3 1 9 433 5775-022-042 C-M C 1.0 No 0 0.26 No 0 64 Focus Area 16 16 4 2 10
Appendix A
ID APN Existing
Zoning
Existing
General
Plan
Land
Use
Vacancy Existing
Units Gross Acreage
HCD
Sizing
Criteria
Existing
Zone
Density
(Assumed)
Rezoned
Density
(Assumed)
Inventory
Category
Potential
Rezoned
Unit
Yield
Assumed
Net Yield LVL Mod Above
Mod
436 5773-002-058 C-G C 1.0 No 0 0.35 No 0 64 Focus Area 22 22 6 2 14 442 5775-022-026 C-G C 1.0 No 0 0.39 No 0 64 Focus Area 24 24 6 2 16 444 5775-022-048 SP-AP C 1.0 No 1 0.43 No 0 64 Focus Area 27 26 7 3 16 330 5773-004-028 C-M C No 0 0.52 Yes 0 64 Focus Area 33 33 8 3 22 331 5773-008-003 C-M C No 0 2.16 Yes 0 64 Focus Area 138 138 35 14 89 391 5773-004-021 C-M C No 0 0.06 No 0 64 Focus Area 3 3 1 0 2 393 5773-004-801 C-M C No 0 0.10 No 0 64 Focus Area 6 6 2 1 3 394 5773-004-022 C-M C No 1 0.12 No 0 64 Focus Area 7 6 2 1 3
Appendix A
ID APN Existing
Zoning
Existing
General
Plan
Land
Use
Vacancy Existing
Units Gross Acreage
HCD
Sizing
Criteria
Existing
Zone
Density
(Assumed)
Rezoned
Density
(Assumed)
Inventory
Category
Potential
Rezoned
Unit
Yield
Assumed
Net Yield LVL Mod Above
Mod
395 5773-004-023 DMU DMU No 0 0.14 No 64 64 Focus Area 8 8 2 1 5 396 5773-004-029 DMU DMU No 0 0.14 No 64 64 Focus Area 9 9 2 1 6 397 5773-004-025 DMU DMU No 0 0.15 No 64 64 Focus Area 9 9 2 1 6 398 5773-004-803 C-M C No 0 0.15 No 0 64 Focus Area 9 9 2 1 6 399 5773-005-010 DMU DMU No 0 0.16 No 64 64 Focus Area 10 10 3 1 6 401 5773-004-015 C-M C No 1 0.17 No 0 64 Focus Area 10 9 2 1 6 402 5773-005-009 DMU DMU No 0 0.17 No 64 64 Focus Area 10 10 3 1 6 403 5773-004-808 C-M C No 0 0.17 No 0 64 Focus Area 11 11 3 1 7
Appendix A
ID APN Existing
Zoning
Existing
General
Plan
Land
Use
Vacancy Existing
Units Gross Acreage
HCD
Sizing
Criteria
Existing
Zone
Density
(Assumed)
Rezoned
Density
(Assumed)
Inventory
Category
Potential
Rezoned
Unit
Yield
Assumed
Net Yield LVL Mod Above
Mod
404 5773-005-008 DMU DMU No 0 0.17 No 64 64 Focus Area 11 11 3 1 7 405 5773-005-011 C-M C No 0 0.18 No 0 64 Focus Area 11 11 3 1 7 406 5773-004-013 C-M C No 1 0.18 No 0 64 Focus Area 11 10 3 1 6 407 5773-004-018 C-M C No 0 0.18 No 0 64 Focus Area 11 11 3 1 7 408 5773-004-002 DMU DMU No 0 0.18 No 64 64 Focus Area 11 11 3 1 7 409 5773-004-014 C-M C No 2 0.18 No 0 64 Focus Area 11 9 2 1 6 410 5773-005-014 C-M C No 0 0.18 No 0 64 Focus Area 11 11 3 1 7 411 5773-005-015 C-M C No 0 0.18 No 0 64 Focus Area 11 11 3 1 7
Appendix A
ID APN Existing
Zoning
Existing
General
Plan
Land
Use
Vacancy Existing
Units Gross Acreage
HCD
Sizing
Criteria
Existing
Zone
Density
(Assumed)
Rezoned
Density
(Assumed)
Inventory
Category
Potential
Rezoned
Unit
Yield
Assumed
Net Yield LVL Mod Above
Mod
412 5773-005-016 C-M C No 0 0.18 No 0 64 Focus Area 11 11 3 1 7 413 5773-005-007 DMU DMU Yes 0 0.18 No 64 64 Focus Area 11 11 3 1 7 414 5773-004-010 C-M C No 0 0.18 No 0 64 Focus Area 11 11 3 1 7 415 5773-004-008 C-M C No 0 0.18 No 0 64 Focus Area 11 11 3 1 7 416 5773-004-807 C-M C No 0 0.18 No 0 64 Focus Area 11 11 3 1 7 417 5773-004-012 C-M C No 0 0.18 No 0 64 Focus Area 11 11 3 1 7 418 5773-004-005 C-M C No 6 0.18 No 0 64 Focus Area 11 5 1 1 3 419 5773-004-003 C-M C No 0 0.18 No 0 64 Focus Area 11 11 3 1 7
Appendix A
ID APN Existing
Zoning
Existing
General
Plan
Land
Use
Vacancy Existing
Units Gross Acreage
HCD
Sizing
Criteria
Existing
Zone
Density
(Assumed)
Rezoned
Density
(Assumed)
Inventory
Category
Potential
Rezoned
Unit
Yield
Assumed
Net Yield LVL Mod Above
Mod
420 5773-005-004 C-M C No 0 0.18 No 0 64 Focus Area 11 11 3 1 7 421 5773-005-025 C-M C No 0 0.18 No 0 64 Focus Area 11 11 3 1 7 422 5773-004-001 DMU DMU No 0 0.19 No 64 64 Focus Area 11 11 3 1 7 423 5773-004-004 C-M C No 0 0.19 No 0 64 Focus Area 11 11 3 1 7 424 5773-004-024 DMU DMU No 0 0.19 No 64 64 Focus Area 11 11 3 1 7 425 5773-004-011 C-M C No 1 0.19 No 0 64 Focus Area 12 11 3 1 7 427 5773-004-802 C-M C No 0 0.19 No 0 64 Focus Area 12 12 3 1 8 428 5773-004-009 C-M C No 4 0.20 No 0 64 Focus Area 12 8 2 1 5
Appendix A
ID APN Existing
Zoning
Existing
General
Plan
Land
Use
Vacancy Existing
Units Gross Acreage
HCD
Sizing
Criteria
Existing
Zone
Density
(Assumed)
Rezoned
Density
(Assumed)
Inventory
Category
Potential
Rezoned
Unit
Yield
Assumed
Net Yield LVL Mod Above
Mod
429 5773-005-020 C-M C No 0 0.21 No 0 64 Focus Area 13 13 3 1 9 431 5773-005-021 C-M C No 0 0.21 No 0 64 Focus Area 13 13 3 1 9 432 5773-005-031 C-M C No 0 0.26 No 0 64 Focus Area 16 16 4 2 10 434 5773-005-032 C-M C No 0 0.29 No 0 64 Focus Area 18 18 5 2 11 435 5773-005-006 DMU DMU No 0 0.34 No 64 64 Focus Area 21 21 5 2 14 437 5773-004-027 C-M C No 0 0.35 No 0 64 Focus Area 22 22 6 2 14 438 5773-005-023 C-M C No 0 0.36 No 0 64 Focus Area 22 22 6 2 14 439 5773-005-024 C-M C No 0 0.36 No 0 64 Focus Area 23 23 6 2 15
Appendix A
ID APN Existing
Zoning
Existing
General
Plan
Land
Use
Vacancy Existing
Units Gross Acreage
HCD
Sizing
Criteria
Existing
Zone
Density
(Assumed)
Rezoned
Density
(Assumed)
Inventory
Category
Potential
Rezoned
Unit
Yield
Assumed
Net Yield LVL Mod Above
Mod
440 5773-005-005 C-M C No 0 0.37 No 0 64 Focus Area 23 23 6 2 15 441 5773-004-026 C-M C No 0 0.38 No 0 64 Focus Area 24 24 6 2 16 443 5773-004-811 C-M C No 0 0.42 No 0 64 Focus Area 27 27 7 3 17 445 5773-004-810 C-M C No 0 0.45 No 0 64 Focus Area 28 28 7 3 18 773 5773-002-004 C-M C No 0 0.17 No 0 64 11 11 3 1 7
774 5773-002-005 C-M C No 0 0.17 No 0 64 11 11 3 1 7
775 5773-002-006 C-M C No 7 0.17 No 0 64 11 4 1 0 3
776 5773-002-009 C-M C No 7 0.17 No 0 64 11 4 1 0 3
Appendix A
ID APN Existing
Zoning
Existing
General
Plan
Land
Use
Vacancy Existing
Units Gross Acreage
HCD
Sizing
Criteria
Existing
Zone
Density
(Assumed)
Rezoned
Density
(Assumed)
Inventory
Category
Potential
Rezoned
Unit
Yield
Assumed
Net Yield LVL Mod Above
Mod
777 5773-002-010 C-M C No 4 0.17 No 0 64 11 7 2 1 4
778 5773-002-011 C-M C No 4 0.17 No 0 64 11 7 2 1 4
779 5773-002-012 C-M C No 0 0.17 No 0 64 11 11 3 1 7
780 5773-002-013 C-M C No 7 0.17 No 0 64 11 4 1 0 3
781 5773-002-017 C-M C No 2 0.17 No 0 64 11 9 2 1 6
782 5773-002-035 C-M C No 0 0.50 No 0 64 31 31 8 3 20 783 5773-002-052 C-M C No 0 0.35 No 0 64 22 22 6 2 14 784 5773-003-003 C-M C No 1 0.16 No 0 64 10 9 2 1 6
Appendix A
ID APN Existing
Zoning
Existing
General
Plan
Land
Use
Vacancy Existing
Units Gross Acreage
HCD
Sizing
Criteria
Existing
Zone
Density
(Assumed)
Rezoned
Density
(Assumed)
Inventory
Category
Potential
Rezoned
Unit
Yield
Assumed
Net Yield LVL Mod Above
Mod
785 5773-003-004 C-M C No 0 0.17 No 0 64 10 10 3 1 6
786 5773-003-005 C-M C No 0 0.18 No 0 64 11 11 3 1 7
787 5773-003-009 C-M C No 0 0.18 No 0 64 11 11 3 1 7
788 5773-003-012 C-M C No 3 0.18 No 0 64 11 8 2 1 5
789 5773-003-013 C-M C No 1 0.18 No 0 64 11 10 3 1 6
790 5773-003-014 C-M C No 0 0.18 No 0 64 11 11 3 1 7
791 5773-003-015 C-M C No 1 0.18 No 0 64 11 10 3 1 6
792 5773-003-016 C-M C No 2 0.16 No 0 64 9 7 2 1 4
Appendix A
ID APN Existing
Zoning
Existing
General
Plan
Land
Use
Vacancy Existing
Units Gross Acreage
HCD
Sizing
Criteria
Existing
Zone
Density
(Assumed)
Rezoned
Density
(Assumed)
Inventory
Category
Potential
Rezoned
Unit
Yield
Assumed
Net Yield LVL Mod Above
Mod
793 5773-003-029 C-M C No 0 0.16 No 0 64 9 9 2 1 6
794 5773-003-034 C-M C No 0 0.19 No 0 64 11 11 3 1 7
795 5773-003-035 C-M C No 0 0.20 No 0 64 13 13 3 1 9
796 5773-003-036 C-M C No 0 0.54 No 0 64 34 34 9 3 22 797 5773-003-037 C-M C No 0 0.35 No 0 64 22 22 6 2 14 356 8573-024-030 MU MU No 0 0.51 Yes 24 40 Focus Area 20 20 5 2 13 357 5773-019-025 MU MU No 0 0.54 Yes 24 40 Focus Area 21 21 5 2 14 358 8573-023-009 MU MU No 0 0.56 Yes 24 40 Focus Area 22 22 6 2 14
Appendix A
ID APN Existing
Zoning
Existing
General
Plan
Land
Use
Vacancy Existing
Units Gross Acreage
HCD
Sizing
Criteria
Existing
Zone
Density
(Assumed)
Rezoned
Density
(Assumed)
Inventory
Category
Potential
Rezoned
Unit
Yield
Assumed
Net Yield LVL Mod Above
Mod
359 5779-009-068 MU MU No 0 0.56 Yes 24 40 Focus Area 22 22 6 2 14 360 5789-028-024 MU MU No 0 0.56 Yes 24 40 Focus Area 22 22 6 2 14 361 5779-017-027 MU MU No 0 0.59 Yes 24 40 Focus Area 23 23 6 2 15 362 8572-002-005 MU MU No 0 0.97 Yes 24 40 Focus Area 38 38 10 4 24 363 8572-001-022 MU MU No 0 0.99 Yes 24 40 Focus Area 39 39 10 4 25 364 8572-002-900 MU MU No 0 1.05 Yes 24 40 Focus Area 42 42 11 4 27 365 8572-001-027 MU MU No 1 1.10 Yes 24 40 Focus Area 44 43 11 4 28 366 8572-001-029 MU MU No 0 1.36 Yes 24 40 Focus Area 54 54 14 5 35
Appendix A
ID APN Existing
Zoning
Existing
General
Plan
Land
Use
Vacancy Existing
Units Gross Acreage
HCD
Sizing
Criteria
Existing
Zone
Density
(Assumed)
Rezoned
Density
(Assumed)
Inventory
Category
Potential
Rezoned
Unit
Yield
Assumed
Net Yield LVL Mod Above
Mod
368 8572-001-030 MU MU No 0 1.97 Yes 24 40 Focus Area 78 78 20 8 50 369 8573-023-020 MU MU No 0 2.55 Yes 24 40 Focus Area 101 101 25 10 66 370 8572-002-010 MU MU No 0 3.94 Yes 24 40 Focus Area 157 157 39 16 102 450 5773-017-004 MU MU No 0 0.08 No 40 40 Focus Area 3 3 1 0 2 451 5779-010-003 MU MU No 0 0.08 No 40 40 Focus Area 3 3 1 0 2 452 5773-018-014 MU MU No 0 0.08 No 40 40 Focus Area 3 3 1 0 2 453 5779-013-011 MU MU No 0 0.09 No 40 40 Focus Area 3 3 1 0 2 454 5779-013-010 MU MU No 0 0.09 No 40 40 Focus Area 3 3 1 0 2
Appendix A
ID APN Existing
Zoning
Existing
General
Plan
Land
Use
Vacancy Existing
Units Gross Acreage
HCD
Sizing
Criteria
Existing
Zone
Density
(Assumed)
Rezoned
Density
(Assumed)
Inventory
Category
Potential
Rezoned
Unit
Yield
Assumed
Net Yield LVL Mod Above
Mod
455 5773-017-003 MU MU No 0 0.09 No 40 40 Focus Area 3 3 1 0 2 456 5773-019-009 MU MU No 0 0.09 No 40 40 Focus Area 3 3 1 0 2 457 5779-010-002 MU MU No 0 0.10 No 40 40 Focus Area 3 3 1 0 2 458 5773-018-015 MU MU No 0 0.10 No 40 40 Focus Area 4 4 1 0 3 459 5773-017-002 MU MU No 0 0.10 No 40 40 Focus Area 4 4 1 0 3 460 5779-013-012 MU MU No 0 0.12 No 40 40 Focus Area 4 4 1 0 3 461 5779-014-021 MU MU No 1 0.14 No 40 40 Focus Area 5 4 1 0 3 462 5779-013-072 MU MU No 0 0.14 No 40 40 Focus Area 5 5 1 1 3 463 5779-016-004 MU MU No 0 0.14 No 40 40 Focus Area 5 5 1 1 3
Appendix A
ID APN Existing
Zoning
Existing
General
Plan
Land
Use
Vacancy Existing
Units Gross Acreage
HCD
Sizing
Criteria
Existing
Zone
Density
(Assumed)
Rezoned
Density
(Assumed)
Inventory
Category
Potential
Rezoned
Unit
Yield
Assumed
Net Yield LVL Mod Above
Mod
464 5779-016-005 MU MU No 0 0.14 No 40 40 Focus Area 5 5 1 1 3 466 5773-020-035 MU MU No 0 0.14 No 40 40 Focus Area 5 5 1 1 3 467 5779-014-018 MU MU No 0 0.14 No 40 40 Focus Area 5 5 1 1 3 469 5789-028-029 MU MU No 0 0.15 No 40 40 Focus Area 5 5 1 1 3 473 5779-003-001 MU MU No 0 0.15 No 40 40 Focus Area 5 5 1 1 3 475 5773-017-090 MU MU No 0 0.15 No 40 40 Focus Area 6 6 2 1 3 477 5779-014-020 MU MU No 1 0.15 No 40 40 Focus Area 6 5 1 1 3 478 5779-014-019 MU MU No 1 0.15 No 40 40 Focus Area 6 5 1 1 3 479 5779-003-035 MU MU No 0 0.15 No 40 40 Focus Area 6 6 2 1 3 480 5779-017-023 MU MU Yes 0 0.15 No 40 40 Focus Area 6 6 2 1 3 482 5773-020-001 MU MU No 0 0.15 No 40 40 Focus Area 6 6 2 1 3
Appendix A
ID APN Existing
Zoning
Existing
General
Plan
Land
Use
Vacancy Existing
Units Gross Acreage
HCD
Sizing
Criteria
Existing
Zone
Density
(Assumed)
Rezoned
Density
(Assumed)
Inventory
Category
Potential
Rezoned
Unit
Yield
Assumed
Net Yield LVL Mod Above
Mod
483 5779-009-035 MU MU No 2 0.16 No 40 40 Focus Area 6 4 1 0 3 484 5779-016-006 MU MU No 1 0.16 No 40 40 Focus Area 6 5 1 1 3 485 5773-018-016 MU MU No 0 0.16 No 40 40 Focus Area 6 6 2 1 3 486 5779-011-014 MU MU No 1 0.16 No 40 40 Focus Area 6 5 1 1 3 487 5779-001-015 MU MU No 0 0.16 No 40 40 Focus Area 6 6 2 1 3 488 5779-001-020 MU MU No 0 0.16 No 40 40 Focus Area 6 6 2 1 3 489 5773-013-015 MU MU No 0 0.17 No 40 40 Focus Area 6 6 2 1 3 490 5779-003-033 MU MU No 0 0.17 No 40 40 Focus Area 6 6 2 1 3 491 5779-003-034 MU MU No 0 0.17 No 40 40 Focus Area 6 6 2 1 3
Appendix A
ID APN Existing
Zoning
Existing
General
Plan
Land
Use
Vacancy Existing
Units Gross Acreage
HCD
Sizing
Criteria
Existing
Zone
Density
(Assumed)
Rezoned
Density
(Assumed)
Inventory
Category
Potential
Rezoned
Unit
Yield
Assumed
Net Yield LVL Mod Above
Mod
492 5779-009-036 MU MU No 2 0.17 No 40 40 Focus Area 6 4 1 0 3 493 5773-017-033 MU MU No 0 0.17 No 40 40 Focus Area 6 6 2 1 3 494 5779-003-002 MU MU No 0 0.17 No 40 40 Focus Area 6 6 2 1 3 495 5779-003-003 MU MU No 0 0.17 No 40 40 Focus Area 6 6 2 1 3 497 5773-020-003 MU MU No 0 0.17 No 40 40 Focus Area 6 6 2 1 3 498 5773-020-034 MU MU No 0 0.17 No 40 40 Focus Area 6 6 2 1 3 499 5779-009-034 MU MU No 0 0.17 No 40 40 Focus Area 6 6 2 1 3 500 5773-020-002 MU MU No 0 0.17 No 40 40 Focus Area 6 6 2 1 3 501 5773-013-017 MU MU No 0 0.17 No 40 40 Focus Area 6 6 2 1 3
Appendix A
ID APN Existing
Zoning
Existing
General
Plan
Land
Use
Vacancy Existing
Units Gross Acreage
HCD
Sizing
Criteria
Existing
Zone
Density
(Assumed)
Rezoned
Density
(Assumed)
Inventory
Category
Potential
Rezoned
Unit
Yield
Assumed
Net Yield LVL Mod Above
Mod
502 5779-002-002 MU MU No 0 0.18 No 40 40 Focus Area 7 7 2 1 4 503 5779-017-024 MU MU No 1 0.18 No 40 40 Focus Area 7 6 2 1 3 504 5773-014-001 MU MU No 0 0.18 No 40 40 Focus Area 7 7 2 1 4 505 5773-019-011 MU MU No 0 0.18 No 40 40 Focus Area 7 7 2 1 4 506 5779-012-015 MU MU No 0 0.18 No 40 40 Focus Area 7 7 2 1 4 507 5779-011-016 MU MU No 0 0.18 No 40 40 Focus Area 7 7 2 1 4 508 5779-012-016 MU MU No 0 0.18 No 40 40 Focus Area 7 7 2 1 4 509 5779-001-016 MU MU No 0 0.18 No 40 40 Focus Area 7 7 2 1 4 510 5773-018-012 MU MU No 0 0.18 No 40 40 Focus Area 7 7 2 1 4
Appendix A
ID APN Existing
Zoning
Existing
General
Plan
Land
Use
Vacancy Existing
Units Gross Acreage
HCD
Sizing
Criteria
Existing
Zone
Density
(Assumed)
Rezoned
Density
(Assumed)
Inventory
Category
Potential
Rezoned
Unit
Yield
Assumed
Net Yield LVL Mod Above
Mod
511 5779-011-015 MU MU No 0 0.18 No 40 40 Focus Area 7 7 2 1 4 512 5773-019-010 MU MU No 1 0.18 No 40 40 Focus Area 7 6 2 1 3 513 5779-012-014 MU MU No 1 0.18 No 40 40 Focus Area 7 6 2 1 3 514 5779-011-017 MU MU No 0 0.18 No 40 40 Focus Area 7 7 2 1 4 515 5779-010-033 MU MU No 0 0.19 No 40 40 Focus Area 7 7 2 1 4 516 5779-012-013 MU MU No 0 0.19 No 40 40 Focus Area 7 7 2 1 4 517 5773-020-036 MU MU No 0 0.19 No 40 40 Focus Area 7 7 2 1 4 518 5773-018-013 MU MU No 0 0.19 No 40 40 Focus Area 7 7 2 1 4
Appendix A
ID APN Existing
Zoning
Existing
General
Plan
Land
Use
Vacancy Existing
Units Gross Acreage
HCD
Sizing
Criteria
Existing
Zone
Density
(Assumed)
Rezoned
Density
(Assumed)
Inventory
Category
Potential
Rezoned
Unit
Yield
Assumed
Net Yield LVL Mod Above
Mod
519 5779-001-017 MU MU No 1 0.19 No 40 40 Focus Area 7 6 2 1 3 520 5779-001-019 MU MU No 0 0.19 No 40 40 Focus Area 7 7 2 1 4 521 5773-013-016 MU MU No 0 0.20 No 40 40 Focus Area 7 7 2 1 4 522 5779-001-018 MU MU No 1 0.20 No 40 40 Focus Area 7 6 2 1 3 523 8573-023-002 MU MU No 0 0.20 No 40 40 Focus Area 7 7 2 1 4 524 8573-023-001 MU MU No 0 0.20 No 40 40 Focus Area 7 7 2 1 4 525 8573-024-003 MU MU No 0 0.20 No 40 40 Focus Area 7 7 2 1 4 526 8573-023-006 MU MU No 0 0.20 No 40 40 Focus Area 8 8 2 1 5 528 8573-024-004 MU MU No 0 0.20 No 40 40 Focus Area 8 8 2 1 5
Appendix A
ID APN Existing
Zoning
Existing
General
Plan
Land
Use
Vacancy Existing
Units Gross Acreage
HCD
Sizing
Criteria
Existing
Zone
Density
(Assumed)
Rezoned
Density
(Assumed)
Inventory
Category
Potential
Rezoned
Unit
Yield
Assumed
Net Yield LVL Mod Above
Mod
529 8573-024-002 MU MU No 0 0.21 No 40 40 Focus Area 8 8 2 1 5 531 8573-023-003 MU MU No 0 0.21 No 40 40 Focus Area 8 8 2 1 5 533 5779-016-029 MU MU No 1 0.22 No 40 40 Focus Area 8 7 2 1 4 540 5779-016-030 MU MU No 0 0.24 No 40 40 Focus Area 9 9 2 1 6 544 5779-014-033 MU MU No 0 0.26 No 40 40 Focus Area 10 10 3 1 6 549 5779-010-032 MU MU No 1 0.30 No 40 40 Focus Area 12 11 3 1 7 550 5779-010-001 MU MU No 0 0.30 No 40 40 Focus Area 12 12 3 1 8 551 5789-028-025 MU MU No 0 0.31 No 40 40 Focus Area 12 12 3 1 8 555 5779-002-001 MU MU No 0 0.32 No 40 40 Focus Area 12 12 3 1 8
Appendix A
ID APN Existing
Zoning
Existing
General
Plan
Land
Use
Vacancy Existing
Units Gross Acreage
HCD
Sizing
Criteria
Existing
Zone
Density
(Assumed)
Rezoned
Density
(Assumed)
Inventory
Category
Potential
Rezoned
Unit
Yield
Assumed
Net Yield LVL Mod Above
Mod
556 5773-017-034 MU MU No 0 0.33 No 40 40 Focus Area 13 13 3 1 9 557 5789-028-010 MU MU No 1 0.34 No 40 40 Focus Area 13 12 3 1 8 559 5779-011-018 MU MU No 0 0.34 No 40 40 Focus Area 13 13 3 1 9 560 5779-012-017 MU MU No 1 0.35 No 40 40 Focus Area 13 12 3 1 8 561 5773-018-011 MU MU No 6 0.35 No 40 40 Focus Area 14 8 2 1 5 567 8573-023-008 MU MU No 0 0.39 No 40 40 Focus Area 15 15 4 2 9 568 8572-002-007 MU MU No 0 0.39 No 40 40 Focus Area 15 15 4 2 9 569 8573-024-001 MU MU No 1 0.40 No 40 40 Focus Area 16 15 4 2 9 570 8573-023-004 MU MU No 0 0.40 No 40 40 Focus Area 16 16 4 2 10
Appendix A
ID APN Existing
Zoning
Existing
General
Plan
Land
Use
Vacancy Existing
Units Gross Acreage
HCD
Sizing
Criteria
Existing
Zone
Density
(Assumed)
Rezoned
Density
(Assumed)
Inventory
Category
Potential
Rezoned
Unit
Yield
Assumed
Net Yield LVL Mod Above
Mod
571 5779-013-061 MU MU No 0 0.41 No 40 40 Focus Area 16 16 4 2 10 574 5789-028-012 MU MU No 1 0.44 No 40 40 Focus Area 17 16 4 2 10 575 8572-002-001 MU MU No 0 0.46 No 40 40 Focus Area 18 18 5 2 11 579 5773-014-002 MU MU No 0 0.49 No 40 40 Focus Area 19 19 5 2 12 580 5779-002-110 MU MU No 8 0.49 No 40 40 Focus Area 19 11 3 1 7 371 8573-019-900 C-G C No 0 0.50 Yes 24 48 Focus Area 24 24 6 2 16 372 8573-019-003 C-G C No 0 0.52 Yes 24 48 Focus Area 25 25 6 3 16 373 8573-019-002 C-G C No 0 0.53 Yes 24 48 Focus Area 25 25 6 3 16 374 8573-019-001 C-G C No 0 0.55 Yes 24 48 Focus Area 26 26 7 3 16
Appendix A
ID APN Existing
Zoning
Existing
General
Plan
Land
Use
Vacancy Existing
Units Gross Acreage
HCD
Sizing
Criteria
Existing
Zone
Density
(Assumed)
Rezoned
Density
(Assumed)
Inventory
Category
Potential
Rezoned
Unit
Yield
Assumed
Net Yield LVL Mod Above
Mod
375 5788-021-016 C-G C No 0 0.67 Yes 24 48 Focus Area 32 32 8 3 21 376 5788-021-017 C-G C No 0 0.70 Yes 24 48 Focus Area 33 33 8 3 22 377 5788-022-017 C-G C No 0 0.72 Yes 24 48 Focus Area 34 34 9 3 22 378 5788-022-034 C-G C No 0 0.81 Yes 24 48 Focus Area 38 38 10 4 24 379 5788-020-052 C-G C No 0 0.83 Yes 24 48 Focus Area 39 39 10 4 25 380 8573-015-023 C-M C/LI No 0 0.89 Yes 24 48 Focus Area 42 42 11 4 27 381 5788-021-001 C-G C No 0 0.94 Yes 24 48 Focus Area 45 45 11 5 29 382 8573-020-056 C-G C No 0 0.99 Yes 24 48 Focus Area 47 47 12 5 30
Appendix A
ID APN Existing
Zoning
Existing
General
Plan
Land
Use
Vacancy Existing
Units Gross Acreage
HCD
Sizing
Criteria
Existing
Zone
Density
(Assumed)
Rezoned
Density
(Assumed)
Inventory
Category
Potential
Rezoned
Unit
Yield
Assumed
Net Yield LVL Mod Above
Mod
383 8573-015-043 C-M C/LI No 0 1.39 Yes 24 48 Focus Area 66 66 17 7 42 385 5788-022-016 C-G C No 0 2.03 Yes 24 48 Focus Area 97 97 24 10 63 554 8573-013-047 C-M C/LI No 0 0.32 No 40 48 Focus Area 15 15 4 2 9 552 5788-021-006 C-G C No 0 0.32 No 40 48 Focus Area 15 15 4 2 9 547 8573-010-013 C-M C/LI No 0 0.30 No 40 48 Focus Area 14 14 4 1 9 542 8573-001-001 C-M C/LI No 0 0.24 No 40 48 Focus Area 11 11 3 1 7 538 8573-013-044 C-M C/LI No 0 0.24 No 40 48 Focus Area 11 11 3 1 7 534 5788-021-018 C-G C No 0 0.23 No 40 48 Focus Area 11 11 3 1 7
Appendix A
ID APN Existing
Zoning
Existing
General
Plan
Land
Use
Vacancy Existing
Units Gross Acreage
HCD
Sizing
Criteria
Existing
Zone
Density
(Assumed)
Rezoned
Density
(Assumed)
Inventory
Category
Potential
Rezoned
Unit
Yield
Assumed
Net Yield LVL Mod Above
Mod
535 5788-021-011 C-G C No 0 0.23 No 40 48 Focus Area 11 11 3 1 7 465 8573-013-045 C-M C/LI No 0 0.14 No 40 48 Focus Area 6 6 2 1 3 468 8573-001-007 C-M C/LI No 0 0.14 No 40 48 Focus Area 6 6 2 1 3 470 8573-010-001 C-M C/LI No 0 0.15 No 40 48 Focus Area 7 7 2 1 4 471 8573-001-006 C-M C/LI No 0 0.15 No 40 48 Focus Area 7 7 2 1 4 472 8573-001-026 C-M C/LI No 0 0.15 No 40 48 Focus Area 7 7 2 1 4 474 8573-001-004 C-M C/LI No 0 0.15 No 40 48 Focus Area 7 7 2 1 4 476 8573-001-005 C-M C/LI No 0 0.15 No 40 48 Focus Area 7 7 2 1 4
Appendix A
ID APN Existing
Zoning
Existing
General
Plan
Land
Use
Vacancy Existing
Units Gross Acreage
HCD
Sizing
Criteria
Existing
Zone
Density
(Assumed)
Rezoned
Density
(Assumed)
Inventory
Category
Potential
Rezoned
Unit
Yield
Assumed
Net Yield LVL Mod Above
Mod
481 8573-013-048 C-M C/LI No 0 0.15 No 40 48 Focus Area 7 7 2 1 4 563 5788-021-003 C-G C No 0 0.36 No 40 48 Focus Area 17 17 4 2 11 572 5788-021-012 C-G C No 0 0.42 No 40 48 Focus Area 20 20 5 2 13 386 5789-020-042 C-O C No 0 0.63 Yes 0 40 Focus Area 25 25 6 3 16 387 8572-010-023 C-G C No 0 0.69 Yes 0 40 Focus Area 27 27 7 3 17 388 5789-020-045 C-G C No 0 0.70 Yes 0 40 Focus Area 28 28 7 3 18 389 5790-027-001 C-G C No 0 0.76 Yes 0 40 Focus Area 30 30 8 3 19 390 5789-021-031 C-O C No 0 0.87 Yes 0 40 Focus Area 34 34 9 3 22
Appendix A
ID APN Existing
Zoning
Existing
General
Plan
Land
Use
Vacancy Existing
Units Gross Acreage
HCD
Sizing
Criteria
Existing
Zone
Density
(Assumed)
Rezoned
Density
(Assumed)
Inventory
Category
Potential
Rezoned
Unit
Yield
Assumed
Net Yield LVL Mod Above
Mod
496 8572-009-002 C-G C No 0 0.17 No 24 40 Focus Area 6 6 2 1 3 532 5790-027-030 C-G C No 0 0.22 No 24 40 Focus Area 8 8 2 1 5 536 5790-028-033 C-G C No 0 0.23 No 24 40 Focus Area 9 9 2 1 6 537 5791-024-016 C-G C No 0 0.24 No 24 40 Focus Area 9 9 2 1 6 539 8572-009-003 C-G C No 0 0.24 No 24 40 Focus Area 9 9 2 1 6 541 5791-024-048 C-G C No 2 0.24 No 24 40 Focus Area 9 7 2 1 4 543 5789-020-040 C-G C No 0 0.25 No 24 40 Focus Area 10 10 3 1 6 545 5791-024-012 C-G C No 0 0.26 No 24 40 Focus Area 10 10 3 1 6
Appendix A
ID APN Existing
Zoning
Existing
General
Plan
Land
Use
Vacancy Existing
Units Gross Acreage
HCD
Sizing
Criteria
Existing
Zone
Density
(Assumed)
Rezoned
Density
(Assumed)
Inventory
Category
Potential
Rezoned
Unit
Yield
Assumed
Net Yield LVL Mod Above
Mod
546 5790-028-032 C-G C No 0 0.27 No 24 40 Focus Area 10 10 3 1 6 548 5789-020-039 C-G C No 0 0.30 No 24 40 Focus Area 11 11 3 1 7 553 5789-021-019 C-O C No 0 0.32 No 24 40 Focus Area 12 12 3 1 8 558 8572-009-042 C-G C No 0 0.34 No 24 40 Focus Area 8 8 2 1 5 562 5790-027-034 C-G C Yes 0 0.36 No 24 40 Focus Area 8 8 2 1 5 564 5791-024-057 C-G C No 0 0.38 No 24 40 Focus Area 9 9 2 1 6 565 5789-021-018 C-O C No 0 0.38 No 24 40 Focus Area 9 9 2 1 6 566 5789-020-033 C-G C No 0 0.39 No 24 40 Focus Area 9 9 2 1 6
Appendix A
ID APN Existing
Zoning
Existing
General
Plan
Land
Use
Vacancy Existing
Units Gross Acreage
HCD
Sizing
Criteria
Existing
Zone
Density
(Assumed)
Rezoned
Density
(Assumed)
Inventory
Category
Potential
Rezoned
Unit
Yield
Assumed
Net Yield LVL Mod Above
Mod
573 5790-030-017 C-G C No 0 0.43 No 24 40 Focus Area 10 10 3 1 6 576 8572-002-009 MU MU No 0 0.46 No 40 40 Focus Area 19 19 5 2 12 577 5789-020-027 C-G C No 0 0.48 No 24 40 Focus Area 11 11 3 1 7 578 5789-021-013 C-O C No 0 0.49 No 24 40 Focus Area 11 11 3 1 7 581 5790-028-028 C-G C No 0 0.50 No 24 40 Focus Area 11 11 3 1 7 254 5383-029-035 C-G C No 0 0.51 Yes 0 24 Focus Area 12 12 3 1 8 255 5779-016-031 C-G C No 0 0.51 Yes 0 24 Focus Area 12 12 3 1 8 256 8586-001-010 C-G C No 0 0.52 Yes 0 24 Focus Area 12 12 3 1 8 257 5773-001-045 C-G C No 0 0.53 Yes 0 24 Focus Area 12 12 3 1 8
Appendix A
ID APN Existing
Zoning
Existing
General
Plan
Land
Use
Vacancy Existing
Units Gross Acreage
HCD
Sizing
Criteria
Existing
Zone
Density
(Assumed)
Rezoned
Density
(Assumed)
Inventory
Category
Potential
Rezoned
Unit
Yield
Assumed
Net Yield LVL Mod Above
Mod
258 5784-006-007 C-G C No 0 0.54 Yes 0 24 Focus Area 12 12 3 1 8 259 5778-001-101 C-G C No 0 0.55 Yes 0 24 Focus Area 13 13 3 1 9 260 5779-016-034 C-G C No 0 0.55 Yes 0 24 Focus Area 13 13 3 1 9 261 5771-021-018 C-G C No 0 0.55 Yes 0 24 Focus Area 13 13 3 1 9 262 5771-028-040 C-G C No 0 0.56 Yes 0 24 Focus Area 6 6 2 1 3 263 5383-031-025 C-G C No 0 0.57 Yes 0 24 Focus Area 13 13 3 1 9 264 5783-010-032 C-G C No 0 0.57 Yes 0 24 Focus Area 13 13 3 1 9
Appendix A
ID APN Existing
Zoning
Existing
General
Plan
Land
Use
Vacancy Existing
Units Gross Acreage
HCD
Sizing
Criteria
Existing
Zone
Density
(Assumed)
Rezoned
Density
(Assumed)
Inventory
Category
Potential
Rezoned
Unit
Yield
Assumed
Net Yield LVL Mod Above
Mod
265 5781-006-048 C-G C No 0 0.57 Yes 0 24 Focus Area 13 13 3 1 9 266 5383-038-023 C-G C No 0 0.59 Yes 0 24 Focus Area 14 14 4 1 9 267 5383-031-035 C-G C No 0 0.59 Yes 0 24 Focus Area 14 14 4 1 9 268 5779-015-030 C-G C No 0 0.59 Yes 0 24 Focus Area 14 14 4 1 9 269 5383-031-023 C-G C No 0 0.60 Yes 0 24 Focus Area 14 14 4 1 9 270 5779-016-010 C-G C No 0 0.61 Yes 0 24 Focus Area 14 14 4 1 9 271 5778-007-011 C-G C No 0 0.62 Yes 0 24 Focus Area 14 14 4 1 9 272 5778-014-013 C-G C No 0 0.65 Yes 0 24 Focus Area 15 15 4 2 9
Appendix A
ID APN Existing
Zoning
Existing
General
Plan
Land
Use
Vacancy Existing
Units Gross Acreage
HCD
Sizing
Criteria
Existing
Zone
Density
(Assumed)
Rezoned
Density
(Assumed)
Inventory
Category
Potential
Rezoned
Unit
Yield
Assumed
Net Yield LVL Mod Above
Mod
273 5778-014-021 C-G C No 0 0.65 Yes 0 24 Focus Area 15 15 4 2 9 274 5771-021-017 C-G C No 0 0.67 Yes 0 24 Focus Area 16 16 4 2 10 275 5770-009-026 C-G C No 0 0.68 Yes 0 24 Focus Area 16 16 4 2 10 276 5772-001-007 C-G C No 0 0.69 Yes 0 24 Focus Area 16 16 4 2 10 277 5775-011-030 C-G C 1.0 No 0 0.69 Yes 0 24 Focus Area 16 16 4 2 10 278 5778-001-103 C-G C No 0 0.69 Yes 0 24 Focus Area 16 16 4 2 10 279 5775-021-037 C-G C 1.0 No 0 0.69 Yes 0 24 Focus Area 16 16 4 2 10 280 5787-024-036 C-G C No 0 0.70 Yes 0 24 Focus Area 16 16 4 2 10
Appendix A
ID APN Existing
Zoning
Existing
General
Plan
Land
Use
Vacancy Existing
Units Gross Acreage
HCD
Sizing
Criteria
Existing
Zone
Density
(Assumed)
Rezoned
Density
(Assumed)
Inventory
Category
Potential
Rezoned
Unit
Yield
Assumed
Net Yield LVL Mod Above
Mod
281 5772-001-006 C-G C No 0 0.71 Yes 0 24 Focus Area 17 17 4 2 11 282 5783-008-045 C-G C No 0 0.71 Yes 0 24 Focus Area 17 17 4 2 11 283 5783-008-030 C-G C Yes 0 0.73 Yes 0 24 Focus Area 17 17 4 2 11 284 5772-001-022 C-G C No 0 0.73 Yes 0 24 Focus Area 17 17 4 2 11 285 5784-001-020 C-G C No 0 0.75 Yes 0 24 Focus Area 18 18 5 2 11 286 5383-035-019 C-G C No 0 0.75 Yes 0 24 Focus Area 18 18 5 2 11 287 5778-007-014 C-G C No 0 0.76 Yes 0 24 Focus Area 18 18 5 2 11 288 5783-008-031 C-G C No 0 0.77 Yes 0 24 Focus Area 18 18 5 2 11
Appendix A
ID APN Existing
Zoning
Existing
General
Plan
Land
Use
Vacancy Existing
Units Gross Acreage
HCD
Sizing
Criteria
Existing
Zone
Density
(Assumed)
Rezoned
Density
(Assumed)
Inventory
Category
Potential
Rezoned
Unit
Yield
Assumed
Net Yield LVL Mod Above
Mod
289 5383-035-035 C-G C No 0 0.78 Yes 0 24 Focus Area 18 18 5 2 11 290 5383-035-028 C-G C No 0 0.83 Yes 0 24 Focus Area 19 19 5 2 12 291 5778-007-001 C-G C No 0 0.83 Yes 0 24 Focus Area 20 20 5 2 13 292 5783-008-049 C-G C No 0 0.85 Yes 0 24 Focus Area 20 20 5 2 13 293 5383-035-034 C-G C No 0 0.86 Yes 0 24 Focus Area 20 20 5 2 13 294 5784-003-027 C-G C No 0 0.88 Yes 0 24 Focus Area 21 21 5 2 14 295 5383-035-031 C-G C No 0 0.90 Yes 0 24 Focus Area 21 21 5 2 14 296 5784-003-025 C-G C No 0 0.90 Yes 0 24 Focus Area 21 21 5 2 14 297 5383-035-030 C-G C No 0 0.92 Yes 0 24 Focus Area 22 22 6 2 14
Appendix A
ID APN Existing
Zoning
Existing
General
Plan
Land
Use
Vacancy Existing
Units Gross Acreage
HCD
Sizing
Criteria
Existing
Zone
Density
(Assumed)
Rezoned
Density
(Assumed)
Inventory
Category
Potential
Rezoned
Unit
Yield
Assumed
Net Yield LVL Mod Above
Mod
298 5783-013-032 C-G C No 0 0.93 Yes 0 24 Focus Area 22 22 6 2 14 299 5383-035-026 C-G C No 0 0.94 Yes 0 24 Focus Area 22 22 6 2 14 300 8587-033-021 C-G C No 0 0.95 Yes 0 24 Focus Area 22 22 6 2 14 301 8586-001-027 C-G C No 0 0.95 Yes 0 24 Focus Area 22 22 6 2 14 302 5771-028-024 C-G C No 0 0.97 Yes 0 24 Focus Area 23 23 6 2 15 303 5771-028-037 C-G C No 0 1.06 Yes 0 24 Focus Area 25 25 6 3 16 304 5775-023-015 C-G C 1.0 No 0 1.07 Yes 0 24 Focus Area 25 25 6 3 16 305 5383-035-025 C-G C No 0 1.13 Yes 0 24 Focus Area 27 27 7 3 17
Appendix A
ID APN Existing
Zoning
Existing
General
Plan
Land
Use
Vacancy Existing
Units Gross Acreage
HCD
Sizing
Criteria
Existing
Zone
Density
(Assumed)
Rezoned
Density
(Assumed)
Inventory
Category
Potential
Rezoned
Unit
Yield
Assumed
Net Yield LVL Mod Above
Mod
306 5383-038-021 C-G C No 0 1.17 Yes 0 24 Focus Area 28 28 7 3 18 307 5775-011-002 C-G C 1.0 No 0 1.22 Yes 0 24 Focus Area 29 29 7 3 19 308 5781-005-002 C-G C No 0 1.23 Yes 0 24 Focus Area 29 29 7 3 19 309 5383-031-034 C-G C No 0 1.25 Yes 0 24 Focus Area 30 30 8 3 19 310 8587-033-020 C-G C No 0 1.28 Yes 0 24 Focus Area 30 30 8 3 19 311 5771-028-053 C-G C No 0 1.29 Yes 0 24 Focus Area 30 30 8 3 19 312 5771-028-038 C-G C No 0 1.29 Yes 0 24 Focus Area 30 30 8 3 19 313 5775-011-032 C-G C 1.0 No 0 1.31 Yes 0 24 Focus Area 31 31 8 3 20
Appendix A
ID APN Existing
Zoning
Existing
General
Plan
Land
Use
Vacancy Existing
Units Gross Acreage
HCD
Sizing
Criteria
Existing
Zone
Density
(Assumed)
Rezoned
Density
(Assumed)
Inventory
Category
Potential
Rezoned
Unit
Yield
Assumed
Net Yield LVL Mod Above
Mod
314 5781-006-049 C-G C No 0 1.31 Yes 0 24 Focus Area 31 31 8 3 20 315 5778-006-010 C-G C No 0 1.35 Yes 0 24 Focus Area 32 32 8 3 21 316 5772-001-028 C-G C No 0 1.40 Yes 0 24 Focus Area 33 33 8 3 22 317 5383-035-029 C-G C No 0 1.40 Yes 0 24 Focus Area 33 33 8 3 22 318 5383-038-027 C-G C No 0 1.42 Yes 0 24 Focus Area 34 34 9 3 22 319 5783-010-056 C-G C No 0 1.53 Yes 0 24 Focus Area 36 36 9 4 23 320 8586-001-009 C-G C No 0 1.65 Yes 0 24 Focus Area 39 39 10 4 25 321 5784-003-026 C-G C No 0 1.74 Yes 0 24 Focus Area 41 41 10 4 27
Appendix A
ID APN Existing
Zoning
Existing
General
Plan
Land
Use
Vacancy Existing
Units Gross Acreage
HCD
Sizing
Criteria
Existing
Zone
Density
(Assumed)
Rezoned
Density
(Assumed)
Inventory
Category
Potential
Rezoned
Unit
Yield
Assumed
Net Yield LVL Mod Above
Mod
322 5784-003-043 C-G C No 0 1.97 Yes 0 24 Focus Area 47 47 12 5 30 323 5778-007-029 C-G C No 0 2.22 Yes 0 24 Focus Area 53 53 13 5 35 324 5383-035-024 C-G C No 0 2.43 Yes 0 24 Focus Area 58 58 15 6 37 325 5778-007-010 C-G C No 0 2.45 Yes 0 24 Focus Area 58 58 15 6 37 326 5383-035-014 C-G C No 0 2.55 Yes 0 24 Focus Area 61 61 15 6 40 327 5383-035-015 C-G C No 0 2.91 Yes 0 24 Focus Area 69 69 17 7 45 328 5775-011-016 C-G C 1.0 No 0 4.90 Yes 0 24 Focus Area 117 117 29 12 76 329 5771-021-029 C-G C No 0 5.20 Yes 0 24 Focus Area 124 124 31 12 81
Appendix A
ID APN Existing
Zoning
Existing
General
Plan
Land
Use
Vacancy Existing
Units Gross Acreage
HCD
Sizing
Criteria
Existing
Zone
Density
(Assumed)
Rezoned
Density
(Assumed)
Inventory
Category
Potential
Rezoned
Unit
Yield
Assumed
Net Yield LVL Mod Above
Mod
53 5783-006-018 R-3 HDR No 9 0.50 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 16 7 2 1 4 54 5779-005-043 R-3 HDR No 12 0.50 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 16 4 1 0 3 55 5379-028-021 R-3 HDR No 12 0.50 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 16 4 1 0 3 57 5772-005-001 R-3 HDR No 0 0.50 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 16 16 4 2 10 58 5773-016-091 R-3 HDR No 7 0.51 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 16 9 2 1 6 59 5383-029-038 R-3 HDR No 0 0.51 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 16 16 4 2 10 60 5382-001-042 R-3 HDR No 7 0.52 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 16 9 2 1 6 69 5379-022-112 R-3 HDR No 8 0.54 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 17 9 2 1 6 70 5779-003-066 R-3 HDR No 6 0.54 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 17 11 3 1 7 71 5773-013-058 R-3 HDR No 11 0.54 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 17 6 2 1 3 72 5773-014-050 R-3 HDR No 10 0.55 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 17 7 2 1 4 74 5778-015-018 R-3 HDR No 11 0.56 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 17 6 2 1 3
Appendix A
ID APN Existing
Zoning
Existing
General
Plan
Land
Use
Vacancy Existing
Units Gross Acreage
HCD
Sizing
Criteria
Existing
Zone
Density
(Assumed)
Rezoned
Density
(Assumed)
Inventory
Category
Potential
Rezoned
Unit
Yield
Assumed
Net Yield LVL Mod Above
Mod
75 5777-028-015 R-3 HDR No 12 0.56 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 17 5 1 1 3 76 5379-029-084 R-3 HDR No 10 0.56 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 17 7 2 1 4 78 5783-006-063 R-3 HDR No 10 0.56 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 18 8 2 1 5 79 5783-001-046 R-3 HDR No 10 0.57 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 18 8 2 1 5 80 5778-002-064 R-3 HDR No 12 0.57 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 18 6 2 1 3 82 5773-016-172 R-3 HDR No 8 0.57 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 18 10 3 1 6 83 5781-005-031 R-3 HDR No 10 0.57 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 18 8 2 1 5 84 5383-033-011 R-3 HDR No 5 0.58 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 18 13 3 1 9 85 5773-016-118 R-3 HDR No 7 0.58 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 18 11 3 1 7 86 5783-012-066 R-3 HDR No 8 0.58 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 18 10 3 1 6 87 5778-011-052 R-3 HDR No 10 0.58 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 18 8 2 1 5 88 5783-011-126 R-3 HDR No 12 0.59 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 18 6 2 1 3 89 5783-011-035 R-3 HDR No 4 0.59 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 18 14 4 1 9
Appendix A
ID APN Existing
Zoning
Existing
General
Plan
Land
Use
Vacancy Existing
Units Gross Acreage
HCD
Sizing
Criteria
Existing
Zone
Density
(Assumed)
Rezoned
Density
(Assumed)
Inventory
Category
Potential
Rezoned
Unit
Yield
Assumed
Net Yield LVL Mod Above
Mod
90 5783-011-134 R-3 HDR No 8 0.59 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 18 10 3 1 6 91 5783-011-081 R-3 HDR No 13 0.59 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 18 5 1 1 3 92 5783-007-089 R-3 HDR No 6 0.60 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 19 13 3 1 9 93 5773-016-125 R-3 HDR No 7 0.60 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 19 12 3 1 8 94 5777-029-056 R-3 HDR No 11 0.60 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 19 8 2 1 5 95 5783-007-057 R-3 HDR No 10 0.60 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 19 9 2 1 6 96 5773-016-107 R-3 HDR No 7 0.61 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 19 12 3 1 8 97 5773-016-180 R-3 HDR No 8 0.61 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 19 11 3 1 7 99 5783-004-040 R-3 HDR No 12 0.62 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 19 7 2 1 4 100 5779-004-029 R-3 HDR No 12 0.62 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 19 7 2 1 4 101 5778-009-026 R-3 HDR No 12 0.64 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 20 8 2 1 5 102 5783-006-098 R-3 HDR No 12 0.64 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 20 8 2 1 5 104 5777-035-040 R-3 HDR No 13 0.65 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 20 7 2 1 4
Appendix A
ID APN Existing
Zoning
Existing
General
Plan
Land
Use
Vacancy Existing
Units Gross Acreage
HCD
Sizing
Criteria
Existing
Zone
Density
(Assumed)
Rezoned
Density
(Assumed)
Inventory
Category
Potential
Rezoned
Unit
Yield
Assumed
Net Yield LVL Mod Above
Mod
105 5773-016-155 R-3 HDR No 10 0.65 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 20 10 3 1 6 107 5783-002-034 R-3 HDR No 13 0.66 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 21 8 2 1 5 109 5778-006-003 R-3 HDR No 14 0.66 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 21 7 2 1 4 110 5778-005-012 R-3 HDR No 2 0.66 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 21 19 5 2 12 111 5783-002-105 R-3 HDR No 8 0.66 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 21 13 3 1 9 112 5778-006-002 R-3 HDR No 15 0.66 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 21 6 2 1 3 113 5778-005-013 R-3 HDR No 1 0.67 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 21 20 5 2 13 115 5379-022-018 R-3 HDR No 12 0.67 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 21 9 2 1 6 116 5379-022-023 R-3 HDR No 16 0.67 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 21 5 1 1 3 118 5379-022-125 R-3 HDR No 12 0.67 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 21 9 2 1 6 119 5778-010-040 R-3 HDR No 12 0.68 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 21 9 2 1 6 120 5783-002-096 R-3 HDR No 14 0.68 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 21 7 2 1 4 121 5379-029-034 R-3 HDR No 11 0.68 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 21 10 3 1 6
Appendix A
ID APN Existing
Zoning
Existing
General
Plan
Land
Use
Vacancy Existing
Units Gross Acreage
HCD
Sizing
Criteria
Existing
Zone
Density
(Assumed)
Rezoned
Density
(Assumed)
Inventory
Category
Potential
Rezoned
Unit
Yield
Assumed
Net Yield LVL Mod Above
Mod
122 5379-029-073 R-3 HDR No 15 0.69 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 22 7 2 1 4 123 5779-016-026 R-3 HDR No 0 0.70 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 22 22 6 2 14 126 5777-030-031 R-3 HDR No 14 0.71 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 22 8 2 1 5 127 5778-009-024 R-3 HDR No 12 0.72 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 23 11 3 1 7 128 5779-005-060 R-3 HDR No 16 0.72 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 23 7 2 1 4 129 5783-010-044 R-3 HDR No 11 0.72 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 23 12 3 1 8 130 5783-010-021 R-3 HDR No 13 0.72 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 23 10 3 1 6 131 5379-037-036 R-3 HDR No 14 0.73 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 23 9 2 1 6 132 5779-001-079 R-3 HDR No 16 0.73 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 23 7 2 1 4 133 5779-011-063 R-3 HDR No 15 0.73 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 23 8 2 1 5 135 5379-029-057 R-3 HDR No 17 0.74 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 23 6 2 1 3 136 5382-001-067 R-3 HDR No 1 0.75 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 23 22 6 2 14 137 5778-007-025 R-3 HDR No 8 0.75 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 23 15 4 2 9
Appendix A
ID APN Existing
Zoning
Existing
General
Plan
Land
Use
Vacancy Existing
Units Gross Acreage
HCD
Sizing
Criteria
Existing
Zone
Density
(Assumed)
Rezoned
Density
(Assumed)
Inventory
Category
Potential
Rezoned
Unit
Yield
Assumed
Net Yield LVL Mod Above
Mod
138 5783-005-052 R-3 HDR No 15 0.76 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 24 9 2 1 6 139 5382-002-058 R-3 HDR No 14 0.77 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 24 10 3 1 6 140 5383-002-005 R-3 HDR No 14 0.77 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 24 10 3 1 6 141 5783-011-098 R-3 HDR No 16 0.77 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 24 8 2 1 5 142 5777-035-027 R-3 HDR No 20 0.80 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 25 5 1 1 3 143 5773-016-070 R-3 HDR No 20 0.81 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 25 5 1 1 3 144 5773-002-051 R-3 HDR No 16 0.82 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 26 10 3 1 6 145 5783-002-049 R-3 HDR No 14 0.83 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 26 12 3 1 8 146 5778-015-011 R-3 HDR No 11 0.83 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 26 15 4 2 9 148 5783-002-129 R-3 HDR No 18 0.83 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 26 8 2 1 5 149 5383-001-090 R-3 HDR No 10 0.84 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 26 16 4 2 10 151 5778-003-015 R-3 HDR No 21 0.84 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 26 5 1 1 3 152 5383-001-079 R-3 HDR No 16 0.85 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 27 11 3 1 7
Appendix A
ID APN Existing
Zoning
Existing
General
Plan
Land
Use
Vacancy Existing
Units Gross Acreage
HCD
Sizing
Criteria
Existing
Zone
Density
(Assumed)
Rezoned
Density
(Assumed)
Inventory
Category
Potential
Rezoned
Unit
Yield
Assumed
Net Yield LVL Mod Above
Mod
154 5783-008-043 R-3 HDR No 12 0.86 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 27 15 4 2 9 155 5778-010-023 R-3 HDR No 14 0.87 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 27 13 3 1 9 156 5783-014-077 R-3 HDR No 16 0.87 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 27 11 3 1 7 157 5783-004-058 R-3 HDR No 16 0.87 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 27 11 3 1 7 158 5783-013-048 R-3 HDR No 10 0.87 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 27 17 4 2 11 159 5783-014-007 R-3 HDR No 21 0.87 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 27 6 2 1 3 160 5783-014-033 R-3 HDR No 16 0.87 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 27 11 3 1 7 161 5379-028-024 R-3 HDR No 18 0.87 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 27 9 2 1 6 162 5783-004-026 R-3 HDR No 20 0.87 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 27 7 2 1 4 163 5783-002-068 R-3 HDR No 17 0.87 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 27 10 3 1 6 164 5783-005-077 R-3 HDR No 18 0.87 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 27 9 2 1 6 165 5783-014-105 R-3 HDR No 18 0.87 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 27 9 2 1 6 166 5383-034-046 R-3 HDR No 18 0.88 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 28 10 3 1 6
Appendix A
ID APN Existing
Zoning
Existing
General
Plan
Land
Use
Vacancy Existing
Units Gross Acreage
HCD
Sizing
Criteria
Existing
Zone
Density
(Assumed)
Rezoned
Density
(Assumed)
Inventory
Category
Potential
Rezoned
Unit
Yield
Assumed
Net Yield LVL Mod Above
Mod
167 5383-033-048 R-3 HDR No 19 0.89 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 28 9 2 1 6 168 5383-029-058 R-3 HDR No 18 0.89 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 28 10 3 1 6 169 5783-001-074 R-3 HDR No 10 0.91 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 28 18 5 2 11 170 5778-010-109 R-3 HDR No 18 0.93 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 29 11 3 1 7 172 5790-030-012 R-3 HDR No 21 0.96 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 30 9 2 1 6 173 5778-002-009 R-3 HDR No 20 0.97 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 31 11 3 1 7 175 5783-007-022 R-3 HDR No 21 0.98 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 31 10 3 1 6 176 5783-007-010 R-3 HDR No 23 0.98 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 31 8 2 1 5 179 5783-007-046 R-3 HDR No 14 0.98 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 31 17 4 2 11 180 5383-001-062 R-3 HDR No 18 0.98 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 31 13 3 1 9 181 5783-007-021 R-3 HDR No 24 0.98 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 31 7 2 1 4 182 5783-007-024 R-3 HDR No 20 0.98 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 31 11 3 1 7 183 5783-009-010 R-3 HDR No 22 0.98 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 31 9 2 1 6
Appendix A
ID APN Existing
Zoning
Existing
General
Plan
Land
Use
Vacancy Existing
Units Gross Acreage
HCD
Sizing
Criteria
Existing
Zone
Density
(Assumed)
Rezoned
Density
(Assumed)
Inventory
Category
Potential
Rezoned
Unit
Yield
Assumed
Net Yield LVL Mod Above
Mod
184 5379-022-021 R-3 HDR No 12 0.98 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 31 19 5 2 12 185 5783-006-014 R-3 HDR No 20 1.00 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 31 11 3 1 7 186 5783-012-057 R-3 HDR No 20 1.01 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 32 12 3 1 8 187 5379-037-001 R-3 HDR No 26 1.03 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 32 6 2 1 3 188 5778-004-011 R-3 HDR No 22 1.03 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 32 10 3 1 6 189 5778-002-051 R-3 HDR No 18 1.04 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 33 15 4 2 9 190 5783-003-042 R-3 HDR No 20 1.05 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 33 13 3 1 9 192 5778-009-093 R-3 HDR No 21 1.06 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 33 12 3 1 8 193 5783-014-036 R-3 HDR No 21 1.06 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 33 12 3 1 8 194 5379-028-001 R-3 HDR No 23 1.07 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 34 11 3 1 7 195 5379-021-003 R-3 HDR No 18 1.08 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 34 16 4 2 10 196 5783-001-021 R-3 HDR No 24 1.09 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 34 10 3 1 6 197 5778-003-040 R-3 HDR No 21 1.10 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 35 14 4 1 9
Appendix A
ID APN Existing
Zoning
Existing
General
Plan
Land
Use
Vacancy Existing
Units Gross Acreage
HCD
Sizing
Criteria
Existing
Zone
Density
(Assumed)
Rezoned
Density
(Assumed)
Inventory
Category
Potential
Rezoned
Unit
Yield
Assumed
Net Yield LVL Mod Above
Mod
198 5779-017-029 R-3 HDR No 0 1.11 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 35 35 9 4 22 200 5783-002-050 R-3 HDR No 25 1.11 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 35 10 3 1 6 201 5778-009-025 R-3 HDR No 23 1.12 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 35 12 3 1 8 202 5783-004-078 R-3 HDR No 20 1.12 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 35 15 4 2 9 203 5383-031-096 R-3 HDR No 26 1.13 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 36 10 3 1 6 204 5783-006-082 R-3 HDR No 14 1.15 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 36 22 6 2 14 206 5785-001-001 R-3 HDR No 32 1.21 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 38 6 2 1 3 207 5379-028-052 R-3 HDR No 25 1.23 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 39 14 4 1 9 208 5778-010-087 R-3 HDR No 30 1.27 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 40 10 3 1 6 209 5778-009-144 R-3 HDR No 27 1.28 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 41 14 4 1 9 210 5778-009-117 R-3 HDR No 24 1.29 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 41 17 4 2 11 211 5778-006-045 R-3 HDR No 34 1.33 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 42 8 2 1 5 212 5773-016-142 R-3 HDR No 16 1.33 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 42 26 7 3 16
Appendix A
ID APN Existing
Zoning
Existing
General
Plan
Land
Use
Vacancy Existing
Units Gross Acreage
HCD
Sizing
Criteria
Existing
Zone
Density
(Assumed)
Rezoned
Density
(Assumed)
Inventory
Category
Potential
Rezoned
Unit
Yield
Assumed
Net Yield LVL Mod Above
Mod
213 5383-031-068 R-3 HDR No 30 1.34 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 42 12 3 1 8 214 5783-007-018 R-3 HDR No 34 1.36 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 43 9 2 1 6 215 5383-031-113 R-3 HDR No 15 1.36 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 43 28 7 3 18 216 5379-022-094 R-3 HDR No 28 1.38 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 44 16 4 2 10 217 5784-007-032 R-3 HDR No 25 1.44 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 46 21 5 2 14 221 5783-009-009 R-3 HDR No 31 1.47 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 47 16 4 2 10 222 5778-006-004 R-3 HDR No 44 1.51 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 48 4 1 0 3 223 5778-011-084 R-3 HDR No 32 1.55 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 49 17 4 2 11 224 5778-015-024 R-3 HDR No 0 1.58 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 50 50 13 5 32 225 5383-002-068 R-3 HDR No 30 1.58 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 50 20 5 2 13 226 5783-013-091 R-3 HDR No 22 1.60 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 51 29 7 3 19 227 5778-011-126 R-3 HDR No 30 1.66 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 53 23 6 2 15 228 5778-011-161 R-3 HDR No 32 1.67 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 53 21 5 2 14
Appendix A
ID APN Existing
Zoning
Existing
General
Plan
Land
Use
Vacancy Existing
Units Gross Acreage
HCD
Sizing
Criteria
Existing
Zone
Density
(Assumed)
Rezoned
Density
(Assumed)
Inventory
Category
Potential
Rezoned
Unit
Yield
Assumed
Net Yield LVL Mod Above
Mod
229 5379-028-084 R-3 HDR No 32 1.67 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 53 21 5 2 14 230 5778-001-170 R-3 HDR No 34 1.69 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 54 20 5 2 13 231 5778-001-134 R-3 HDR No 30 1.70 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 54 24 6 2 16 232 5783-003-063 R-3 HDR No 20 1.74 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 55 35 9 4 22 233 5784-006-008 R-3 HDR No 40 1.78 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 56 16 4 2 10 234 5778-005-055 R-3 HDR No 40 1.78 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 57 17 4 2 11 235 5784-006-004 R-3 HDR No 38 1.79 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 57 19 5 2 12 236 5779-005-080 R-3 HDR No 20 1.81 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 57 37 9 4 24 237 5778-008-003 R-3 HDR No 28 1.88 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 60 32 8 3 21 238 5778-008-060 R-3 HDR No 44 2.10 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 67 23 6 2 15 239 5383-029-028 R-3 HDR No 0 2.17 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 69 69 17 7 45 240 5784-007-051 R-3 HDR No 25 2.20 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 70 45 11 5 29 243 5784-001-077 R-3 HDR No 26 2.29 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 73 47 12 5 30
Appendix A
ID APN Existing
Zoning
Existing
General
Plan
Land
Use
Vacancy Existing
Units Gross Acreage
HCD
Sizing
Criteria
Existing
Zone
Density
(Assumed)
Rezoned
Density
(Assumed)
Inventory
Category
Potential
Rezoned
Unit
Yield
Assumed
Net Yield LVL Mod Above
Mod
244 5783-009-073 R-3 HDR No 42 2.36 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 75 33 8 3 22 245 5778-009-072 R-3 HDR No 46 2.44 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 78 32 8 3 21 246 5784-006-009 R-3 HDR No 0 2.54 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 81 81 20 8 53 247 5778-004-059 R-3 HDR No 44 2.58 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 82 38 10 4 24 248 5775-012-025 R-3 HDR No 54 2.65 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 84 30 8 3 19 249 5790-030-053 R-3 HDR No 60 2.83 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 90 30 8 3 19 250 5778-010-086 R-3 HDR No 45 3.18 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 101 56 14 6 36 251 5778-001-098 R-3 HDR No 74 3.42 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 109 35 9 4 22 252 5784-007-021 R-3 HDR No 0 3.60 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 115 115 29 12 74 253 5778-003-130 R-3 HDR No 90 4.18 Yes 24 32 R-3 Upzone 133 43 11 4 28 582 5779-014-054 R-3 HDR No 2 0.16 No 24 32 5 3 1 0 2 583 5778-010-115 R-3 HDR No 2 0.16 No 24 32 5 3 1 0 2
Appendix A
ID APN Existing
Zoning
Existing
General
Plan
Land
Use
Vacancy Existing
Units Gross Acreage
HCD
Sizing
Criteria
Existing
Zone
Density
(Assumed)
Rezoned
Density
(Assumed)
Inventory
Category
Potential
Rezoned
Unit
Yield
Assumed
Net Yield LVL Mod Above
Mod
584 5783-014-080 R-3 HDR No 2 0.16 No 24 32 5 3 1 0 2 585 5779-013-060 R-3 HDR No 2 0.16 No 24 32 5 3 1 0 2 586 5779-013-071 R-3 HDR No 2 0.16 No 24 32 5 3 1 0 2 587 5779-013-048 R-3 HDR No 2 0.16 No 24 32 5 3 1 0 2 588 5773-016-159 R-3 HDR No 2 0.16 No 24 32 5 3 1 0 2 589 5778-010-121 R-3 HDR Yes 1 0.17 No 24 32 5 4 1 0 3 590 5778-010-129 R-3 HDR Yes 1 0.17 No 24 32 5 4 1 0 3 591 5379-022-144 R-3 HDR No 2 0.17 No 24 32 5 3 1 0 2 592 5783-006-085 R-3 HDR No 2 0.17 No 24 32 5 3 1 0 2 593 5773-002-057 R-3 HDR No 2 0.17 No 24 32 5 3 1 0 2 594 5779-017-039 R-3 HDR No 2 0.17 No 24 32 5 3 1 0 2 595 5779-016-056 R-3 HDR No 2 0.17 No 24 32 5 3 1 0 2 596 5779-016-062 R-3 HDR No 2 0.17 No 24 32 5 3 1 0 2
Appendix A
ID APN Existing
Zoning
Existing
General
Plan
Land
Use
Vacancy Existing
Units Gross Acreage
HCD
Sizing
Criteria
Existing
Zone
Density
(Assumed)
Rezoned
Density
(Assumed)
Inventory
Category
Potential
Rezoned
Unit
Yield
Assumed
Net Yield LVL Mod Above
Mod
597 5779-017-034 R-3 HDR No 2 0.17 No 24 32 5 3 1 0 2 598 5779-017-037 R-3 HDR No 2 0.17 No 24 32 5 3 1 0 2 599 5783-003-066 R-3 HDR No 2 0.18 No 24 32 5 3 1 0 2 600 5783-001-076 R-3 HDR No 2 0.18 No 24 32 5 3 1 0 2 601 5783-001-088 R-3 HDR No 2 0.18 No 24 32 5 3 1 0 2 602 5783-001-036 R-3 HDR No 2 0.18 No 24 32 5 3 1 0 2 603 5779-017-032 R-3 HDR No 2 0.18 No 24 32 5 3 1 0 2 604 5773-014-055 R-3 HDR No 2 0.18 No 24 32 5 3 1 0 2 605 5779-001-038 R-3 HDR No 2 0.18 No 24 32 5 3 1 0 2 606 5779-001-087 R-3 HDR No 2 0.18 No 24 32 5 3 1 0 2 607 5779-001-053 R-3 HDR No 2 0.18 No 24 32 5 3 1 0 2 608 5779-002-071 R-3 HDR No 2 0.18 No 24 32 5 3 1 0 2 609 5779-011-098 R-3 HDR No 2 0.18 No 24 32 5 3 1 0 2
Appendix A
ID APN Existing
Zoning
Existing
General
Plan
Land
Use
Vacancy Existing
Units Gross Acreage
HCD
Sizing
Criteria
Existing
Zone
Density
(Assumed)
Rezoned
Density
(Assumed)
Inventory
Category
Potential
Rezoned
Unit
Yield
Assumed
Net Yield LVL Mod Above
Mod
610 5779-011-084 R-3 HDR No 2 0.18 No 24 32 5 3 1 0 2 611 5773-018-051 R-3 HDR No 2 0.18 No 24 32 5 3 1 0 2 612 5779-001-041 R-3 HDR No 2 0.18 No 24 32 5 3 1 0 2 613 5779-003-069 R-3 HDR No 2 0.18 No 24 32 5 3 1 0 2 614 5779-010-063 R-3 HDR No 1 0.18 No 24 32 5 4 1 0 3 615 5779-003-010 R-3 HDR No 1 0.18 No 24 32 5 4 1 0 3 616 5779-011-087 R-3 HDR No 2 0.18 No 24 32 5 3 1 0 2 617 5779-003-076 R-3 HDR No 2 0.18 No 24 32 5 3 1 0 2 618 5773-018-053 R-3 HDR No 2 0.18 No 24 32 5 3 1 0 2 619 5779-009-070 R-3 HDR No 2 0.18 No 24 32 5 3 1 0 2 620 5779-009-045 R-3 HDR No 2 0.18 No 24 32 5 3 1 0 2 621 5779-009-077 R-3 HDR No 2 0.18 No 24 32 5 3 1 0 2 622 5779-009-039 R-3 HDR No 2 0.18 No 24 32 5 3 1 0 2
Appendix A
ID APN Existing
Zoning
Existing
General
Plan
Land
Use
Vacancy Existing
Units Gross Acreage
HCD
Sizing
Criteria
Existing
Zone
Density
(Assumed)
Rezoned
Density
(Assumed)
Inventory
Category
Potential
Rezoned
Unit
Yield
Assumed
Net Yield LVL Mod Above
Mod
623 5779-009-057 R-3 HDR No 2 0.18 No 24 32 5 3 1 0 2 624 5779-002-073 R-3 HDR No 2 0.18 No 24 32 5 3 1 0 2 625 5783-003-069 R-3 HDR No 2 0.18 No 24 32 5 3 1 0 2 626 5773-013-037 R-3 HDR No 2 0.19 No 24 32 5 3 1 0 2 627 5773-017-071 R-3 HDR No 3 0.19 No 24 32 6 3 1 0 2 628 5773-017-088 R-3 HDR No 3 0.19 No 24 32 6 3 1 0 2 629 5779-012-046 R-3 HDR No 2 0.19 No 24 32 6 4 1 0 3 630 5779-012-083 R-3 HDR No 3 0.19 No 24 32 6 3 1 0 2 631 5779-012-079 R-3 HDR No 3 0.19 No 24 32 6 3 1 0 2 632 5779-012-068 R-3 HDR No 3 0.19 No 24 32 6 3 1 0 2 633 5779-009-061 R-3 HDR No 3 0.19 No 24 32 6 3 1 0 2 634 5779-012-086 R-3 HDR No 3 0.19 No 24 32 6 3 1 0 2 635 5773-016-144 R-3 HDR No 2 0.20 No 24 32 6 4 1 0 3
Appendix A
ID APN Existing
Zoning
Existing
General
Plan
Land
Use
Vacancy Existing
Units Gross Acreage
HCD
Sizing
Criteria
Existing
Zone
Density
(Assumed)
Rezoned
Density
(Assumed)
Inventory
Category
Potential
Rezoned
Unit
Yield
Assumed
Net Yield LVL Mod Above
Mod
636 5783-009-101 R-3 HDR No 2 0.20 No 24 32 6 4 1 0 3 637 5773-016-183 R-3 HDR No 2 0.20 No 24 32 6 4 1 0 3 638 8587-033-025 R-3 HDR No 3 0.20 No 24 32 6 3 1 0 2 639 5778-010-118 R-3 HDR No 2 0.20 No 24 32 6 4 1 0 3 640 5779-003-073 R-3 HDR No 3 0.20 No 24 32 6 3 1 0 2 641 5783-007-077 R-3 HDR No 2 0.21 No 24 32 6 4 1 0 3 642 5773-016-078 R-3 HDR No 3 0.22 No 24 32 6 3 1 0 2 643 5783-005-116 R-3 HDR No 3 0.22 No 24 32 6 3 1 0 2 644 5772-006-033 R-3 HDR No 2 0.22 No 24 32 6 4 1 0 3 645 5773-016-043 R-3 HDR No 3 0.22 No 24 32 7 4 1 0 3 646 5778-010-112 R-3 HDR No 3 0.23 No 24 32 7 4 1 0 3 647 5783-009-109 R-3 HDR No 4 0.23 No 24 32 7 3 1 0 2 648 5778-005-062 R-3 HDR No 4 0.24 No 24 32 7 3 1 0 2
Appendix A
ID APN Existing
Zoning
Existing
General
Plan
Land
Use
Vacancy Existing
Units Gross Acreage
HCD
Sizing
Criteria
Existing
Zone
Density
(Assumed)
Rezoned
Density
(Assumed)
Inventory
Category
Potential
Rezoned
Unit
Yield
Assumed
Net Yield LVL Mod Above
Mod
649 5773-016-163 R-3 HDR No 3 0.24 No 24 32 7 4 1 0 3 650 5778-015-049 R-3 HDR No 2 0.24 No 24 32 7 5 1 1 3 651 5778-011-088 R-3 HDR No 4 0.24 No 24 32 7 3 1 0 2 652 5777-030-035 R-3 HDR No 3 0.24 No 24 32 7 4 1 0 3 653 5778-011-175 R-3 HDR No 4 0.25 No 24 32 7 3 1 0 2 654 5772-003-029 R-3 HDR No 4 0.25 No 24 32 7 3 1 0 2 655 5385-029-055 R-3 HDR No 2 0.26 No 24 32 8 6 2 1 3 656 5773-016-050 R-3 HDR No 4 0.27 No 24 32 8 4 1 0 3 657 5773-017-067 R-3 HDR No 3 0.28 No 24 32 8 5 1 1 3 658 5779-016-048 R-3 HDR No 3 0.28 No 24 32 9 6 2 1 3 659 5778-010-127 R-3 HDR Yes 6 0.28 No 24 32 9 3 1 0 2 660 5379-029-104 R-3 HDR No 4 0.29 No 24 32 9 5 1 1 3 661 5779-005-101 R-3 HDR No 5 0.29 No 24 32 9 4 1 0 3
Appendix A
ID APN Existing
Zoning
Existing
General
Plan
Land
Use
Vacancy Existing
Units Gross Acreage
HCD
Sizing
Criteria
Existing
Zone
Density
(Assumed)
Rezoned
Density
(Assumed)
Inventory
Category
Potential
Rezoned
Unit
Yield
Assumed
Net Yield LVL Mod Above
Mod
662 5783-011-101 R-3 HDR No 3 0.30 No 24 32 9 6 2 1 3 663 5783-014-112 R-3 HDR No 6 0.30 No 24 32 9 3 1 0 2 664 5773-016-083 R-3 HDR No 4 0.30 No 24 32 9 5 1 1 3 665 5779-003-059 R-3 HDR No 4 0.30 No 24 32 9 5 1 1 3 666 5773-020-049 R-3 HDR No 2 0.31 No 24 32 9 7 2 1 4 667 5775-011-036 R-3 HDR No 4 0.31 No 24 32 9 5 1 1 3 668 5779-003-084 R-3 HDR No 4 0.31 No 24 32 9 5 1 1 3 669 5783-006-033 R-3 HDR No 3 0.31 No 24 32 10 7 2 1 4 670 5783-005-128 R-3 HDR No 6 0.32 No 24 32 10 4 1 0 3 671 5379-022-131 R-3 HDR No 6 0.34 No 24 32 10 4 1 0 3 672 5783-006-054 R-3 HDR No 4 0.34 No 24 32 10 6 2 1 3 673 5773-016-111 R-3 HDR No 4 0.34 No 24 32 10 6 2 1 3 674 5783-013-054 R-3 HDR No 5 0.35 No 24 32 11 6 2 1 3
Appendix A
ID APN Existing
Zoning
Existing
General
Plan
Land
Use
Vacancy Existing
Units Gross Acreage
HCD
Sizing
Criteria
Existing
Zone
Density
(Assumed)
Rezoned
Density
(Assumed)
Inventory
Category
Potential
Rezoned
Unit
Yield
Assumed
Net Yield LVL Mod Above
Mod
675 5778-011-095 R-3 HDR No 4 0.35 No 24 32 11 7 2 1 4 676 5783-009-105 R-3 HDR No 4 0.35 No 24 32 11 7 2 1 4 677 5779-016-053 R-3 HDR No 4 0.35 No 24 32 11 7 2 1 4 678 5379-028-097 R-3 HDR No 7 0.35 No 24 32 11 4 1 0 3 679 5779-004-043 R-3 HDR No 4 0.35 No 24 32 11 7 2 1 4 680 5783-005-133 R-3 HDR No 4 0.35 No 24 32 11 7 2 1 4 681 5773-014-064 R-3 HDR No 6 0.36 No 24 32 11 5 1 1 3 682 5778-011-183 R-3 HDR No 8 0.36 No 24 32 11 3 1 0 2 683 5783-010-065 R-3 HDR No 8 0.36 No 24 32 11 3 1 0 2 684 5783-010-055 R-3 HDR No 6 0.36 No 24 32 11 5 1 1 3 685 5783-010-070 R-3 HDR No 4 0.36 No 24 32 11 7 2 1 4 686 5779-011-095 R-3 HDR No 8 0.36 No 24 32 11 3 1 0 2 687 5779-011-081 R-3 HDR No 8 0.36 No 24 32 11 3 1 0 2
Appendix A
ID APN Existing
Zoning
Existing
General
Plan
Land
Use
Vacancy Existing
Units Gross Acreage
HCD
Sizing
Criteria
Existing
Zone
Density
(Assumed)
Rezoned
Density
(Assumed)
Inventory
Category
Potential
Rezoned
Unit
Yield
Assumed
Net Yield LVL Mod Above
Mod
688 5773-019-071 R-3 HDR No 5 0.36 No 24 32 11 6 2 1 3 689 5779-001-084 R-3 HDR No 5 0.36 No 24 32 11 6 2 1 3 690 5779-003-054 R-3 HDR No 8 0.36 No 24 32 11 3 1 0 2 691 5779-010-055 R-3 HDR No 8 0.37 No 24 32 11 3 1 0 2 692 5779-010-073 R-3 HDR No 6 0.37 No 24 32 11 5 1 1 3 693 5783-005-113 R-3 HDR No 7 0.37 No 24 32 11 4 1 0 3 694 5779-002-092 R-3 HDR No 8 0.37 No 24 32 11 3 1 0 2 695 5779-010-080 R-3 HDR No 6 0.37 No 24 32 11 5 1 1 3 696 5779-001-062 R-3 HDR No 8 0.37 No 24 32 11 3 1 0 2 697 5779-010-060 R-3 HDR No 4 0.37 No 24 32 11 7 2 1 4 698 5779-003-046 R-3 HDR No 8 0.37 No 24 32 11 3 1 0 2 699 5779-011-072 R-3 HDR No 8 0.37 No 24 32 11 3 1 0 2 700 5773-018-043 R-3 HDR No 8 0.37 No 24 32 11 3 1 0 2
Appendix A
ID APN Existing
Zoning
Existing
General
Plan
Land
Use
Vacancy Existing
Units Gross Acreage
HCD
Sizing
Criteria
Existing
Zone
Density
(Assumed)
Rezoned
Density
(Assumed)
Inventory
Category
Potential
Rezoned
Unit
Yield
Assumed
Net Yield LVL Mod Above
Mod
701 5779-002-069 R-3 HDR No 8 0.37 No 24 32 11 3 1 0 2 702 5773-018-049 R-3 HDR No 5 0.37 No 24 32 11 6 2 1 3 703 5773-020-059 R-3 HDR No 8 0.37 No 24 32 11 3 1 0 2 704 5773-020-046 R-3 HDR No 8 0.37 No 24 32 11 3 1 0 2 705 5779-012-064 R-3 HDR No 8 0.37 No 24 32 11 3 1 0 2 706 5779-012-055 R-3 HDR No 8 0.37 No 24 32 11 3 1 0 2 707 5773-013-046 R-3 HDR No 8 0.37 No 24 32 11 3 1 0 2 708 5379-037-070 R-3 HDR No 8 0.37 No 24 32 11 3 1 0 2 709 5779-002-083 R-3 HDR No 8 0.37 No 24 32 11 3 1 0 2 710 5773-018-063 R-3 HDR No 8 0.37 No 24 32 11 3 1 0 2 711 5783-005-093 R-3 HDR No 7 0.37 No 24 32 11 4 1 0 3 712 5379-028-105 R-3 HDR No 7 0.37 No 24 32 11 4 1 0 3 713 5783-005-084 R-3 HDR No 6 0.37 No 24 32 11 5 1 1 3
Appendix A
ID APN Existing
Zoning
Existing
General
Plan
Land
Use
Vacancy Existing
Units Gross Acreage
HCD
Sizing
Criteria
Existing
Zone
Density
(Assumed)
Rezoned
Density
(Assumed)
Inventory
Category
Potential
Rezoned
Unit
Yield
Assumed
Net Yield LVL Mod Above
Mod
714 5784-001-086 R-3 HDR No 7 0.38 No 24 32 12 5 1 1 3 715 5778-008-068 R-3 HDR No 7 0.38 No 24 32 12 5 1 1 3 716 5779-012-075 R-3 HDR No 6 0.39 No 24 32 12 6 2 1 3 717 5379-029-090 R-3 HDR No 5 0.39 No 24 32 12 7 2 1 4 718 5779-009-067 R-3 HDR No 5 0.39 No 24 32 12 7 2 1 4 719 5779-009-054 R-3 HDR No 8 0.39 No 24 32 12 4 1 0 3 720 5783-009-099 R-3 HDR No 5 0.39 No 24 32 12 7 2 1 4 721 5783-005-121 R-3 HDR No 4 0.39 No 24 32 12 8 2 1 5 722 5382-001-066 R-3 HDR No 7 0.39 No 24 32 12 5 1 1 3 723 5385-029-050 R-3 HDR No 8 0.40 No 24 32 12 4 1 0 3 724 5379-028-112 R-3 HDR No 6 0.40 No 24 32 12 6 2 1 3 725 5783-007-072 R-3 HDR No 5 0.40 No 24 32 12 7 2 1 4 726 8587-034-030 R-3 HDR No 4 0.40 No 24 32 12 8 2 1 5
Appendix A
ID APN Existing
Zoning
Existing
General
Plan
Land
Use
Vacancy Existing
Units Gross Acreage
HCD
Sizing
Criteria
Existing
Zone
Density
(Assumed)
Rezoned
Density
(Assumed)
Inventory
Category
Potential
Rezoned
Unit
Yield
Assumed
Net Yield LVL Mod Above
Mod
727 5783-005-059 R-3 HDR No 7 0.40 No 24 32 12 5 1 1 3 728 5383-002-101 R-3 HDR No 8 0.41 No 24 32 13 5 1 1 3 729 5383-034-062 R-3 HDR No 8 0.41 No 24 32 13 5 1 1 3 730 5783-011-139 R-3 HDR No 4 0.41 No 24 32 13 9 2 1 6 731 5783-014-060 R-3 HDR No 6 0.41 No 24 32 13 7 2 1 4 732 5783-008-058 R-3 HDR No 8 0.41 No 24 32 13 5 1 1 3 733 5779-015-039 R-3 HDR No 8 0.41 No 24 32 13 5 1 1 3 734 5383-002-108 R-3 HDR No 6 0.41 No 24 32 13 7 2 1 4 735 5383-002-078 R-3 HDR No 7 0.41 No 24 32 13 6 2 1 3 736 5778-015-046 R-3 HDR No 5 0.42 No 24 32 13 8 2 1 5 737 5783-003-077 R-3 HDR No 8 0.42 No 24 32 13 5 1 1 3 738 5379-029-040 R-3 HDR No 4 0.42 No 24 32 13 9 2 1 6 739 5779-017-048 R-3 HDR No 8 0.42 No 24 32 13 5 1 1 3
Appendix A
ID APN Existing
Zoning
Existing
General
Plan
Land
Use
Vacancy Existing
Units Gross Acreage
HCD
Sizing
Criteria
Existing
Zone
Density
(Assumed)
Rezoned
Density
(Assumed)
Inventory
Category
Potential
Rezoned
Unit
Yield
Assumed
Net Yield LVL Mod Above
Mod
740 5773-016-098 R-3 HDR No 5 0.43 No 24 32 13 8 2 1 5 741 5783-002-078 R-3 HDR No 9 0.43 No 24 32 13 4 1 0 3 742 5778-003-137 R-3 HDR No 6 0.43 No 24 32 13 7 2 1 4 743 5783-014-043 R-3 HDR No 6 0.43 No 24 32 13 7 2 1 4 744 5783-011-068 R-3 HDR No 9 0.43 No 24 32 13 4 1 0 3 745 5379-029-099 R-3 HDR No 8 0.43 No 24 32 13 5 1 1 3 746 5783-006-043 R-3 HDR No 7 0.43 No 24 32 13 6 2 1 3 747 5383-034-027 R-3 HDR No 6 0.43 No 24 32 13 7 2 1 4 748 5783-014-086 R-3 HDR No 6 0.43 No 24 32 13 7 2 1 4 749 5783-012-036 R-3 HDR No 8 0.44 No 24 32 13 5 1 1 3 750 5783-001-031 R-3 HDR No 8 0.44 No 24 32 13 5 1 1 3 751 5379-022-141 R-3 HDR No 9 0.44 No 24 32 13 4 1 0 3 752 5783-001-085 R-3 HDR No 8 0.44 No 24 32 13 5 1 1 3
Appendix A
ID APN Existing
Zoning
Existing
General
Plan
Land
Use
Vacancy Existing
Units Gross Acreage
HCD
Sizing
Criteria
Existing
Zone
Density
(Assumed)
Rezoned
Density
(Assumed)
Inventory
Category
Potential
Rezoned
Unit
Yield
Assumed
Net Yield LVL Mod Above
Mod
753 5783-010-075 R-3 HDR No 5 0.44 No 24 32 14 9 2 1 6 754 5778-008-016 R-3 HDR No 6 0.44 No 24 32 14 8 2 1 5 755 5379-022-104 R-3 HDR No 7 0.44 No 24 32 14 7 2 1 4 756 5783-001-056 R-3 HDR No 9 0.44 No 24 32 14 5 1 1 3 757 5779-014-043 R-3 HDR No 8 0.44 No 24 32 14 6 2 1 3 758 5383-002-085 R-3 HDR No 6 0.44 No 24 32 14 8 2 1 5 759 5773-001-063 R-3 HDR No 6 0.44 No 24 32 14 8 2 1 5 760 5778-015-035 R-3 HDR No 11 0.45 No 24 32 14 3 1 0 2 761 5379-028-090 R-3 HDR No 6 0.46 No 24 32 14 8 2 1 5 762 5783-013-067 R-3 HDR No 9 0.46 No 24 32 14 5 1 1 3 763 5779-013-037 R-3 HDR No 10 0.47 No 24 32 14 4 1 0 3 764 5783-014-053 R-3 HDR No 9 0.47 No 24 32 15 6 2 1 3 765 5383-031-120 R-3 HDR No 6 0.48 No 24 32 15 9 2 1 6
Appendix A
ID APN Existing
Zoning
Existing
General
Plan
Land
Use
Vacancy Existing
Units Gross Acreage
HCD
Sizing
Criteria
Existing
Zone
Density
(Assumed)
Rezoned
Density
(Assumed)
Inventory
Category
Potential
Rezoned
Unit
Yield
Assumed
Net Yield LVL Mod Above
Mod
766 5779-013-045 R-3 HDR No 8 0.48 No 24 32 15 7 2 1 4 767 5785-001-116 R-3 HDR No 9 0.49 No 24 32 15 6 2 1 3 768 5778-002-026 R-3 HDR No 10 0.49 No 24 32 15 5 1 1 3 769 5783-002-111 R-3 HDR No 5 0.49 No 24 32 15 10 3 1 6 770 5783-006-062 R-3 HDR No 6 0.50 No 24 32 15 9 2 1 6 771 5778-015-041 R-3 HDR No 5 0.50 No 24 32 15 10 3 1 6 772 8571-011-904 OS-OR OS-OR No 0 25.86 No N/A N/A 192 192 48 72 72 26 5776-001-012 C-G C No 0 2.821949019 Yes 0 N/A Pipeline Project N/A 80 0 80 0
Appendix A