Item 09a - The Ivy Arcadia — Arcadia City Council, August 20, 2024 (part 2 of 2)

86 City of Arcadia, General Plan Update Draft Program EIR, Section 4.13, Public Services, 2010. 87 City of Arcadia, General Plan Update Draft Program EIR, Section 4.13, Public Services, 2010. 88 City of Arcadia, General Plan Safety Element, Policy S-5.11, page 8-37, November 2010.

Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 80 April 2020
there would be no school-age children living on the Project Site. The Project may indirectly result in the increase of school-age children living in Arcadia through the addition of approximately 40 employees. A portion of these employees may choose to live in Arcadia; however, the City is surrounded by urban areas that offer many housing options in other school districts. As such, the number of school-age children associated with the Proposed Project that would live within the Arcadia Unified School District would be negligible. Therefore, impact on schools would not occur. a.iv) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for parks?
No Impact. As previously discussed, the Proposed Project would involve demolition of an existing restaurant use and construction of an 80-unit memory care facility. The Project would include an enclosed landscaped outdoor area with gardens, walking paths, and a gazebo on the south side of the Project Site for use by the Project’s residents. As such, the Proposed Project would provide outdoor recreation space for Project residents and would, therefore, not create a substantial adverse physical impact on City park facilities. No impact to parks would occur. a.v) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for other public facilities? No Impact. The Project would involve the development of an 80-unit memory care facility, which would provide on-site services, such as activities rooms and outdoor recreation space, for Project residents. As such, Project residents are anticipated to have limited mobility and are not expected to substantially increase the demand on public facilities, such as libraries and other government buildings.

Therefore, no impact other public facilities would occur.

XVI. Recreation

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
RECREATION:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
܆ ܆ ܆ ܈
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
܆ ܆ ܆ ܈
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 81 April 2020
Discussion
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
No Impact. As discussed in response to Checklist Question XV.a.iv, above, the Proposed Project would involve demolition of an existing restaurant building and construction of an 80-unit memory care facility. As such, Project residents are expected to have limited mobility and are not expected to increase the demand on municipal park facilities. Further, the Proposed Project would provide an enclosed, outdoor recreation area for residents, which would include walking paths, gardens, and a plaza. Therefore, the Proposed Project is anticipated to have no impact on park or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact. As stated above in response to Checklist Question XVI.a, the Project is not anticipated to increase the demand on municipal parks and recreational facilities in Arcadia. The Proposed Project would include construction of an outdoor, enclosed recreation space for Project residents that would include walking paths, gardens, and a plaza. The environmental impacts associated with construction of these outdoor amenities are included in the Project analysis discussed in this Initial Study.

Therefore, there would be no additional impacts associated with constructing these outdoor recreation amenities beyond those already discussed.

XVII. Transportation/Traffic

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
TRANSPORTATION:

Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with
CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 82 April 2020
Discussion
a) Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including transit, roadways, bicycle and pedestrian facilities??
Less Than Significant Impact.

Construction
Project construction is proposed to be completed in approximately 19 months. The phases of construction include demolition, grading, paving, building construction, and architectural coating.

Demolition, grading, and paving are anticipated to take three months to complete; building construction would be completed in 12 months; and architectural coating would be completed in four months. The grading phase would occur over 10 days and would result in 1,485 cubic yards of cut and 3,350 cubic yards of fill. Therefore, 1,865 cubic yards of soil would be imported to the Project Site during the grading phase. The City of Arcadia limits construction activities to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturday; therefore, construction-related traffic would occur only during those time periods, on an intermittent basis, depending on the scope and intensity of the work taking place. 89 While construction traffic would temporarily affect traffic flow on the surrounding street network, particularly along the truck haul routes, the impacts would be temporary and would fluctuate in intensity throughout the construction day and vary throughout the overall construction program, with less traffic generated in phases following the demolition and grading phases. Because the construction traffic impacts associated with the Proposed Project would be temporary, they would not significantly affect the performance of the vehicular transportation network with respect to level of service standards or other metrics related to congestion and travel delay.

Operation
Project-related, long-term traffic impacts include those of employee, visitor, and delivery vehicles associated with the proposed memory care facility. A trip generation analysis, conducted for the Proposed Project, compared anticipated trip generation associated with the Proposed Project to traffic count data collected for the existing restaurant and bakery building. 90 The analysis used the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition (2017) to determine the trip generation rates appropriate for an assisted living facility. The results of the Project trip generation analysis are provided in Table XVII-1.

89 City of Arcadia, Municipal Code Article IV, Chapter 2, Part 6, Nighttime Construction. 90 Michael Baker International, Inc., Technical Memorandum: Artis Senior Assisted Living Facility Trip Generation Analysis, December 17, 2019, available as Appendix E of this Initial Study.

Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 83 April 2020
Table XVII-1
Estimated Number of Project Trips
Land Use Source ITE
Code Intensity
Daily Trips AM Peak Hour
Trips
PM Peak Hour
Trips
Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out
Assisted
Living
(Proposed
Project)
ITE Trip
Generation
Manual,
10th
Edition
254 80 Beds 208 104 104 15 9 6 21 8 13
Coco’s
Bakery
Restaurant
(Existing)
Traffic
Count
Data
-- 13,000 Square
Feet 582 297 285 26 17 9 32 19 13
Estimated New Trips (Proposed Project minus
Existing) -374 -193 -
181 -11 -8 -3 -11 -11 0
Sources: Michael Baker International, Technical Memorandum: Artis Senior Assisted Living Facility Trip Generation Analysis, December 17, 2019, available as Appendix E of this Initial Study; ITE, Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, 2017.

As shown in Table XVII-1 , the Proposed Project is eligible for a trip credit since the existing restaurant building is currently in operation. Therefore, while the Proposed Project would result in an estimated 208 total daily vehicle trips, the number of new trips associated with the Project would be less than zero because the existing restaurant use currently generates 374 more daily trips than would be expected from the Proposed Project. Therefore, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact regarding trip generation.

Regarding trip distribution, the existing Project Site has two access points, as shown in Figure A-7.

The West Colorado Boulevard driveway provides full access (right- and left-turn for both ingress and egress) and the Michillinda Avenue driveway provides partial access (right-turn ingress and right-turn egress only). The Proposed Project would have a single, full-access driveway along West Colorado Boulevard, which would be shifted slightly east of the existing driveway. While the Project would concentrate all Project-related ingress and egress to the West Colorado Boulevard driveway, the overall estimated reduction in Project-related trips as compared with the existing restaurant use would result in a negligible impact on intersection impacts at this driveway. Specifically, the anticipated change in site trips entering and exiting the site at the West Colorado Boulevard driveway would range from negative four to three during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. As such, it is anticipated that these minimal changes in site trips would not impact intersection operations at the proposed West Colorado Boulevard driveway. Further, all traffic associated with the Project Site would be removed from the existing Michillinda Avenue driveway. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have a less-than- significant impact on trip distribution and intersection performance.

Finally, the Proposed senior living facility would include 80 units and would be dedicated to people afflicted with Alzheimer’s disease or other memory disorders. The outdoor spaces on the south side of the Proposed Project, which would be accessible to residents, would be contained/secured and monitored by facility staff. As such, there would be little to no impact on surrounding bus, pedestrian, or bicycle transit systems as a result of resident demand. Project employees would have a small impact on bus, pedestrian, or bicycle systems; however, the difference between the number of employees and visitors that would utilize transit or bicycle infrastructure to access the Project as compared with the number of employees and patrons using transit or bicycle infrastructure to access the existing restaurant is anticipated to be negligible. Further, the Proposed Project would not alter the existing Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 84 April 2020
bus stop in the West Colorado Boulevard right-of-way on the north side of the Project Site. As such, there would be no impact on transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities as a result of the Proposed Project.

In summary, the Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including transit, roadways, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and, as such, impacts related to transportation would be less than significant. b) Would the project conflict with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Less Than Significant Impact. By July 1, 2020, transportation impact assessments prepared in accordance with CEQA will be required to determine if a Proposed Project would conflict with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b), which outlines a new set of criteria for analyzing transportation impacts using vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the primary measure of transportation impact. VMT is generally defined as the amount and the distance of automobile travel associated with a Project. The City has not adopted guidelines to set new significance criteria for transportation impacts based on VMT for land use projects and plans in accordance with this checklist question. However, since the Project will be considered for approval prior to July 1, 2020, the Project is not required to demonstrate compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b).

Nevertheless, as discussed in Checklist Question XVII.a, above, the Project would replace an existing Coco’s restaurant with an 80-bed assisted living facility. As shown above, when compared to existing conditions, the Project would result in a substantial reduction in daily trips. Given the overall substantial reduction in trips based on the trip generation analysis, the Project's impact on Citywide and regional VMT would be considered less than significant. c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less Than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project is located on a 2.79-acre property at the corner of a major intersection. The Project proposes a surface parking lot with drive aisle and a drop-off circle in front of the main entrance (northern building elevation). The Project would not generate incompatible uses of area roadways, such as large farm equipment, that could impair circulation or safety on area roads. Further, there is no internal street network proposed as part of the Project and, therefore, no potential hazards associated with a geometric design feature, such as a sharp curve, would occur within the Project Site. The Project would result in a single entrance and exit driveway onto West Colorado Boulevard, as described above; however, this driveway would be designed to meet the mandatory design standards of the City of Arcadia as it relates to width, intersection control, and sight distance. Therefore, adherence to applicable City requirements would ensure the Proposed Project would not result in any hazardous geometric design feature, and impacts would be less than significant. d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Less Than Significant Impact. Project-related building plans and structures would be reviewed by the Arcadia Fire Department for compliance with applicable safety and emergency access standards.

This review would determine if fire flow, access, and fire hydrant placement are sufficient or if expanded facilities are required. Further, the Project Site is located in an urban setting, surrounded by multiple arterial roadways that could lead to the Proposed Project’s driveway on West Colorado Boulevard. As such, because the Project Site would be designed to accommodate emergency response vehicles and because it is located in an urban environment where the surrounding street network Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 85 April 2020
allows for access to the Project Site from multiple directions, impacts related to emergency access would be less than significant.

XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCSE:
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources Code section
21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural
landscape that is geographically defined in terms of
the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or
object with cultural value to a California Native
American tribe, and that is:

i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
܆ ܆ ܆ ܈
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence,
to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
Discussion
a.i) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)?
No Impact. The Project Site is currently developed with a restaurant building constructed in 1976 along with a paved surface parking and vehicle driveways. As discussed in Section V, Cultural Resources, the current restaurant building does not meet the age requirement for evaluation for eligibility for listing in the California Register or in a local register. Further, a records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) determined that there are no documented historic or prehistoric cultural resources on or within a quarter-mile radius of the Project Site. Therefore, the Project would not cause an adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in PRC Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 86 April 2020
terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register or in a local register of historical resources.
a.ii) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Less Than Significant Impact. Approved by Governor Brown on September 25, 2014, AB 52 established a formal consultation process for California Native American tribes to identify potential significant impacts to tribal cultural resources as defined in PRC Section 21074, as part of CEQA. As specified in AB 52, lead agencies must provide notice to tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a project site if the tribe has submitted a written request to be notified. The tribe must respond to the lead agency within 30 days of receipt of the notification if it wishes to engage in consultation on the project, and the lead agency must begin consultation within 30 days of receiving the request for consultation.

In compliance with AB 52, on January 10, 2020, the City of Arcadia sent a notice to the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians–Kizh Nation (Gabrieleño) and the Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe. On January 23, 2020, Andrew Salas, of the Gabrieleño submitted a formal request to consult with the City. The City did not receive a consultation request from the Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe within the 30 day consultation request period.

The tribal consultation process commenced on April 1, 2020 via a conference call attended by Andrew Salas and Matt Teutimez of the Gabrieleño, Lisa Flores and Vanessa Quiroz of the City of Arcadia, and John Bellas and Madonna Marcelo of Michael Baker International (the City’s environmental consultant). During the phone consultation, City staff discussed the receipt of the Gabrieleño’s request for consultation, described the scope of the Project, and provided general information, including proposed excavation activities. In response, the Gabrieleño provided their knowledge of Arcadia and the Project area, including Rancho Santa Anita (within the boundaries of which the Project Site is located), the former Gabrieleño Native American village, the sacred village of Sheshiikwanonga/ Sisitcanongna, and trade routes in the vicinity of the Project Area, indicating that these trade routes were considered cultural landscapes that are protected under AB 52 as a tribal cultural resources.

On April 2, 2020, City staff requested, via e-mail, the documents that were referenced by the Gabrieleño representatives during the phone consultation. On April 2, 2020, the Gabrieleño provided the articles, maps, and explanatory text that were verbally explained during the phone consultation.

Review of the maps and articles provided by the Gabrieleño included information about trade routes and identified structures within the greater Arcadia area; however, these resources did not demonstrate that there is an existing tribal cultural resource within the Project Site. As such, no evidence has been submitted which identifies the specific location of the Project Site as sensitive or containing tribal cultural resources, and no criteria have been provided to indicate why the Project area should be Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 87 April 2020
considered sensitive enough such that monitoring for tribal cultural resources would be required to avoid adverse impacts. CEQA only requires mitigation measures if substantial evidence exists of potentially significant impacts. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(4)(A) states “there must be an essential nexus (i.e., connection) between the mitigation measure and a legitimate government interest.” Therefore, based upon the record, the City has determined that no substantial evidence exists to support a conclusion that the Proposed Project may cause a significant impact on tribal cultural resources. As such, the City has no basis under CEQA to impose any related mitigation measures.

Nevertheless, while no tribal cultural resources are anticipated to be affected by the Project, the City will voluntarily impose mitigation measures as an additional protection to address the inadvertent discovery of tribal cultural resources. These voluntarily-imposed mitigation measures, Mitigation Measure TCR-1 through Mitigation Measure TCR-4, are described in further detail below.

TCR-1 Retail a Native American Monitor/Consultant. The Project Applicant shall be required to retain and compensate for the services of a tribal monitor/consultant, who is both approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation Tribal Government and listed under the Native American Heritage Commission’s (NAHC) Tribal Contact list for the area of the project location. This list is provided by the NAHC. The monitor/consultant shall only be present on-site during the construction phases that involve ground disturbing activities. Ground disturbing activities are defined by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation as activities that may include, but are not limited to, pavement removal, pot-holing or auguring, grubbing, tree removals, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching, within the Project area. The tribal Monitor/consultant shall complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the day’s activities, including construction activities, locations, soil, and any cultural materials identified. The on-site monitoring shall end when the Project Site grading and excavation activities are completed or when the tribal representatives and monitor/consultant have indicated that the site has a low potential for impacting tribal cultural resources.

TCR-2 Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural and Archaeological Resources.

Upon discovery of any tribal cultural or archaeological resources, construction activities shall cease in the immediate vicinity of the find until the find can be assessed.

All tribal cultural and archaeological resources unearthed by Project construction activities shall be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist and tribal monitor/consultant approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation. If the resources are Native American in origin, the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation shall coordinate with the landowner regarding treatment and curation of these resources. Typically, the tribe will request preservation in place or recovery for educational purposes. Work may continue on other parts of the Project Site while evaluation and, if necessary, additional protective mitigation takes place (CEQA Guidelines Section15064.5 [f]). If a resource is determined by the qualified archaeologist to constitute a “historical resource” or “unique archaeological resource,” time allotment and funding sufficient to allow for implementation of avoidance measures, or appropriate mitigation, must be available. The treatment plan established for the resources shall be in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f) for historical resources. For unique archaeological resources, preservation in place is the preferred manner of treatment in accordance with PRC Section 21083.2(b). If Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 88 April 2020
preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to remove the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. All tribal cultural resources shall be returned to the tribe. Any historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin shall be curated at a public, nonprofit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County or the Fowler Museum, if such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, they shall be offered to the tribe or a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes.

TCR-3 Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects. Native American human remains are defined in PRC 5097.98 (d)(1) as an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness.

Funerary objects, called associated grave goods in PRC 5097.98, are also to be treated according to this statute. Health and Safety Code 7050.5 dictates that any discoveries of human skeletal material shall be immediately reported to the County Coroner and excavation halted until the coroner has determined the nature of the remains. If the coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the NAHC and PRC 5097.98 shall be followed.

Upon discovery of human remains, the tribal and/or archaeological monitor/ consultant/consultant shall immediately divert work at minimum of 150 feet and place an exclusion zone around the discovery location. The monitor/consultant(s) shall then notify the tribe, the qualified lead archaeologist, and the construction manager who will call the coroner. Work shall continue to be diverted while the coroner determines whether the remains are human and subsequently Native American. The discovery is to be kept confidential and secure to prevent any further disturbance. If the finds are determined to be Native American, the coroner shall notify the NAHC as mandated by State law, who will then appoint a Most Likely Descendent (MLD). If the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation is designated MLD, the Koo-nas- gna Burial Policy shall be implemented. To the tribe, the term “human remains” encompasses more than human bones. In ancient, as well as, historic times, tribal traditions included, but were not limited to, the preparation of the soil for burial, the burial of funerary objects with the deceased, and the ceremonial burning of human remains. The prepared soil and cremation soils are to be treated in the same manner as bone fragments that remain intact. Associated funerary objects are objects that, as part of the death rite or ceremony of a culture, are reasonably believed to have been placed with individual human remains either at the time of death or later; other items made exclusively for burial purposes or to contain human remains can also be considered as associated funerary objects.

If the discovery of human remains includes four or more burials, the location is considered a cemetery and a separate treatment plan shall be created. Once complete, a final report of all activities is to be submitted to the tribe and the NAHC. The tribe does not authorize any scientific study or the utilization of any invasive and/or destructive diagnostics on human remains. Each occurrence of human remains and associated funerary objects shall be stored using opaque cloth bags. All human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony shall be removed to a secure container on site if possible. These items shall be retained and reburied within six months of recovery. The site of reburial/repatriation shall be on the Project Site but at a location agreed upon between the tribe and the landowner at a site to be protected in perpetuity. There shall be no publicity regarding any cultural materials recovered.

TCR-4 Professional Standards. Archaeological and Native American monitoring and excavation during construction projects shall be consistent with current professional standards. All feasible care to avoid any unnecessary disturbance, physical modification, or separation of human remains and associated funerary objects shall be taken. Principal personnel must meet the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for archaeology and have a minimum of 10 years of experience as a principal investigator working with Native American archaeological sites in Southern California. The qualified archaeologist shall ensure that all other personnel are appropriately trained and qualified.

XIX. Utilities and Service Systems

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS:

Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or
storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and multiple dry
years?
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 90 April 2020

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management
and reduction statutes and regulations related to
solid waste?
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
Discussion
a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Less Than Significant Impact.

Water
The City of Arcadia provides water service to a majority of the City and currently derives its water supply from groundwater wells that produce water from two groundwater basins, the Main San Gabriel Basin and the Raymond Basin, with the Main San Gabriel Basin as the City’s primary groundwater source.91 According to the City’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the City has not experienced water supply deficiencies as a result of current management practices in the Main San Gabriel Basin and the Raymond Basin. As determined in the 2015 UWMP, the minimum water supplies available at the end of an average water year, single dry year, and multiple dry years would be at least equal to, if not greater than, the City’s water demand. In addition, as concluded in the 2015 UWMP, based on current management practices and reduced pumping in the Raymond Basin, the City will be able to rely on the Main San Gabriel Basin, the Raymond Basin, and imported water for adequate supply through year 2035 under single year and multiple year droughts.

As shown in Table XIX-1, the Proposed Project does not meet the criteria to prepare a project- specific Water Supply Assessment under Senate Bill (SB) 610. 92 In addition, as presented in Table
XIX-1, the Proposed Project would result in a net reduction in water consumption due to the change in land use from a high turnover restaurant to an assisted living facility. Accordingly, the Project would

91 City of Arcadia, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, June 2016. 92 SB 610 requires urban water suppliers to prepare a WSA for projects that include, but not limited to, the following:
more than 500 dwelling units; shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet of floor space; commercial office buildings employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 square feet of floor space; or hotels, motels, or both, having more than 500 rooms.

Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 91 April 2020
not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water treatment facility, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. Therefore, impacts related to water consumption and water supply would be less than significant.

Table XIX-1
Water Consumption and Wastewater Generation Estimatesa
Land Use Unit Rateb Quantity (gpd)
Existing Coco’s Restaurant
Restaurant 13,088 sf 1,000 gpd/1,000 sf 13,088 gpd

Proposed Project
Assisted Living Facility 80 beds 125 gpd/bed c 10,000 gpd

Net Consumption/Generation
(Proposed – Existing)

-3,088 gpd
Notes: gpd = gallons per day; sf = square feet
a Based on a review of other projects and water supply assessment reports prepared for projects in the Los Angeles Metropolitan area, the amount of wastewater generated by a project has been estimated to be approximately the same as the amount of water consumed by such project. It is noted that some amount is lost due to evapotranspiration and landscaping irrigation; however, these quantities are minimal compared to the consumption and generation by the actual uses.
b Rates from the Sanitation Districts of County of Los Angeles. c Rate for convalescent homes was utilized.

Wastewater
Wastewater generated by the City is treated by the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (Sanitation Districts). Wastewater is collected within the City’s local sewer collection system, which tie into one of the Sanitation Districts’ regional truck sewer lines traversing the City.93 The regional truck sewer lines deliver wastewater to one or more water reclamation plants owned by the Sanitation Districts for treatment, including the Whittier Narrows Water Reclamation Plant (WNWRP) and the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP).

As presented above in Table XIX-1 , the Proposed Project would result in a net reduction in wastewater generation due to the change in land use from a high turnover restaurant to an assisted living facility. Accordingly, the Project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater treatment facility, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. Therefore, impacts related to wastewater generation, specifically to the WNWRP and the JWPCP, would be less than significant.

Storm Drains
The Project Site currently drains to an existing private storm drain located at the southeastern corner of the Project Site. As discussed above in Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Initial Study, the Project would slightly reduce the amount of impervious surfaces on the Project Site due to the increase in the amount of pervious landscape areas proposed by the Project as compared to existing conditions. Further, the Project’s LID Plan would be reviewed and approved by the City during the plan-check process, ensuring that the Project’s drainage plan would conform to local and regional regulations governing Project Site discharge to storm drains. Specifically, the LID Plan would result in stormwater runoff retention on-site for the runoff from the 85 th percentile 24-hour runoff

93 City of Arcadia, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, June 2016.

Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 92 April 2020
event. Only stormwater overflow from the Project Site would drain to the existing private storm drain at the southeastern corner of the Project Site. Therefore, the Project would not contribute to additional runoff as compared to existing conditions. Accordingly, the Project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded storm drain facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. Therefore, impacts related to storm drains would be less than significant.

Electricity and Natural Gas
Southern California Edison (SCE) and Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) provide electricity and natural gas services to the Project Site, respectively. As presented in Table VI-1 in Section VI, Energy, of this Initial Study, the Proposed Project would result in a net reduction in electricity and natural gas consumption due to the change in land use from a high turnover restaurant to an assisted living facility. Accordingly, the Project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded power or natural gas lines, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. Therefore, impacts related to electricity and natural gas would be less than significant.

Telecommunications
Telecommunication services are provided by private companies, the selection of which is at the discretion of the Applicant. Upgrades to existing telecommunication facilities and construction of new facilities to meet the demand of users are determined by telecommunication providers and is subject to its own environmental review. Accordingly, Project impacts to telecommunication facilities would be less than significant.
b) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed above, the 2015 UWMP concluded that the City will be able to rely on the Main San Gabriel Basin, the Raymond Basin, and imported water for adequate supply through year 2035 under single year and multiple year droughts. In addition, as shown in Table XIX-1, the Proposed Project would result in a net reduction in water consumption due to the change in land use from a high turnover restaurant to an assisted living facility. Accordingly, there would be sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years. Therefore, impacts to water supplies would be less than significant.
c) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Less Than Significant Impact. As presented above, the Proposed Project would result in a net reduction in wastewater generation due to the change in land use from a high turnover restaurant to an assisted living facility. Accordingly, the Project would not affect the capacity of the WNWRP or the JWPCP for treatment of wastewater. Therefore, impacts related to wastewater treatment would be less than significant.

Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 93 April 2020
d) Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
e) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project Site is currently served by a commercial hauler, which collects and transports waste generated by the existing restaurant to multiple local landfills. The City’s General Plan Update Program Environmental Impact Report determined that there would be no significant adverse impact on landfill capacity and that continuation of existing City and County programs and implementation of pertinent goals, policies, and implementation actions in the General Plan Update would provide for future developments’ compliance with solid waste regulations. 94 In
addition, the Project would be required to comply with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste to ensure that the solid waste stream diverted to landfills and recycling facilities is reduced in accordance with existing regulations. Furthermore, as shown in Table XIX-2, the Proposed Project would result in a net reduction in solid waste generation due to the change in land use from a high turnover restaurant to an assisted living facility. Accordingly, the Project would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals.

Therefore, impacts related to solid waste generation would be less than significant.

Table XIX-2
Solid Waste Generation Estimates
Land Use Unit Ratea Quantity (lbs per
day)
Existing Coco’s Restaurant
Restaurant 409 seats b 1 lb/seat/day 409

Proposed Project
Assisted Living Facility 80 personsc 5
lbs/person/day
400

Net Solid Waste Generation
(Proposed – Existing)
-9
Notes: lb = pound; sf = square feet
a California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates, https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates, accessed January 27, 2020. b CalRecycle rate that assumes 50% of restaurant is seating and 15 sf per seat. c Based on an 80-bed facility, resulting in 80 full-time residents.

94 City of Arcadia, General Plan Update Draft Program EIR, September 2010, p. 4.16-33.

Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 94 April 2020
XX. Wildfire

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
WILDFIRE:

If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
܆ ܆ ܆ ܈
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a
wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
܆ ܆ ܆ ܈
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks,
emergency water sources, power lines or other
utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may
result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
܆ ܆ ܆ ܈
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
܆ ܆ ܆ ܈
Discussion
a) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact. As stated in Section IX.g, above, the Project Site is not located within or adjacent to a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ), as designated by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.
95 VHFHSZs in the City of Arcadia are concentrated on the northeastern side of the City, in the foothills near the Cities of Monrovia and Sierra Madre, approximately 2.1 miles northeast of the Project Site. The Project Site is in a fully urbanized area with an urban street network, a fully pressurized water system, and managed landscaping limited to decorative trees and shrubs. As such, wildland fires would not occur on or near the Project Site. Regardless, in any disaster warranting evacuation, the exact emergency routes used would depend on a number of variables, including the type, scope, and location of the incident. It is the responsibility of emergency service and/or appropriate public officials to adequately assess the situation so that safe and efficient evacuation routes are selected. As the Project Site is in a fully urbanized area with multiple major arterial streets and a major highway within close proximity, the Proposed Project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, and no impact would occur.

95 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone in Local Responsibility Area, September 2011.

Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 95 April 2020
b) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? No Impact. The Project Site is not within or near a VHFHSZ. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not have the potential to expose Project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, or exacerbate wildfire risks. As such, no impact would occur.
c) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
No Impact. The Project Site is not within or near a VHFHSZ. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk or result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. As such, no impact would occur. d) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
No Impact. The Project Site is not within or near a VHFHSZ. The Project Site is within a flat, urbanized area that is adjacent to existing commercial and residential structures. Therefore, the Project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. As such, no impact would occur.

XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, substantially reduce the number
or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
܆ ܈ ܆ ܆
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 96 April 2020

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects)?
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
c) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
܆ ܈ ܆ ܆
Discussion
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated . Based on the analysis in Section IV, Biological Resources, of this Initial Study, the Proposed Project would not have substantial impacts to special-status species, stream habitat, and wildlife dispersal. A mitigation measure is proposed (i.e., Mitigation Measure BIO-1) to ensure that tree removal would not pose a significant impact on migratory wildlife species. Furthermore, the Proposed Project would not affect the local, regional, or national populations or ranges of any plant or animal species and would not threaten any plant communities. Similarly, as discussed in Section V, Cultural Resources, and Section VII, Geology and Soils, of this Initial Study, with the incorporation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and GEO-1, the Proposed Project would not have substantial impacts to historical, archaeological, or paleontological resources and, thus, would not eliminate any important examples of California history or prehistory. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in a Mandatory Finding of Significance due to impacts to biological, cultural, or paleontological resources. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Less Than Significant Impact. A significant cumulative impact may occur if the Project, in conjunction with related projects in the region, would result in impacts that are less than significant when viewed separately but would be significant when viewed together. When considering the Proposed Project in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the vicinity of the Project Site, the Proposed Project does not have the potential to cause impacts that are cumulatively considerable. As detailed in the above discussions, the Proposed Project would not result in any significant and unmitigable impacts in any environmental categories. In all cases, the impacts associated with the Project are limited to the Project Site and are of such a negligible degree that they would not result in a significant contribution to any cumulative impacts. In some cases, the Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 97 April 2020
Project would result in a net reduction when compared to existing conditions (i.e., related to emissions, water consumption, and wastewater and solid waste generation). Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in a Mandatory Finding of Significance due to cumulative impacts. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated . As detailed above, the Proposed Project does not have the potential to result in direct or indirect substantial adverse effects on human beings. Although construction noise is allowed during the City’s allowable construction hours and is not considered to be a significant impact during those hours, the Project could expose adjoining residential uses to temporary high noise levels (91 to 104 dBA) during construction activities.

However, Mitigation Measure NOI-1 is recommended to reduce short-term construction noise impacts through noise reduction methods to a less-than-significant level. In all other environmental issue areas, the Proposed Project does not approach or exceed any significance thresholds typically associated with direct or indirect effects on people, such as air, water, or land pollution, natural environmental hazards, transportation-related hazards, or adverse effects to emergency service response. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in a Mandatory Finding of Significance due to direct or indirect effects on human beings.

Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 98 April 2020
SECTION E. LIST OF MITIGATION MEASURES
Biological Resources
BIO-1 Tree removal shall not occur during the local nesting season (February 1 to September 15 for nesting birds and February 1 to June 30 for nesting raptors), to the extent practicable. If any construction or tree removal occurs during the nesting season, a nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to commencement of grading or removal of any trees on the property. If the biologist determines that nesting birds are present, restrictions may be placed on construction activities in the vicinity of the nest observed until the nest is no longer active, as determined by the biologist based on the location of the nest, type of the construction activities, the existing human activity in the vicinity of the nest, and the sensitivity of the nesting species. Grading and/or construction may resume in this area when a qualified biologist has determined that the nest is no longer occupied, and all juveniles have fledged. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City of the Planning & Community Development Administrator or Designee.

BIO-2 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall demonstrate that the Project landscaping plan and planned construction are consistent with the City’s Tree Protection Ordinance and the Protected Tree Study. The tree protection activities shall include the following:

1. Prior to demolition, the contractor and consulting arborist shall meet on-site to make sure tree protection zones are established around all protected trees to be preserved and to review the goals for the tree protection plan.

2. Tree protection zone fences shall be placed around each protected tree. Fences shall be at least 4 feet tall and constructed of chain-link fencing secured on metal posts. Where fences are not feasible (e.g., in haul routes or areas where workers will need frequent access), soil and root protection material can be installed.

3. The contractor shall maintain the fences and/or soil protection material throughout the completion of the Project. No staging of materials or equipment or washing out shall occur within the fenced protected zones.

4. Trees should be irrigated throughout the year. A deep watering that provides good soil moisture to a depth of 16 inches is optimal. The trees shall be deeply water once every 21 to 28 days during the summer and fall seasons when rain is unlikely.

5. For Tree No. 49, a protected deodar cedar located on the Project Site’s Colorado Boulevard frontage, the deadwood shall be removed to prevent the dead branches from falling. However, no reduction pruning in the live crown of the tree is required. The tree shall be monitored for its health during the life of the Project, and irrigation shall occur at the same frequency of the other trees.

6. The arborist shall monitor a few critical phases of the Project, including pre- demolition, to direct the installation of protective fences and soil protection measures; grading and excavation; any utility or drainage trenching that is required within a tree protection zone; and a final evaluation during the landscape installation phase.

Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 99 April 2020

7. Additional construction best practices described in the Protected Tree Report shall be implemented.

Cultural Resources
CUL-1 Treatment of previously unidentified archaeological deposits: If suspected prehistoric or historical archaeological deposits are discovered during construction, all work within 25 feet of the discovery shall be redirected and a Secretary of the Interior Professional Qualified archaeologist and/or Registered Professional Archaeologist shall assess the situation and make recommendations regarding the treatment of the discovery. Impacts to significant archaeological deposits shall be avoided if feasible, but if such impacts cannot be avoided, the deposits shall be evaluated for their eligibility for the California Register of Historical Resources. If the deposits are not eligible, no further protection of the find is necessary. If the deposits are eligible, impacts shall be avoided or mitigated. Acceptable mitigation may consist of, but is not necessarily limited to, systematic recovery and analysis of archaeological deposits, recording the resource, preparation of a report of findings, and accessioning recovered archaeological materials at an appropriate curation facility.

Geology and Soils
GEO-1 Paleontological Resource Monitor: If paleontological resources (fossils) are discovered during Project grading, work shall be halted in that area until a qualified paleontologist can be retained to assess the significance of the find. The Project paleontologist shall monitor remaining earth-moving activities at the Project Site and shall be equipped to record and salvage fossil resources that may be unearthed during grading activities.

The paleontologist shall be empowered to temporarily halt or divert grading equipment to allow recording and removal of the unearthed resources. Any fossils found shall be evaluated in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines and offered for curation at an accredited facility approved by the City of Arcadia. Once grading activities have ceased or the paleontologist determines that monitoring is no longer necessary, monitoring activities shall be discontinued.

Noise
NOI-1 Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, the Project applicant shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City of Arcadia Planning Division, that the Project complies with the following:

1. Construction contracts specify that all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers and other State-required noise attenuation devices.

2. The contractor shall provide evidence that a construction staff member will be designated as a noise disturbance coordinator and will be present on-site during construction activities. The noise disturbance coordinator shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. When a complaint is received, the noise disturbance coordinator shall notify the City within 24 hours of the complaint and determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early or bad muffler) and shall implement reasonable measures to resolve the complaint, as deemed acceptable by the Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 100 April 2020
Planning & Community Development Administrator (or designee). All notices that are sent to residential units immediately surrounding the construction site and all signs posted at the construction site shall include the contact name and the telephone number for the noise disturbance coordinator. All necessary signage and notices shall be posted on or sent to residential units immediately surrounding the construction site no less than two weeks prior to the start of noise-generating construction activities on the Project Site.

3. During construction, stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers.

4. Prior to issuance of any Grading or Building Permit, the Project applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director (or designee) that construction noise reduction methods shall be used where feasible. These reduction methods may include shutting off idling equipment, installing temporary acoustic barriers around stationary construction noise sources, maximizing the distance between construction equipment staging areas and occupied residential areas, and utilizing electric air compressors and similar power tools.

5. Construction haul routes shall be designed to avoid noise-sensitive uses (e.g., residences and convalescent homes) to the extent feasible.

Tribal Cultural Resources
TCR-1 Retail a Native American Monitor/Consultant. The Project Applicant shall be required to retain and compensate for the services of a tribal monitor/consultant, who is both approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation Tribal Government and listed under the Native American Heritage Commission’s (NAHC) Tribal Contact list for the area of the project location. This list is provided by the NAHC. The monitor/consultant shall only be present on-site during the construction phases that involve ground disturbing activities. Ground disturbing activities are defined by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation as activities that may include, but are not limited to, pavement removal, pot-holing or auguring, grubbing, tree removals, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching, within the Project area. The tribal Monitor/consultant shall complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the day’s activities, including construction activities, locations, soil, and any cultural materials identified. The on-site monitoring shall end when the Project Site grading and excavation activities are completed or when the tribal representatives and monitor/consultant have indicated that the site has a low potential for impacting tribal cultural resources.

TCR-2 Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural and Archaeological Resources.

Upon discovery of any tribal cultural or archaeological resources, construction activities shall cease in the immediate vicinity of the find until the find can be assessed.

All tribal cultural and archaeological resources unearthed by Project construction activities shall be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist and tribal monitor/consultant approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation. If the resources are Native American in origin, the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation shall coordinate with the landowner regarding treatment and curation of these resources. Typically, the tribe will request preservation in place Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 101 April 2020
or recovery for educational purposes. Work may continue on other parts of the Project Site while evaluation and, if necessary, additional protective mitigation takes place (CEQA Guidelines Section15064.5 [f]). If a resource is determined by the qualified archaeologist to constitute a “historical resource” or “unique archaeological resource,” time allotment and funding sufficient to allow for implementation of avoidance measures, or appropriate mitigation, must be available. The treatment plan established for the resources shall be in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f) for historical resources. For unique archaeological resources, preservation in place is the preferred manner of treatment in accordance with PRC Section 21083.2(b). If preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to remove the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. All tribal cultural resources shall be returned to the tribe. Any historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin shall be curated at a public, nonprofit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County or the Fowler Museum, if such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, they shall be offered to the tribe or a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes.

Upon discovery of human remains, the tribal and/or archaeological monitor/ consultant/consultant shall immediately divert work at minimum of 150 feet and place an exclusion zone around the discovery location. The monitor/consultant(s) shall then notify the tribe, the qualified lead archaeologist, and the construction manager who will call the coroner. Work shall continue to be diverted while the coroner determines whether the remains are human and subsequently Native American. The discovery is to be kept confidential and secure to prevent any further disturbance. If the finds are determined to be Native American, the coroner shall notify the NAHC as mandated by State law, who will then appoint a Most Likely Descendent (MLD). If the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation is designated MLD, the Koo-nas- gna Burial Policy shall be implemented. To the tribe, the term “human remains” encompasses more than human bones. In ancient, as well as, historic times, tribal traditions included, but were not limited to, the preparation of the soil for burial, the burial of funerary objects with the deceased, and the ceremonial burning of human remains. The prepared soil and cremation soils are to be treated in the same manner as bone fragments that remain intact. Associated funerary objects are objects that, as part of the death rite or ceremony of a culture, are reasonably believed to have been placed with individual human remains either at the time of death or later; other items Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 102 April 2020
made exclusively for burial purposes or to contain human remains can also be considered as associated funerary objects.

Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 103 April 2020
SECTION F. REFERENCES
Arbor Care, Inc., Protected Tree Report: Tree Survey, Encroachment, Protection and Mitigation 1150 West Colorado Boulevard, Arcadia, CA 91106, revised March 2020.

California Air Resources board, California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, November 2017.

California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6, California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, 2019.

California Department of Conservation, California Important Farmland Finder , accessed November 8, 2019, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/.

California Department of Conservation, Department of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources, Well Finder online mapping application, map generated December 3, 2019.

California Department of Conservation, Fault Activity Map of California, 2010.

California Department of Conservation, The California Land Conservation Act of 1965 2016 Status Report, December 2016.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), Special Plant and Animal Lists, https://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/list.html, accessed November 8, 2019.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone in Local Responsibility Area, September 2011.

California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), Cortese List: Section 65962.5(a), https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/section-65962-5a/, accessed October 21, 2019.

California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), EnviroStor Database search, accessed October 21, 2019.

California Department of Transportation, Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual , Table 20, September 2013.

California DTSC, EnviroStor Hazardous Waste and Substance Site List, 2019.

California Energy Commission, California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2017 , https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/2000_2016/ghg_inventory_trends_00 -16.pdf, accessed December 27, 2019.

California Geological Survey, Special Publication 117A: Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, 2008.

CDFW, Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS), https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/bios/, accessed November 8, 2019.

CDFW, CDFW Lands, https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/lands/, accessed November 8, 2019.

Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 104 April 2020
City of Arcadia Municipal Code Article IX, Division 3, Section 9103.13, Performance Standards, exempts vibration generated from construction activities.

City of Arcadia Ordinance No. 1510, signed and approved July 16, 1974.

City of Arcadia Resolution No. 4440, signed and approved July 2, 1974.

City of Arcadia, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, prepared by Stetson Engineers, Inc., June 2016.

City of Arcadia, Arcadia General Plan Land Use and Community Design Element, November 2010.

City of Arcadia, Arcadia General Plan Parks, Recreation, and Community Resources Element, November 2010.

City of Arcadia, Arcadia Municipal Code Article IX, Division 3, Section 9103.11, Signs.

City of Arcadia, Arcadia Municipal Code Section 9102.03.020.

City of Arcadia, Code of Ordinances , Article IX, Chapter 7, Tree Preservation, and Chapter 8, Comprehensive Tree Management Program.

City of Arcadia, Code of Ordinances , Article VII, Chapter 8, Part 2, Section 7828, Low Impact Development – Control of Runoff Required for Planning Priority Projects.

City of Arcadia, Code of Ordinances, Article VIII, Chapter 1, Building Code.

City of Arcadia, General Plan Safety Element, November 2010.

City of Arcadia, General Plan Update Draft Program EIR, 2010.

City of Arcadia, Municipal Code Article IV, Chapter 2, Part 6, Nighttime Construction.

City of Arcadia, Municipal Code Section 9102.03.020.

County of Los Angeles, Airports and Airport Influence Areas Map, August 2018.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Flood Insurance Rate Map 06037C1400F, September 26, 2008.

Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018.

Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning, GIS-NET Public, Planning & Zoning Information,
http://rpgis.isd.lacounty.gov/Html5Viewer/index.html?viewer=GISNET_Public.GIS- NET_Public, accessed November 8, 2019.

Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster, Five-Year Water Quality and Supply Plan, November 2019.

Michael Baker International, Artis Senior Assisted Living Facility Trip Generation Analysis , December 17, 2019.

Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 105 April 2020
South Coast Air Quality Management District, California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2016.3.2.

South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, November 1993.

South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan, March 2017.

South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology , July 2008.

South Coast Air Quality Management District, SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds , March 2015.

Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), Employment Density Study Summary Report, Table B-1, Employment Densities (employees per acre) by Anderson Code, All Counties, 2001.

Southern California Association of Governments, 2016–2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, April 2016.

Southern California Association of Governments, Appendix, Demographics and Growth Forecast, Table 11, April 2016.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), NEPAssist, National Land Cover Database 2016 Project Site and Area land cover, map generated December 10, 2019.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Environmental Conservation Online System: Information for Planning and Consultation, resource list generated November 22, 2019.

USEPA, NEPAssist, , accessed November 8, 2019.

USFWS, Environmental Conservation Online System: Information for Planning and Consultation, map generated November 22, 2019.

USFWS, National Wetlands Inventory, accessed November 22, 2019.

MM B A K E R I N T L . C O M
3760 Kilroy Airport Way, Suite 270 Long Beach, CA 90806 P: (562) 200-7165 F: (562) 200-1766

0(025$1'80
7R
9DQHVVD4XLUR]&LW\RI$UFDGLD$VVRFLDWH3ODQQHU
)URP
0DGRQQD0DUFHOR0LFKDHO%DNHU,QWHUQDWLRQDO
&&
/LVD)ORUHV&LW\RI$UFDGLD3ODQQLQJ &RPPXQLW\'HYHORSPHQW$GPLQLVWUDWRU 'DWH
-XQH

6XEMHFW
$UWLV6HQLRU/LYLQJ3URMHFW5HVSRQVHVWR&RPPHQWVRQWKH'UDIW,QLWLDO 6WXG\0LWLJDWHG1HJDWLYH'HFODUDWLRQ

$ 'UDIW ,QLWLDO 6WXG\0LWLJDWHG 1HJDWLYH 'HFODUDWLRQ 'UDIW ,601'
ZDV SUHSDUHG IRU WKH $UWLV
6HQLRU/LYLQJ3URMHFW
3URSRVHG3URMHFW
LQDFFRUGDQFHZLWKWKH&DOLIRUQLD(QYLURQPHQWDO4XDOLW\ $FW
&(4$
DQGWKH&(4$*XLGHOLQHV7KH'UDIW,601'ZDVFLUFXO DWHGIRUSXEOLFUHYLHZDQG FRPPHQW IURP $SULO WR 0D\ 2QH OHWWHU ZDV UHFHLYHG E\ WKH &LW\ IURP WKH IROORZLQJDJHQF\DQGDWWDFKHGKHUHWR

/LMLQ6XQ-'
3URJUDP6XSHUYLVRU&(4$,*5
3ODQQLQJ5XOH'HYHORSPHQW $UHD6RXUFHV
6RXWK&RDVW$LU4XDOLW\0DQDJHPHQW'LVWULFW
&RSOH\'ULYH
'LDPRQG%DU&$

%HORZSUHVHQWVWKHFRPPHQWVIROORZHGE\WKHFRUUHVSRQGLQJUHVSRQVHWRHDFKRIWKHFRPPHQWV &RPPHQW1R
6RXWK &RDVW $LU 4XDOLW\ 0DQDJHPHQW 'LVWULFW
6RXWK &RDVW $40'
VWDII DSSUHFLDWHV WKH
RSSRUWXQLW\ WR FRPPHQW RQ WKH DERYHPHQWLRQHG GRFXPHQW 7KH IROORZLQJ FRPPHQWV LQFOXGH UHFRPPHQGHG UHYLVLRQV WR WKH DLU TXDOLW\ DQDO\VLV DQG KHDOWK ULVN DVVHVVPHQW WKDW WKH /HDG $JHQF\VKRXOGLQFOXGHLQWKH)LQDO01'
6RXWK&RDVW$40'6WDII¶V6XPPDU\RI3URMHFW'HVFULSWLRQ 7KH/HDG$JHQF\SURSRVHVWRD>VLF@
VTXDUHIRRWVHQLRUO LYLQJFDUHIDFLOLW\ZLWKURRPV RQ
DFUHV
3URSRVHG3URMHFW
%DVHGRQDUHYLHZRI)LJXUH$3URMHFW/RFDWLRQ0DSLQWKH 01'DQGDHULDOSKRWRJUDSKV6RXWK&RDVW$40'VWDIIIRXQGWKDWWKH3URSRVHG3URMHFWLVORFDWHG LPPHGLDWHO\VRXWKRI,QWHUVWDWH
,
DQGZLWKLQIHHW IURPDJDVROLQHVHUYLFHVWDWLRQ &RQVWUXFWLRQLVH[SHFWHGWRWDNH
PRQWKV
6RXWK&RDVW$40'6WDII¶V6XPPDU\RI$LU4XDOLW\$QDO\VLV ,Q WKH $LU 4XDOLW\ $QDO\VLV VHFWLRQ WKH /HDG $JHQF\ TXDQWLILHG WKH 3URSRVHG 3URMHFW¶V FRQVWUXFWLRQDQGRSHUDWLRQDOHPLVVLRQVDQGFRPSDUHGWKRVHHPLVV LRQVWR6RXWK&RDVW$40'¶V 5(
$UWLV6HQLRU/LYLQJ3URMHFW5HVSRQVHVWR&RPPHQWVRQWKH'UDIW,601' -XQH

3DJH
UHFRPPHQGHG UHJLRQDO DQG ORFDOL]HG DLU TXDOLW\ &(4$ VLJQLILFDQFH WKUHVKROGV %DVHG RQ WKH DQDO\VHV WKH /HDG $JHQF\ IRXQGWKDWWKH 3URSRVHG 3URMHFW¶V FRQVWUXFWLRQ DQG RSHUDWLRQDO DLU TXDOLW\LPSDFWVZRXOGEHOHVVWKDQVLJQLILFDQW
6RXWK&RDVW$40'6WDII¶V&RPPHQWV
%DVHGRQUHYLHZVRIWKH$LU4XDOLW\$QDO\VLVLQWKH01'6RXWK&RDVW$40'VWDIIUHFRPPHQGV WKDW WKH /HDG $JHQF\ SHUIRUP D PRELOH VRXUFH KHDOWK ULVN DVVHVVPHQW +5$
WR GLVFORVH WKH
SRWHQWLDO KHDOWK ULVNV LQ WKH )LQDO 01' LQFRUSRUDWH VWUDWHJLHV WR UHGXFH H[SRVXUHV E\ VHQLRU UHVLGHQWVWRWR[LFDLUFRQWDPLQDQWVIURPYHKLFOHVDQGWUXFNVWUDYHOLQJRQ,DQGSURWHFWSXEOLF KHDOWKRIWKRVHOLYLQJDWWKH3URSRVHG3URMHFW'HWDLOHGFRPPHQWVDUHSURYLGHGDVIROORZV 5HVSRQVHWR&RPPHQW1R
7KHLQWURGXFWRU\FRPPHQWLVQRWHGIRUWKHDGPLQLVWUDWLYHUHFRUG 7KH6RXWK&RDVW$40'VWDII¶V VXPPDU\RIWKHSURMHFWGHVFULSWLRQDQGDLUTXDOLW\DQDO\VLVFRU UHFWO\LGHQWLILHVWKHDVSHFWRIWKH 3URMHFW DQG VLJQLILFDQFH FRQFOXVLRQV SURYLGHG LQ WKH 'UDIW ,QLW LDO 6WXG\0LWLJDWHG 1HJDWLYH 'HFODUDWLRQ
,601'
7KLVFRPPHQWLVQRWHGIRUWKHDGPLQLVWUDWLYHUHFRUGDQGZLOOEHIRUZDUGHG WRWKHGHFLVLRQPDNHUVIRUUHYLHZDQGFRQVLGHUDWLRQ
&RPPHQW1R
+HDOWK5LVN$VVHVVPHQW
+5$
IURP)UHHZD\VDQG2WKHU6RXUFHVRI$LU3ROOXWLRQ
1RWZLWKVWDQGLQJWKHFRXUWUXOLQJV6RXWK&RDVW$40'VWDIIUHFRJQL]HVWKDWWKH/HDG$JHQFLHV WKDWDSSURYH&(4$GRFXPHQWVUHWDLQWKHDXWKRULW\WRLQFOXGHDQ\DGGLWLRQDOLQIRUPDWLRQWKH\ GHHPUHOHYDQWWRDVVHVVLQJDQGPL WLJDWLQJWKHHQYLURQPHQWDOLPS DFWVRIDSURMHFW%HFDXVH RI6RXWK&RDVW$40'¶VFRQFHUQDERXWWKHSRWHQWLDOSXEOLFKHDOWK LPSDFWVRIVLWLQJVHQVLWLYH SRSXODWLRQV ZLWKLQ FORVH SUR[LPLW\ RI, 6RXWK &RDVW $40' VWDII UHFRPPHQGV WKDW WKH /HDG$JHQF\UHYLHZDQGFRQVLGHUWKHIROORZLQJFRPPHQWVZKHQPDN LQJORFDOSODQQLQJDQG ODQGXVHGHFLVLRQV
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
'30
HPLWWHG IURP YHKLFOHV DQG WUXFNV WUDYHOLQJ RQ , 7KH &DOLIRUQLD$LU5HVRXUFHV%RDUGKDVLGHQWLILHG'30DVDWR[LFDLUFRQWDPLQDQW 7$&
EDVHGRQ
LWV FDUFLQRJHQLF HIIHFWV $GGLWLRQDOO\ WKH 3URSRVHG 3URMHFW LV ORFDWHG ZLWKLQ IHHW RI D JDVROLQHVHUYLFHVWDWLRQWRWKHZHVW6HQLRUUHVLGHQWVZLOODOVREHH[SRVHGWRRWKHU7$&VVXFK DVEHQ]HQH7KHUHIRUH6RXWK&RDVW$40'VWDIIUHFRPPHQGVWKDWWKH/HDG$JHQF\FRQVLGHU KHDOWKLPSDFWVRQIXWXUHVHQLRUUHVLGHQWVOLYLQJDWWKH3URSRVHG3URMHFWDQGSHUIRUPDPRELOH VRXUFH +5$ DQDO\VLV WR GLVFORVH WKH SRWHQWLDO KHDOWK ULVNV LQ W KH )LQDO 01' 7KLV UHFRPPHQGDWLRQZLOOIDFLOLWDWHWKHSXUSRVHDQGJRDORI&(4$RQSXEOLFGLVFORVXUHDQGHQDEOH 5(
$UWLV6HQLRU/LYLQJ3URMHFW5HVSRQVHVWR&RPPHQWVRQWKH'UDIW,601' -XQH

3DJH
GHFLVLRQPDNHUV ZLWK PHDQLQJIXO LQIRUPDWLRQ WR PDNH DQ LQIRUPHG GHFLVLRQ RQ SURMHFW DSSURYDO ,W ZLOO DOVR IRVWHU LQIRUPHG SXEOLF SDUWLFLSDWLRQ E\SURYLGLQJ WKH SXEOLF ZLWK XVHIXO LQIRUPDWLRQWKDWLVQHHGHGWRXQGHUVWDQGWKHSRWHQWLDOKHDOWKULVNVIURPOLYLQJLQFORVHSUR[LPLW\ WRDKLJKYROXPHIUHHZD\
5HVSRQVHWR&RPPHQW1R
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

&DOWK
7KHFRXUWKHOGWKDW³DJHQFLHVVXEMHFWW R
&(4$JHQHUDOO\DUHQRWUHTXLUHGWRDQDO\]HWKHLPSDFWRIH[LVWLQJHQYLURQPHQWDOFRQGLWLRQVRQD SURMHFW¶VIXWXUHXVHUVRUUHVLGHQWV´+RZHYHULWVKRXOGEHQRW HGWKDWWKHUHDUHH[FHSWLRQVWRWKH FRXUW¶VGHFLVLRQ)RULQVWDQFHZKHQDSURMHFWKDVSRWHQWLDOO\ VLJQLILFDQWH[DFHUEDWLQJHIIHFWVRQ H[LVWLQJHQYLURQPHQWDOKD]DUGVWKRVHLPSDFWVDUHSURSHUO\ZLWKLQWKHSXUYLHZRI&(4$EHFDXVH WKH\FDQEHFRQVLGHUHGDVLPSDFWVRIWKHSURMHFWRQH[LVWLQJFRQGLWLRQVUDWKHUWKDQLPSDFWVRIWKH HQYLURQPHQWRQWKHSURMHFW7KHFRXUWFRQFOXGHGWKDWLWLVSURS HUXQGHU&(4$WRXQGHUWDNHDQ DQDO\VLVRIWKHGLVSHUVDORIH[LVWLQJFRQWDPLQDQWVEHFDXVHVXFKDQDQDO\VLVZRXOGEHIRFXVHGRQ KRZWKHSURMHFW³ZRXOGZRUVHQH[LVWLQJFRQGLWLRQV´)LQGLQJWKD W&(4$FDOOVXSRQDQDJHQF\WR HYDOXDWHH[LVWLQJFRQGLWLRQVLQRUGHUWRDVVHVVZKHWKHUDSURMH FWFRXOGH[DFHUEDWHKD]DUGVWKDW DUH DOUHDG\ SUHVHQW WKH FRXUWKHOG WKDW PRVW RI&(4$*XLGHOLQHV 6HFWLRQ D
LV YDOLG
7KXVVLPSO\DWWUDFWLQJUHVLGHQWVRUXVHUVWRDVLWHFRQWDLQLQJ DQHQYLURQPHQWDOKD]DUGRUULVNLV QRWDQLPSDFWWKDWPXVWEHDQDO\]HG,QVWHDGSURMHFWLQGXFHG FKDQJHVWKDWZRUVHQDQH[LVWLQJ KD]DUGRUULVNDUH
7KH 3URSRVHG 3URMHFW ZRXOG QRW ZRUVHQ H[LVWLQJ HQYLURQPHQWDO FR QGLWLRQV DQG ZRXOG QRW H[DFHUEDWHDQH[LVWLQJHQYLURQPHQWDOFRQGLWLRQ$VQRWHGLQWKHGLVFXVVLRQRIWKH3URMHFW¶VWUDIILF LPSDFWVRQSDJHVWKURXJKRIWKH'UDIW,601'WKH3URMHFW ZRXOGUHVXOWLQDUHGXFWLRQLQ WRWDOGDLO\DQGSHDNKRXUWULSVZKHQFRPSDUHGWRWKHH[LVWLQJUHVWDXUDQWXVHDQGZRXOGWKXVQRW H[DFHUEDWHWKHOHYHORIDLUSROOXWDQWVJHQHUDWHGE\IUHHZD\YHK LFOHWUDIILFRQ,UHVXOWLQJLQD OHVVWKDQVLJQLILFDQWLPSDFWUHODWHGWRWUDQVSRUWDWLRQ$VVXFKWKHDVVHVVPHQWRIWKH3URMHFW¶VDLU TXDOLW\LPSDFWVKDVQRWHQFRPSDVVHGDQHYDOXDWLRQRISRWHQWLDOKHDOWKULVNVDVVRFLDWHGZLWKWUDIILF H[KDXVW HPLVVLRQV DORQJ , 3OHDVH UHIHU WR 5HVSRQVH WR &RPP HQW 1R EHORZ IRU D GLVFXVVLRQRIWKHJDVROLQHVHUYLFHVWDWLRQORFDWHGWRWKHZHVWRIWKH3URMHFW6LWH &RPPHQW1R
*XLGDQFH5HJDUGLQJ5HVLGHQFHV6LWHG1HDUD+LJK9ROXPH)UHHZD\RU2WKHU6RXUFHVRI$LU 3ROOXWLRQ
7RIDFLOLWDWHVWURQJHUFROO DERUDWLRQEHWZHHQ/HDG$JHQFLHVDQG6RXWK&RDVW$40'WRUHGXFH FRPPXQLW\ H[SRVXUH WR VRXUFHVSHFLILF DQG FXPXODWLYH DLU SROOXWLRQ LPSDFWV 6RXWK &RDVW 5(
$UWLV6HQLRU/LYLQJ3URMHFW5HVSRQVHVWR&RPPHQWVRQWKH'UDIW,601' -XQH

3DJH
$40'DGRSWHGWKH*XLGDQFH'RFXPHQWIRU$GGUHVVLQJ$LU4XDOLW\, VVXHVLQ*HQHUDO3ODQV DQG/RFDO3ODQQLQJLQ7KLV *XLGDQFHGRFXPHQWSURYLGHVVXJJHVWHGSROLFLHVWKDWORFDO JRYHUQPHQWVFDQXVHLQWKHLU*HQHUDO3ODQVRUWKURXJKORFDOSOD QQLQJWRSUHYHQWRUUHGXFH SRWHQWLDO DLU SROOXWLRQ LPSDFWV DQG SURWHFW SXEOLF KHDOWK ,Q D GGLWLRQ JXLGDQFH RQ VLWLQJ LQFRPSDWLEOHODQGXVHV
VXFKDVSODFLQJUHVLGHQWLDOXVHVQHDUIUHHZD\VDQGJDVROLQHVHUYLFH

VWDWLRQV
FDQEHIRXQGLQWKH&DOLIRUQLD$LU5HVRXUFHV%RDUG
& $5%
¶V$LU4XDOLW\DQG/DQG
8VH +DQGERRN
$ &RPPXQLW\ +HDOWK 3HUVSHFWLYH
+DQGERRN
,Q WKH +DQGERRN &$5%
UHFRPPHQGVDYRLGLQJVLWLQJQHZVHQVLWLYHODQGXVHVVXFKDVWKH3URSRVHG3URMHFWZLWKLQ IHHWRIDIUHHZD\DQGIHHWRIDODUJHJDVROLQHGLVSHQVLQJIDFLOLW\ GHILQHGDVDIDFLOLW\ZLWK
DWKURXJKSXWRIPLOOLRQJDOORQVSHU\HDURUJUHDWHU $IRRWVHSDUDWLRQLVUHFRPPHQGHG
IRUW\SLFDOJDVROLQHGLVSHQVLQJIDFLOLWLHV7KHUHIRUH6RXWK&RDVW$40'VWDIIUHFRPPHQGVWKDW WKH/HDG$JHQF\UHYLHZWKHJXLGDQFHGRFXPHQWVZKHQPDNLQJORFDO SODQQLQJDQGODQGXVH GHFLVLRQV
5HVSRQVHWR&RPPHQW1R
:KHQGHWHUPLQLQJZKHWKHURUQRWDQ+5$ZDVUHTXLUHGIRUWKH3UR SRVHG3URMHFWWKH&LW\UHOLHG RQ WKH JXLGDQFH LQ WKH &DOLIRUQLD $LU 5HVRXUFHV %RDUG¶V &$5%
$LU 4XDOLW\ DQG /DQG 8VH
+DQGERRN
$ &RPPXQLW\ +HDOWK 3HUVSHFWLYH 7KLV GRFXPHQW UHFRPPHQGV WKDW OHDG DJHQFLHV DYRLGVLWLQJUHVLGHQFHVZLWKLQIHHWRIDODUJHJDVVWDWLRQ LHDIDFLOLW\ZLWKDWKURXJKSXWRI
PLOOLRQJDOORQVSHU\HDURUJUHDWHU
RUIHHWIRUDW\SLF DO JDV VWDWLRQ
LH D IDFLOLW\ ZLWK D
WKURXJKSXWRIOHVVWKDQPLOOLRQJDOORQVSHU\HDU
%DVHGRQWKHVPDOOVL]H
ILYHIXHOLQJLVODQGV

RIWKHJDVVWDWLRQDFURVV0LFKLOOLQGD$YHQXHRQWKHVRXWKZHVWHUQFRUQHURI&RORUDGR%RXOHYDUG DQG 0LFKLOOLQGD $YHQXH WKLV JDV VWDWLRQ LV FRQVLGHUHG WR EH DW\SLFDO JDV VWDWLRQ ZLWKLQ WKH PHDQLQJ RI &$5%¶V $LU 4XDOLW\ DQG /DQG 8VH +DQGERRN $FFRUGLQJO\ SXUVXDQW WR &$5%¶V JXLGDQFHWKH3URSRVHG3URMHFWVKRXOGEHVLWHGIHHWRUPRUH IURPWKHJDVVWDWLRQ¶VHPLVVLRQ VRXUFHV
LHWKHIXHOLQJLVODQGVSXPSV
7KHGLVWDQFHEHWZHHQ WKH3URSRVHG3URMHFW¶VSURSHUW\ ERXQGDU\ DORQJ 0LFKLOOLQGD $YHQXH DQG WKH FORVHVW IXHOLQJ FDQRS \ DW WKH JDV VWDWLRQ LV DSSUR[LPDWHO\
IHHW ZLWK D GLVWDQFH EHWZHHQWKH SURSHUW\ ERXQGDU\ DQG WKH QHDUHVWIXHOLQJ LVODQG RI DSSUR[LPDWHO\ IHHW 7KHUHIRUH WKH 3URSRVHG 3URMH F W F R P S O L H V Z L W K & $ 5 % ¶ V JXLGDQFH,WVKRXOGDOVREHQRWHGWKH&$5%¶VJXLGDQFHLVDGYLVRU\DQGQRWUHJXODWRU\ KRZHYHU
WKH&LW\VWULYHVWRFRPSO\ZLWKWKLVJXLGDQFHDVGLVFXVVHGKHUHLQ $V GLVFXVVHG LQ 5HVSRQVH WR &RPPHQW 1R WKH &RXUW IRXQG LQ&DOLIRUQLD %XLOGLQJ ,QGXVWU\ $VVRFLDWLRQY%D\$UHD$LU4XDOLW\0DQDJHPHQW'LVWULFWWKDWDJHQFLHVVXEMHFWWR&(4$JHQHUDOO\ DUHQRWUHTXLUHGWRDQDO\]HWKHLPSDFWRIH[LVWLQJHQYLURQPHQWD OFRQGLWLRQVRQDSURMHFW¶VIXWXUH UHVLGHQWVRUXVHUV
LHUHYHUVH&(4$
EXWQHHGWRIRFXVRQWK HLPSDFWVRIWKHSURMHFW¶VHIIHFWV RQWKHHQYLURQPHQW6LQFHWKHQHDUE\JDVVWDWLRQLVDOUHDG\SDUWRIWKHH[LVWLQJHQYLURQPHQWWKH &LW\LVQRWUHTXLUHGWRHYDOXDWHLWVSRWHQWLDOLPSDFWVRQWKH3URSRVHG3URMHFW 2SHUDWLRQ RI WKH QHDUE\ JDV VWDWLRQ LV SHUPLWWHG E\ 6&$40' DQG IXHOUHODWHG HPLVVLRQV DUH UHJXODWHGE\6&$40'5XOH*DVROLQHGLVSHQVLQJIDFLOLWLHVDU HUHTXLUHGWRXVH3KDVHV,,, HQKDQFHG YDSRU UHFRYHU\ V\VWHPV 7KXV WKH SRWHQWLDO IRU IXJLWLYH YRODWLOH RUJDQLF FRPSRXQGV

92&
RUWR[LFDLUFRQWDPLQDQW
7$&
HPLVVLRQVIURPWKHQHDUE\JDVROLQHSXPSVLVQHJOLJLEOH$V VXFKWKHIXHOLQJSXPSVZRXOGQRWEHDVLJQLILFDQWVRXUFHRI7$ &VDQGWKHVHQVLWLYHUHFHSWRUV 5(
$UWLV6HQLRU/LYLQJ3URMHFW5HVSRQVHVWR&RPPHQWVRQWKH'UDIW,601' -XQH

3DJH
WKDWZRXOGEHORFDWHGRQWKH3URMHFW6LWH
DSSUR[LPDWHO\IHHWIURPWKHH[LVWLQJIXHOLQJSXPSV

ZRXOGQRWEHH[SRVHGWR7$&HPLVVLRQVIURPWKHJDVROLQHSXPSVD FURVV0LFKLOOLQGD$YHQXH,Q DGGLWLRQWKH3URSRVHG3URMHFWZRXOGQRWFKDQJHWKH92&RU7$&HPLVVLRQVIURPWKLVJDVVWDWLRQ DQG WKXV ZRXOG QRW KDYH DQ\ SRWHQWLDOO\ VLJQLILFDQW H[DFHUEDW LQJ HIIHFWV RQ H[LVWLQJ HQYLURQPHQWDOKD]DUGV1RIXUWKHUDQDO\VLVRIWKLVLVVXHLVZDU UDQWHGDQGWKHGHWHUPLQDWLRQRI WKH VLJQLILFDQFH RI LPSDFWV LQ WKH ,QLWLDO 6WXG\ UHPDLQV YDOLGDQG DSSOLFDEOH WR WKH 3URSRVHG 3URMHFW
&RPPHQW1R
+HDOWK5LVN5HGXFWLRQ6WUDWHJLHV
0DQ\VWUDWHJLHVDUHDYDLODEOHWRUHGXFHH[SRVXUHVWR'30LQ FOXGLQJEXWDUHQRWOLPLWHGWR EXLOGLQJILOWUDWLRQV\VWHPVZLWK0LQLPXP(IILFLHQF\5HSRUWLQJ9 DOXH 0(59
RUEHWWHURU
LQ VRPH FDVHV 0(59 RU EHWWHU LV UHFRPPHQGHG EXLOGLQJ GHVLJQ RULHQWDWLRQ ORFDWLRQ

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
'LVFORVXUH RQ SRWHQWLDO KHDOWK LPSDFWV WR SURVSHFWLYH VHQLRU U HVLGHQWV IURP OLYLQJ LQ SUR[LPLW\WRDIUHHZD\DQGRWKHUVRXUFHVRIDLUSROOXWLRQDQGWKHUHGXFHGHIIHFWLYHQHVVRI DLUILOWUDWLRQV\VWHPZKHQZLQGRZVDUHRSHQDQGZKHQVHQLRUUHVLGHQWVDUHRXWGRRU
5(
$UWLV6HQLRU/LYLQJ3URMHFW5HVSRQVHVWR&RPPHQWVRQWKH'UDIW,601' -XQH

3DJH
,GHQWLILFDWLRQRIWKHUHVSRQVLEOHLPSOHPHQWLQJDQGHQIRUFHPHQW DJHQF\VXFKDVWKH/HDG $JHQF\ IRU HQVXULQJ WKDW HQKDQFHG ILOWHUV DUH LQVWDOOHG RQVLWH DW WKH 3URSRVHG 3URMHFW EHIRUHDSHUPLWRIRFFXSDQF\LVLVVXHG

,GHQWLILFDWLRQRIWKHUHVSRQVLEOHLPSOHPHQWLQJDQGHQIRUFHPHQW DJHQF\VXFKDVWKH/HDG $JHQF\¶V EXLOGLQJ DQG VDIHW\ LQVSHFWLRQ XQLW WR SURYLGH SHULRGLF UHJXODU LQVSHFWLRQ RQ

ILOWHUV

3URYLGHLQIRUPDWLRQDQGJXLGDQFHWRWKH3URMHFWGHYHORSHURUS URSRQHQWRQWKHLPSRUWDQFH RIILOWHULQVWDOODWLRQDQGRQJRLQJPDLQWHQDQFH

3URYLGHLQIRUPDWLRQWRWKH3URMHFWGHYHORSHURUSURSRQHQWDERX WZKHUHWKH0(59ILOHUV >VLF@FDQEHSXUFKDVHG

'LVFORVXUHRQLQFUHDVHGFRVWVIRUSXUFKDVLQJHQKDQFHGILOWUDWL RQV\VWHPV
'LVFORVXUHRQLQFUHDVHGHQHUJ\F RVWVIRUUXQQLQJWKH+9$&V\VWHPZLWK0(59ILOWHUV
'LVFORVXUH RQ UHFRPPHQGHG VFKHGXOHV
HJ RQFH D \HDU RU HYHU \ VL[ PRQWKV
IRU
UHSODFLQJWKHHQKDQFHGILOWUDWLRQXQLWV

,GHQWLILFDWLRQ RI WKH UHVSRQVLEOH HQWLW\ VXFK DV UHVLGHQWV RU SURSHUW\ PDQDJHPHQW WR HQVXUHILOWHUVDUHLQVSHFWHGIRUUHSODFHPHQWDQGPDLQWHQDQFHRQWLPHLIDSSURSULDWHDQG

IHDVLEOH

'HYHORSRQJRLQJFRVWVKDULQJVWUDWHJLHVLIDYDLODEOHIRUUHS ODFLQJWKHHQKDQFHGILOWUDWLRQ XQLWV

6HW XS FULWHULD IRU DVVHVVLQJ SURJUHVV LQ LQVWDOOLQJ UHSODFLQ J DQG PDLQWDLQLQJ WKH HQKDQFHGILOWUDWLRQXQLWV
DQG
6HW XS SURFHVV IRU HYDOXDWLQJ WKH HIIHFWLYHQHVV RI WKH HQKDQFH G ILOWUDWLRQ XQLWV DW WKH 3URSRVHG3URMHFW
5HVSRQVHWR&RPPHQW1R
,W LV QRWHG WKDW WKH UHJXODWLRQV VHW IRUWK LQ 6HFWLRQ RI 6XEFKDSWHU RI WKH &DOLIRUQLD
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
LH\HDU
UHVLGHQWH[SRVXUHGXUDWLRQ
3URMHFW UHVLGHQWV DUH DQWLFLSDWHG WR UHPDLQ PRVWO\ LQGRRUV VLQFH PDQ\ RI WKHP ZRXOG UHTXLUH FRQWLQXRXV VXSHUYLVLRQ DQG FDUH ,Q DGGLWLRQ WKH &LW\ ZLOO LPSRVH D FRQGLWLRQ RI DSSURYDO WKDW UHTXLUHV WKH RSHUDWRUV RI WKH 3URSRVHG 3URMHFW WR VXEPLW D FRS\ RI WKH OHDVH DJUHHPHQW 7KH OHDVH DJUHHPHQW ZLOO UHTXLUH DOO IXWXUH UHVLGHQWV WR DFNQRZOHGJ H WKH SRWHQWLDO KHDOWK ULVN DVVRFLDWHGZLWKOLYLQJZLWKLQIHHWRIDIUHHZD\
5(
$UWLV6HQLRU/LYLQJ3URMHFW5HVSRQVHVWR&RPPHQWVRQWKH'UDIW,601' -XQH

3DJH
&RPPHQW1R
&RQFOXVLRQ
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
5HVSRQVHWR&RPPHQW1R
7KH&LW\¶VUHVSRQVHVWRWKH$40'FRPPHQWVDUHSURYLGHGLQWKLV 5HVSRQVHWR&RPPHQWV$OO ZULWWHQ FRPPHQWV UHFHLYHG KDYH EHHQ DGHTXDWHO\ UHVSRQGHG WR LQ DFFRUGDQFH ZLWK &(4$ *XLGHOLQHV6HFWLRQ7KHGHWHUPLQDWLRQRIWKHVLJQLILFDQFH RILPSDFWVLQWKH,QLWLDO6WXG\ SDUWLFXODUO\ DV LW UHODWHV WR DLU TXDOLW\ UHPDLQV YDOLG DQG DSSOLFDEOH WR WKH 3URSRVHG 3URMHFW 7KHUHIRUHQRIXUWKHUDQDO\VLVLVZDUUDQWHG1RRWKHUDJHQF\DQGSXEOLFFRPPHQWVZHUHUHFHLYHG GXULQJWKH'UDIW,601'¶VSXEOLFUHYLHZSHULRG

SENT VIA E-MAIL: May 5, 2020
[email protected]
Venessa Quiroz, Planner
City of Arcadia, Planning Department
240 W. Huntington Drive
Arcadia, CA 91006

Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Proposed
Artis Senior Living Care Facility

South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) staff appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above-mentioned document. The following comments include recommended revisions to the air quality analysis and health risk assessment that the Lead Agency should include in the Final MND.

South Coast AQMD Staff’s Summary of Project Description The Lead Agency proposes to a 44,192-square-foot senior living care facility with 80 rooms on 2.79 acres (Proposed Project). Based on a review of Figure A-2, Project Location Map , in the MND and aerial photographs, South Coast AQMD staff found that the Proposed Project is located immediately south of Interstate 210 (I-210) and within 100 feet from a gasoline service station. Construction is expected to take 19 months1.

South Coast AQMD Staff’s Summary of Air Quality Analysis In the Air Quality Analysis section, the L ead Agency quantified the Proposed Project’s construction and operational emissions and compared those emissions to South Coast AQMD’s recommended regional and localized air quality CEQA significance thresholds . Based on the analyses, the Lead Agency found that the Proposed Project’s construction and operational air quality impacts would be less than significant.

South Coast AQMD Staff’s Comments
Based on reviews of the Air Quality Analysis in the MND, South Coast AQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency perform a mobile source health risk assessment (HRA) to disclose the potential health risks in the Final MND, incorporate strategies to reduce exposures by senior residents to toxic air contaminants from vehicles and trucks traveling on I-210, and protect public health of those living at the Proposed Project. Detailed comments are provided as follows.

Health Risk Assessment (HRA) from Freeways and Other Sources of Air Pollution

1. Notwithstanding the court rulings, South Coast AQMD staff recognizes that the Lead Agencies that approve CEQA documents retain the authority to include any additional information they deem relevant to assessing and mitigating the environmen tal impacts of a project. Because of South Coast AQMD’s concern about the potential public health impacts of siting sensitive populations within close proximity of I-210, South Coast AQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency review and consider the following comments when making local planning and land use decisions.

Sensitive receptors are people that have an increa sed sensitivity to air pollution or environmental contaminants. Sensitive receptors include schools, daycare centers, nursing homes, elderly care

1 MND. Page 30
Comment
No. 1
Comment
No. 2
Venessa Quiroz May 5, 2020 2 facilities, hospitals, and residential dwelling units. As stated above, the Proposed Project will include the operation of a senior living care facility. Based on a review of Figure A-2 in the MND, South Coast AQMD staff found that the Proposed Project immediately south of I-210. Senior residents living at the Proposed Project will be exposed to diesel particulate matter (DPM) emitted from vehicles and trucks traveling on I-210. The California Air Resources Board has identified DPM as a toxic air contaminant (TAC) based on its carcinogenic effects 2. Additionally, the Proposed Project is located within 100 feet of a gasoline service station to the west. Senior residents will also be exposed to other TACs such as benzene. Therefore, South Coast AQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency consider health impacts on future senior residents living at the Proposed Project and perform a mobile source HRA 3 analysis to disclose the potential health risks in the Final MND 4. This recommendation will facilitate the purpose and goal of CEQA on public disclosure and enable decision-makers with meaningful information to make an informed decision on project approval. It will also foster informed public participation by providing the public with useful information that is needed to understand the potential health risks fro m living in close proximity to a high-volume freeway.

Guidance Regarding Residences Sited Near a High-Volume Freeway or Other Sources of Air Pollution

2. To facilitate stronger collaboration between Lead Agencies and South Coast AQMD to reduce community exposure to source-specific and cumu lative air pollution impacts, South Coast AQMD adopted the Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning in 2005

5. This Guidance document provides suggested policies that local governments can use in their General Plans or through local planning to prevent or reduce potential air pollution impacts and protect public health. In addition, guid ance on siting incompatible land uses (such as placing residential uses near freeways and gasoline service stations) can be found in the California Air Resources Board (CARB) ’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (Handbook)6. In the Handbook, CARB recommends avoiding siting new sensitive land uses such as the Proposed Project within 500 feet of a freeway 7, and 300 feet of a large gasoline dispensing facility (defined as a facility with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year or greater.) A 50-foot separation is recommended for typical gasoline dispensing facilities 8. Therefore, South Coast AQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency review the guidance documents when making local planning and land use decisions.

2 California Air Resources Board. August 27, 1998. Resolution 98-35. Accessed at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/diesltac/diesltac.htm.
3 South Coast Air Quality Management District. Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risk from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis . Accessed at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/airquality-analysis-handbook/mobile-source-toxics-analysis. 4 South Coast AQMD has developed the CEQA significance threshold of 10 in one million for cancer risk. When South Coast AQMD acts as the Lead Agency, South Coast AQMD staff c onducts a HRA, compares the maximum cancer risk to the threshold of 10 in one million to determine the level of signif icance for health risk impacts, and identifies mitigation measur es if the risk is found to be significant.
5 South Coast AQMD. May 2005. Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning .

Accessed at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/air-quality-guidance/complete-guidance-document.pdf. 6 California Air Resources Board. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook : A Community Health Perspective . Accessed at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf.
7 Ibid. Page 10.
8 Ibid. Page 32.

Comment
No. 2
(Continued)
Comment
No. 3
Venessa Quiroz May 5, 2020 3 Health Risk Reduction Strategies

3. Many strategies are available to reduce exposures to DPM, including, but are not limited to, building filtration systems with Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) 13 or better, or in some cases, MERV 15 or better is recommended; building desi gn, orientation, location; vegetation barriers or landscaping screening, etc. Enhanced filtration units are capable of reducing exposures. Installation of enhanced filtration units can be verified during occupancy inspection prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit.

4. Enhanced filtration systems have limitations. S outh Coast AQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency consider the limitations of the enhanced filt ration. For example, in a study that South Coast AQMD conducted to investigate filters
9, a cost burden is expected to be within the range of $120 to $240 per year to replace each filter. The initial start- up cost could substantially increase if an HVAC system needs to be installed. In addition, because the filters would not have any effectiveness unless the HVAC system is running, there may be increase d energy costs to the residents. It is typically assumed that the filters operate 100 percent of the time while residents are indoors, and the environmental analysis does not generally accoun t for the times when the residents have their windows or doors open or are in common space areas of the project. In addition, these filters have no ability to filter out any toxic gases from vehicle exhaust. Therefore, the presumed effectiveness and feasibility of any filtration units should be carefull y evaluated in more detail prior to assuming that they will sufficiently alleviate exposures to toxic emissions.

5. Because of the limitations, to ensure that enhanced filters are enforceable throughout the lifetime of the Proposed Project as well as effective in reducing exposures to DPM emissions, South Coast AQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency pr ovide additional details regarding the ongoing, regular inspection, maintenance, and monitoring of filters in the Final MND. To facilitate a good faith effort at full disclosure and provide useful informat ion to future sensitive receptors who will live in close proximity to I-210 and a gasoline service station, the Lead Agency should include the following information in the Final MND, at a minimum:

x Disclosure on potential health impacts to prospective senior residents from living in proximity to a freeway and other sources of air pollution, and th e reduced effectiveness of air filtration system when windows are open and when senior residents are outdoor; x Identification of the responsible implementing and enforcement agency such as the Lead Agency for ensuring that enhanced filters are installed on-site at the Proposed Project before a permit of occupancy is issued;
x Identification of the responsible implementing and enforcement agency such as the Lead Agency’s building and safety inspection unit to provide periodic, regular inspection on filters; x Provide information and guidance to the Project developer or proponent on the importance of filter installation and ongoing maintenance;
x Provide information to the Project developer or proponent about where the MERV filers can be purchased;
x Disclosure on increased costs for purchasing enhanced filtration systems; x Disclosure on increased energy costs for running the HVAC system with MERV filters; x Disclosure on recommended schedules (e.g., once a year or every six months) for replacing the enhanced filtration units;

9This study evaluated filters rated MERV 13 or better. Accessed at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/ceqa/handbook/aqmdpilotstudyfinalreport.pdf. Also see 2012 Peer Review Journal article by South Coast AQMD:
http://d7.iqair.com/sites/default/files/pdf/Polidori-et-al-2012.pdf.

Comment
No. 4
Venessa Quiroz May 5, 2020 4 x Identification of the responsible entity such as re sidents or property management to ensure filters are inspected for replacement and maintenance on time, if appropriate and feasible; x Develop ongoing cost sharing strategies, if available, for replacing the enhanced filtration units; x Set up criteria for assessing progress in installing, replacing, and maintaining the enhanced filtration units; and
x Set up process for evaluating the effectiveness of the enhanced filtration units at the Proposed Project.

Conclusion
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15074, prior to approving the Proposed Project, the Lead Agency shall consider the MND for adoption together with any comments received during the public review process. Please provide South Coast AQMD with written responses to all comments contained herein prior to the adoption of the Final MND. When respondi ng to issues raised in the comments, response should provide sufficient details giving reasons why specific comments and suggestions are not accepted.

There should be good faith, reasoned analysis in response. Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information do not facilitate the purpose and goal of CEQA on public disclosure and are not meaningful, informative, or useful to decision makers and the public who are interested in the Proposed Project.

South Coast AQMD staff is available to work with th e Lead Agency to address any air quality questions that may arise from this comment letter. Please contact me at [email protected], should you have any questions.

Sincerely,
Lijin Sun
Lijin Sun, J.D.

Program Supervisor, CEQA IGR
Planning, Rule Development & Area Sources

LS
LAC200501-05
Control Number

Comment
No. 4
(Continued)
Comment
No. 5

SENT VIA E-MAIL: May 5, 2020
[email protected]
Venessa Quiroz, Planner
City of Arcadia, Planning Department
240 W. Huntington Drive
Arcadia, CA 91006

Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Proposed
Artis Senior Living Care Facility

Health Risk Assessment (HRA) from Freeways and Other Sources of Air Pollution

Sensitive receptors are people that have an increa sed sensitivity to air pollution or environmental contaminants. Sensitive receptors include schools, daycare centers, nursing homes, elderly care

1 MND. Page 30
Venessa Quiroz May 5, 2020 2 facilities, hospitals, and residential dwelling units. As stated above, the Proposed Project will include the operation of a senior living care facility. Based on a review of Figure A-2 in the MND, South Coast AQMD staff found that the Proposed Project immediately south of I-210. Senior residents living at the Proposed Project will be exposed to diesel particulate matter (DPM) emitted from vehicles and trucks traveling on I-210. The California Air Resources Board has identified DPM as a toxic air contaminant (TAC) based on its carcinogenic effects 2. Additionally, the Proposed Project is located within 100 feet of a gasoline service station to the west. Senior residents will also be exposed to other TACs such as benzene. Therefore, South Coast AQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency consider health impacts on future senior residents living at the Proposed Project and perform a mobile source HRA 3 analysis to disclose the potential health risks in the Final MND 4. This recommendation will facilitate the purpose and goal of CEQA on public disclosure and enable decision-makers with meaningful information to make an informed decision on project approval. It will also foster informed public participation by providing the public with useful information that is needed to understand the potential health risks fro m living in close proximity to a high-volume freeway.

Guidance Regarding Residences Sited Near a High-Volume Freeway or Other Sources of Air Pollution

Venessa Quiroz May 5, 2020 3 Health Risk Reduction Strategies

Venessa Quiroz May 5, 2020 4 x Identification of the responsible entity such as re sidents or property management to ensure filters are inspected for replacement and maintenance on time, if appropriate and feasible; x Develop ongoing cost sharing strategies, if available, for replacing the enhanced filtration units; x Set up criteria for assessing progress in installing, replacing, and maintaining the enhanced filtration units; and
x Set up process for evaluating the effectiveness of the enhanced filtration units at the Proposed Project.

Sincerely,
Lijin Sun
Lijin Sun, J.D.

Program Supervisor, CEQA IGR
Planning, Rule Development & Area Sources

LS
LAC200501-05
Control Number

State of California – Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director South Coast Region
3883 Ruffin Road
San Diego, CA 92123
(858) 467-4201
www.wildlife.ca.gov
Conserving California’s Wildlife Since 1870

May 21, 2020

Vanessa Quiroz
Associate Planner
240 W. Huntington Drive
Arcadia, CA 91007
[email protected]

Subject: CEQA Filing Fee Exemption Request
Project Name: Artis Senior Living Project
SCH Number and/or local agency ID number: N/A

Dear Ms. Quiroz:

Based on a review of the project referenced above, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife has determined that for the purposes of the assessment of CEQA filing fees (Fish and G. Code § 711.4(c)) the project has the potential to affect fish and wildlife, or their habitat, and the project as described requires payment of a CEQA filing fee pursuant to the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 753.5(d). At the time of filing of the Notice of Determination with the county clerk or Office of Planning and Research (State Clearinghouse), the appropriate CEQA filing fee will be due and payable. Please see the following website for a list of current fees: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/CEQA/Fees.

This determination is for the purpose of assessment of CEQA filing fees and is independent of a lead agency’s conclusion or determination regarding a project’s effect on the environment pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15064. If you have any questions, please contact Andrew Valand at (562) 342-2142 or by email at [email protected].

Sincerely,

For Victoria Tang
Sr. Environmental Scientist, Supervisor

California Environmental Quality Act

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Artis Senior Living Project
Lead
Agency:

City of Arcadia
240 W. Huntington Drive
Arcadia, CA 91007
(626) 574-5422
Contact:

Vanessa Quiroz,
Associate Planner

Prepared
by:

3760 Kilroy Airport Way
Suite 270
Long Beach, CA 90806
Office: (562) 200-7165
Fax: (562) 200-1766

Artis Senior Housing Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 1 May 2020 I. Introduction
To ensure that the mitigation measures identified in a project’s Initial Study are implemented, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the Lead Agency for a project to adopt a program for monitoring or reporting on the measures it has imposed to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects. As specifically set forth in Section 15097(c) of the CEQA Guidelines, the public agency may choose whether its program will monitor mitigation, report on mitigation, or both. “Monitoring” is generally an ongoing or periodic process of project oversight, while “reporting” generally consists of a written compliance review that is presented to the decision-making body or authorized staff person.

An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) has been prepared to address the Artis Senior Housing Project’s (Project) potential environmental impacts. The evaluation of the Project includes mitigation measures to avoid or substantially lessen potentially significant impacts to less- than-significant levels. Specifically, the IS/MND includes mitigation measures related to the following environmental issue areas: Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Noise, and Tribal Cultural Resources. This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is designed to monitor implementation of these Project-specific mitigation measures.

II. Purpose
The overall intent of this MMRP is to:
x Verify compliance with mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND prepared for the Proposed Project;
x Provide a framework to document implementation of the identified mitigation measures; x Provide a record of mitigation requirements;
x Identify monitoring and enforcement agencies;
x Establish and clarify administrative procedures for the clearance of mitigation measures; and x Establish the frequency and duration of monitoring.

III. Organization
As shown in Table 1, each mitigation measure for the Proposed Project is listed by environmental issue area, with accompanying information identifying the:
x Enforcement Agency – the agency with the power to enforce the Project’s mitigation measures.
x Monitoring Agency – the agency to which reports involving compliance and implementation of the mitigation measures are made.
x Monitoring Phase – the phase of the Project (e.g., pre-construction, construction, architectural coatings, occupation, etc.) during which the mitigation measure shall be monitored. x Monitoring Frequency – the frequency at which the mitigation measure shall be monitored during the phase identified in the prior column.
x Action Indicating Compliance – the action or actions by which the enforcement/monitoring agency indicates that compliance with the identified mitigation measure has been determined.

Artis Senior Housing Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 2 May 2020 Table 1 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
No. Mitigation Measures Enforcement
Agency
Monitoring
Agency
Monitoring
Phase
Monitoring
Frequency
Action
Indicating
Compliance
Biological Resources
BIO-1 Tree removal shall not occur during the local nesting season (February 1 to September 15 for nesting birds and February 1 to June 30 for nesting raptors), to the extent practicable. If any construction or tree removal occurs during the nesting season, a nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to commencement of grading or removal of any trees on the property. If the biologist determines that nesting birds are present, restrictions may be placed on construction activities in the vicinity of the nest observed until the nest is no longer active, as determined by the biologist based on the location of the nest, type of the construction activities, the existing human activity in the vicinity of the nest, and the sensitivity of the nesting species. Grading and/or construction may resume in this area when a qualified biologist has determined that the nest is no longer occupied, and all juveniles have fledged. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City of the Planning & Community Development Administrator or Designee.

City of Arcadia
Development
Services Department

Pre-
Construction/
Construction
During all
grading and
tree-
removal
activities
Submittal of
compliance
documentation by
a
qualified biologist
BIO-2 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall demonstrate that the Project landscaping plan and planned construction are consistent with the City’s Tree Protection Ordinance and the Protected Tree Study. The tree protection activities shall include the following:

3. The contractor shall maintain the fences and/or soil protection material throughout the completion of the Project.

No staging of materials or equipment or washing out shall occur within the fenced protected zones.

6. The arborist shall monitor a few critical phases of the Project, including pre-demolition, to direct the installation of protective fences and soil protection measures; grading and excavation; any utility or drainage trenching that is required within a tree protection zone; and a final evaluation during the landscape installation phase.

7. Additional construction best practices described in the Protected Tree Report shall be implemented.

City of Arcadia
Development
Services Department

City of Arcadia
Development
Services Department
Pre-
Construction/
Construction
During Plan
Check and
construction
Submittal of
compliance
documentation by
a
Certified Arborist
Cultural Resources
CUL-1 Treatment of previously unidentified archaeological deposits: If suspected prehistoric or historical archaeological deposits are discovered during construction, all work within 25 feet of the discovery shall be redirected and a Secretary of the Interior Professional Qualified archaeologist and/or Registered Professional Archaeologist shall assess the situation and make recommendations regarding the treatment of the discovery. Impacts to significant archaeological deposits shall be avoided if feasible, but if such impacts cannot be avoided, the deposits shall be evaluated for their eligibility for the California Register of Historical Resources. If the deposits are not eligible, no further protection of the find is necessary.

If the deposits are eligible, impacts shall be avoided or mitigated. Acceptable mitigation may consist of, but is not necessarily limited to, systematic recovery and analysis of archaeological deposits, recording the resource, preparation of a report of findings, and accessioning recovered archaeological materials at an appropriate curation facility City of Arcadia
Development
Services Department

City of Arcadia
Development
Services Department

Construction During all
ground
disturbing
activities
Submittal of
compliance
documentation by a
qualified
archaeologist
Artis Senior Housing Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 3 May 2020 Table 1 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
No. Mitigation Measures Enforcement
Agency
Monitoring
Agency
Monitoring
Phase
Monitoring
Frequency
Action
Indicating
Compliance
Geology and Soils
GEO-1 Paleontological Resource Monitor: If paleontological resources (fossils) are discovered during Project grading, work shall be halted in that area until a qualified paleontologist can be retained to assess the significance of the find. The Project paleontologist shall monitor remaining earth-moving activities at the Project Site and shall be equipped to record and salvage fossil resources that may be unearthed during grading activities. The paleontologist shall be empowered to temporarily halt or divert grading equipment to allow recording and removal of the unearthed resources. Any fossils found shall be evaluated in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines and offered for curation at an accredited facility approved by the City of Arcadia. Once grading activities have ceased or the paleontologist determines that monitoring is no longer necessary, monitoring activities shall be discontinued.

City of Arcadia
Development
Services Department

Construction During all
ground
disturbing
activities
Submittal of
compliance
documentation by
qualified
Paleontologist
Noise
NOI-1 Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, the Project applicant shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City of Arcadia Building Division, that the Project complies with the following:

1. Construction contracts specify that all construction equ ipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers and other State-required noise attenuation devices.

All notices that are sent to residential units immediately surrounding the construction site and all signs posted at the construction site shall include the contact name and the telephone number for the noise disturbance coordinator. All necessary signage and notices shall be posted on or sent to residential units immediately surrounding the construction site no less than two weeks prior to the start of noise-generating construction activities on the Project Site.

3. During construction, stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers.

4. Prior to issuance of any Grading or Building Permit, the Project applicant sh all demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Building Official (or designee) that construction noise reduction methods shall be used where feasible. These reduction methods may include shutting off idling equipment, installing temporary acoustic barriers around stationary construction noise sources, maximizing the distance between construction equipment staging areas and occupied residential areas, and utilizing electric air comp ressors and similar power tools.

5. Construction haul routes shall be designed to avoid noise- sensitive uses (e.g., residences and convalescent homes) to the extent feasible.

City of Arcadia
Development
Services Department
City of Arcadia
Development
Services Department

Pre-
Construction/
Construction
During Plan
Check and
construction
Approval of a
grading permit
Tribal Cultural Resources
TCR-1 Retain a Native American Monitor/Consultant. The Project Applicant shall be required to retain and compensate for the services of a tribal monitor/consultant, who is both approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians- Kizh Nation Tribal Government and listed under the Native American Heritage Commission’s (NAHC) Tribal Contact list for the area of the project location. This list is provided by the NAHC. The monitor/consultant shall only be present on-site during the construction phases that involve ground disturbing activities. Ground disturbing City of Arcadia
Development
Services Department

City of Arcadia
Development
Services Department

Construction During all
ground
disturbing
activities
Submittal of
compliance
documentation by
tribal monitor
Artis Senior Housing Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 4 May 2020 Table 1 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
No. Mitigation Measures Enforcement
Agency
Monitoring
Agency
Monitoring
Phase
Monitoring
Frequency
Action
Indicating
Compliance
activities are defined by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation as activities that may include, but are not limited to, pavement removal, pot-holing or auguring, grubbing, tree removals, boring, grad ing, excavation, drilling, and trenching, within the Project area. The tribal Monitor/consultant shall complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the day’s activities, including construction activities, locations, soil, and any cultural materials identified. The on- site monitoring shall end when the Project Site grading and excavation activities are completed or when the tribal representatives and monitor/consultant have indicated that the site has a low potential for impacting tribal cultural resources.

TCR-2 Upon discovery of any tribal cultural or archaeological resources, construction activities shall cease in the immediate vicinity of the find until the find can be assessed. All tribal cultural and archaeological resources unearthed by Project construction activities shall be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist and tribal monitor/consultant approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation. If the resources are Native American in origin, the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation shall coordinate with the landowner regarding treatment and curation of these resources. Typically, the tribe will request preservation in place or recovery for educational purpos es. Work may continue on other parts of the Project Site while evaluation and, if necessary, additional protective mitigation takes place (CEQA Guidelines Section15064.5 [f]). If a resource is determined by the qualified archaeologist to constitute a “historical resource” or “unique archaeological resource,” time allotment and funding sufficient to allow for implementation of avoidance measures, or appropriate mitigation, must be available. The treatment plan established for the resources shall be in accord ance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f) for historical resources. For unique archaeological resources, preservation in place is the preferred manner of treatment in accordance with PRC Section 21083.2(b). If preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to remove the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. All tribal cultural resources shall be returned to the tribe. Any historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin shall be curated at a public, nonprofit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County or the Fowler Museum, if such an institution agrees to accept the material.

If no institution accepts the archaeological material, they shall be offered to the tribe or a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes.

City of Arcadia
Development
Services Department

Construction During all
ground
disturbing
activities
Submittal of
compliance
documentation by
tribal monitor
TCR-3 Native American human remains are defined in PRC 5097.98 (d)(1) as an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness. Funerary objects, called associated grave goods in PRC 5097.98, are also to be treated according to this statute. Health and Safety Code 7050.5 dictates that any discoveries of human skeletal material shall be immediately reported to the County Coroner and excavation halted until the coroner has determined the nature of the remains. If the coroner recogni zes the human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the NAHC and PRC 5097.98 shall be followed.

Construction During all
ground
disturbing
activities
Submittal of
compliance
documentation by
tribal monitor
Artis Senior Housing Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 5 May 2020 Table 1 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
No. Mitigation Measures Enforcement
Agency
Monitoring
Agency
Monitoring
Phase
Monitoring
Frequency
Action
Indicating
Compliance
were not limited to, the preparation of the soil for burial, the burial of funerary objects with the deceased, and the ceremonial burning of human remains. The prepared soil and cremation soils are to be treated in the same manner as bone fragments that remain intact. Associated funerary objects are obje cts that, as part of the death rite or ceremony of a culture, are reasonably believed to have been placed with individual human remains either at the time of death or later; other items made exclusively for burial purposes or to contain human remains can a lso be considered as associated funerary objects.

Prior to the continuation of ground disturbing activities, the land owner shall arrange a designated site location within the footprint of the Project for the respectful reburial of the human remains and/or ceremonial objects. In the case where discovered human remains cannot be fully documented and recovered on the same day, the remains shall be covered with muslin cloth and a steel plate that can be moved by heavy equipment placed over the excavation opening to protect the remains. If this type of steel plate is not available, a 24- hour guard should be posted outside of working hours. The tribe shall make every effort to recommend diverting the Project and keeping the remains in situ and protected. If the Project cannot be diverted, it may be determined that burials shall be removed. The tribe shall work closely with the qualified archaeologist to ensure that the excavation is treated carefully, ethically and respectfully. If data recovery are approved by the tribe, documentation shall be taken which includes at a minimum detailed descriptive notes and sketches. Additional types of documentation shall be approved by the tribe for data recovery purposes. Cremations shall either be removed in bulk or by means as necessary to ensure completely recovery of all material. If the discovery of human remains includes four or more burials, the location is considered a cemetery and a separate treatment plan shall be created. Once complete, a final report of all activiti es is to be submitted to the tribe and the NAHC. The tribe does not authorize any scientific study or the utilization of any invasive and/or destructive diagnostics on human remains. Each occurrence of human remains and associated funerary objects shall be stored using opaque cloth bags. All human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony shall be removed to a secure container on site if possible. These items shall be retained and reburied within six months of recovery. The site of reburial/repatriation shall be on the Project Site but at a location agreed upon between the tribe and the landowner at a site to be protected in perpetuity. There shall be no publicity regarding any cultural materials recovered.

TCR-4 Archaeological and Native American monitoring and excavation during construction projects shall be consistent with current professional standards. All feasible care to avoid any unnecessary disturbance, physical modification, or separation of human remains and associated funerary objects shall be taken. Principal personnel must meet the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for archaeology and have a minimum of 10 years of experience as a principal investigator working with Native American archaeological sites in Southern California. The qualified archaeologist shall ensure that all other personnel are appropriately trained and qualified.

City of Arcadia
Development
Services Department

Construction During all
ground
disturbing
activities
Submittal of
compliance
documentation by
tribal monitor

$WWDFKPHQW1R7
Comment Letters
$WWDFKPHQW1R7
From: David Li
To: Mailbox - Planning
Subject: The Ivy Arcadia
Date: Friday, May 31, 2024 7:17:52 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

To Whom It May Concern:

I am a resident of The Santa Anita Village community in Arcadia. Our residence is close to the proposed project The Ivy Arcadia, at the former Coco's restaurant location.

I am writing to express my concerns with the proposed changes to the project since initial approval. The added square footage, especially the newly proposed 3 story plan, will have significant undesirable effects to our community. The added story will direct invade our privacy, allowing viewing into our backyards and houses. In addition, this will block our view of the mountains, which we cherish. Furthermore, the added traffic would pose safety issues to our community. Indirectly, the combination of these factors will impact the value of our homes.

We oppose these new changes wholeheartedly. We hope the planning office will take our concerns into account and urge you to abolish these new changes.

Sincerely,
David Li
1162 Altura Terrace
Arcadia, CA. 91007

From: James Wheeler
To: Mailbox - Planning
Subject: The Ivy Arcadia - Revised Proposal
Date: Sunday, June 2, 2024 8:49:45 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Dear Mr. Arreola,
My name is James Wheeler. I am a resident of the City and my residence shares a boundary with the above project which is designated to occupy the site of the former Coco's restaurant.

I have recently been made aware of the Developer's proposal to increase the size, scale and scope of The Ivy Arcadia project to a size far exceeding that of the original proposal approved by the City Council in 2020. I want to express my concern about the proposed revisions and communicate both my opposition to the revised project and desire that the Planning Commission and City Council reject the recommendation to proceed.

My concern is that the sum of the proposed changes, but particularly the addition of a third story to the building, will diminish privacy for surrounding residents and I, force a lifestyle change upon my family and others, take away mountain views, create excessive noise from workers, visitors and emergency vehicle traffic, and diminish property values. I also want to highlight the following specific concerns as I do not find statements made by the Developer about the revised proposal to be credible.

Per the City's website, the revised proposal will increase the building's size from approximately 44,000 square feet to 107,000 sqft, an increase of 143%. Beds will increase from approximately 80 to 114, an increase of 42%, and parking spots from 58 to 70, an increase of 20%. The property will increase in height from 37 feet to over 50 feet, as viewed from the South portion of the parcel. 50 staff members will offer services 24 hours. The Developer has said the project "does not pencil out" if scaled down and changes to the proposal will be "too costly". However, most of the added square footage is planned for on-site amenities which will sit vacant much of the time the building is open. I find the proposal and scale is excessive when comparing the 143% increase in square footage against a meager 42% increase in beds.

Further, given the topography of the building site, the proposed three story building will sit uphill of surrounding single-story residences. The height of the building combined with the lower elevations of surrounding residences will cause the building to tower over the neighborhood and compromise the neighborhood's aesthetics. I believe zoning guidelines generally require a graded transition from lower to higher-height buildings. This new proposal falls short of these guidelines, and it is not plausible that the three story building will be compatible with the look and "feel" of the surrounding single-story homes, as the Developer has suggested. The height difference will be stark. Consider the example of the Dunn-Edwards paint store at Michillinda and Colorado against the surrounding area. I estimate the relative final height of the proposed three story building from my own backyard will exceed 60 feet.

The Developer has said the proposed height of the new building is the same as that originally approved in 2020.

This is not fully correct. In fact, the Planning Commisioner, Mr. Tsoi, pushed back against the Developer during the Commision's May 14, 2024 meeting and stated his belief that the building will be higher than described given the building's position on the lot and the lot's topography relative to the surrounding residences. He urged the Developer to recalculate the building's height, inclusive of the proposed grade changes. Again, I estimate the relative height of the proposed three story building from my own backyard will exceed 60 feet, not 40 feet as claimed.

The Developer has stated they will expand green spaces to buffer the taller building from the neighborhood, but their submitted plans do not reflect this. In fact, the Developer plans to remove trees along property lines to the East and South which will make the building more visible to those surrounding residences.

The Developer has talked about building taller block walls to lessen the impact of the building's presence, but has also spoke of hauling in tons of soil to flatten and raise the building site. I am not clear as to how raising the level of the lot and building taller block walls will benefit the neighbors. There has been no mention of the height of the proposed walls or what we neighbors will see when we look out our windows, but I imagine a 12' foot block wall instead of the 6' walls we now have.

The Developer has stated the building will not obstruct residents' mountain views because residents cannot see the mountains from their properties anyway. This is not true. I can see the mountains from my backyard without problem. Constructing a taller building and increasing the height of block walls will certainly block the views my neighbors and I currently have.

The Developer has stated they will amend the interior layout of the building such that South and East facing units / rooms, specifically those on the second and third floors, will be turned inward and windowed corridors built along the building's perimeter to prevent Ivy residents from having direct views into backyards and windows of surrounding residences. This statement has not been offered in writing, hence the interior looking layout cannot be guaranteed. Furthermore, the idea of the windowed corridors was haphazardly discussed at the May 14 Planning Commission Meeting, but no details were given. And, residents walking the external corridors can still peer through the windows into surrounding residences, especially given the increased building height.

The Developer has stated they have spoken to Lower Rancho HOA leadership and members who expressed "excitement for the project". In fact, many, if not all, of the residences impacted by the proposal are not included in the HOA and were not aware of the proposed design change until recently, nor are we excited about it. The Developer made no effort to contact those directly impacted by the change until after we residents provided public comment during the Planning Commission's May 14, 2024 meeting. Since then, the Developer has been aggressive in its attempts to meet with local home owners and sway opinion toward approval of the project by offering "free" renderings of the property from their backyards, and promises to mitigate concerns by adding trees, higher block walls, etc. None of this has been offered in writing, hence cannot be guaranteed.

The Developer has created additional parking spaces on the property by repositioning them along the East and South sides of the lot's perimeter, directly behind the block wall separating the lot from surrounding residences. Given Ivy employees will be working around the clock, and from past experiences when Coco's was open, we residents expect a substantial increase in vehicle noise that will include (and has in the past) vehicle start ups, engines revving, radios / music, talking / laughing, alarms, etc. at all ours of day and night. The Developer attempted to shift accountability for the parking lot layout and claimed the layout was due to "City requirements" rather than a result of the Developer's own desire to increase square footage and bed count. I believe the Developer did not consider the parking impact to surrounding residents and, in fact, could have shifted planned parking spaces more to the North and West perimeters of the lot, and along the North and West sides of the building.

In summary, I object to the plan revision and increased height of the proposed building (3 stories) for the reasons described above, and hope both the Planning Commission and City Council rescind their support of the revised project by rejecting the revision to the original plans for the property. I and my neighbors do not support the revised plan.

Thank you for your time and consideration,
James Wheeler
1147 Altura Terrace
310-738-0153
From: Ling Zeng
To: Mailbox - Planning
Subject: Be opposed to proposed 3 story development on site of former coco’s restaurant.

Date: Wednesday, June 5, 2024 3:04:36 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Hello dear Arcadia Planning staff,
We are residents of 1156 Altura terrace Arcadia, CA 91007. We are unable to attend the meeting on May 14th due to traveling . We would like to express our concern that the building’ new plan on extending additional unit which increasing the height will affects the privacy and property value of the residents.

LING ZENG
06/05/2024
From: Mailbox - Planning
To: Edwin Arreola
Cc: Lisa Flores; Fiona Graham
Subject: FW: Concerns Regarding Project: The Ivy Arcadia Date: Monday, June 10, 2024 3:28:09 PM
Hi Edwin,
We have received the comment below regrading the Ivy project. I will also forward it to the Commissioners.

Thank you,
Ivette
-----Original Message-----
From: Helen Kuo <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2024 3:21 PM
To: Mailbox - Planning <[email protected]>
Subject: Concerns Regarding Project: The Ivy Arcadia
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Dear Arcadia Development Services,
My name is Yue-Lan Kuo and I currently reside at 1159 Altura Terrace in Arcadia. It has recently come to my attention that there has been a proposal to increase the building size of the planned assisted living care facility that will be located on 1150 W. Colorado Boulevard.

I am writing to express my concern regarding this proposal. The increase in building size will likely result in increased noise and traffic in the neighborhood. Additionally, the increase in building height may allow the building a direct view into our backyard and house, reducing our privacy.

My neighbors have also reached out and expressed similar concerns. Please reconsider this proposal as it may lower the quality of living of existing residents.

Thank you,
Yue-Lan Kuo
Cell: (626) 572-7864
Email: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]
>
From: Edwin Arreola
To: Edwin Arreola
Subject: FW: CalHDF public comment re 1150 W. Colorado Boulevard for 11Jun2024 Planning Commission meeting Date: Wednesday, August 14, 2024 3:02:20 PM
Attachments: Arcadia - HAA Letter - 1150 W. Colorado Blvd.pdf -----Original Message-----
From: James Lloyd <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2024 3:36 PM
To: Mailbox - Planning <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; Arcadia City Clerk <[email protected]>; Rachelle Arellano <[email protected]>; Dominic Lazzaretto <[email protected]> Subject: CalHDF public comment re 1150 W. Colorado Boulevard for 11Jun2024 Planning Commission meeting CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Dear Arcadia Planning Commission,
Please see attached CalHDF's public comment regarding the proposed 100-unit senior assisted living facility, "The Ivy Arcadia '' at 1150 W. Colorado Blvd, calendared as agenda item 1 for the consent calendar for the 11 June 2024 Planning Commission meeting.

Sincerely,
James M. Lloyd
Director of Planning and Investigation
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]
>
Jun 10, 2024
City of Arcadia
240 W Huntington Drive
Arcadia, CA 91007
Re: Proposed Senior Assisted Living Facility at 1150 W. Colorado Boulevard By email: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Dear Arcadia Planning Commission,
The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits this letter to inform the Commission that it has an obligation to abide by all relevant state housing laws when evaluating the proposed 100-unit senior assisted living development at 1150 West Colorado Boulevard (“the project”), including the Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code § 65589.5, the “HAA”) and the Density Bonus Law (“DBL”).

The HAA requires approval of zoning and general plan compliant projects unlessʉindings can be made regarding speciʉic, objective, written health and safety hazards. The project falls within the HAA’s ambit, as it complies with the Zoning Code and General Plan as outlined in the stag report. Thus, the Commission must approve the project unless it makes written health and safety ʉindings, as described above – which it cannot do, since the preponderance of the evidence in the record does not support such aʉinding. Of note, increased density, concessions, and waivers that a project is entitled to under the DBL (Gov.

Code, § 65915) do not render the project noncompliant with the zoning code or general plan, for purposes of the HAA. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (j)(3).) CalHDF also writes to emphasize that the DBL ogers the proposed development certain protections. The Council must respect these protections. In addition to granting the increase in residential units allowed by the DBL, the Council must not deny the project the proposed waivers/concessions with respect toﬂoor area ratio, unless it makes writtenʉindings as required by Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (e)(1) that the waiver would have a speciʉic, adverse 360 Grand Ave #323, Oakland 94610
www.calhdf.org

impact upon health or safety, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the speciʉic adverse impact.

In particular, the Commission may not deny the project due to subjective design review standards, such as aesthetics, as the HAA only permits consideration of objective standards (Gov. Code § 65589.5, subd. (j).) The HAA deʉines “objective” as “involving no personal or subjective judgment by a public ofʉicial and being uniformly veriʉiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public ofʉicial.” (Id. at subd. (h)(9).) It would be impossible for an applicant to know ex ante that the Commission would object to the proposed Cape Cod architectural style, the project’s relative architectural “compatibility” with the surrounding neighborhood, the fact that the building would be three stories tall, or the degree of façade articulation proposed, all of which are referenced as grounds for disapproval in proposed disapproval resolution number 2146. These objections are therefore invalid grounds for disapproval of the project under the HAA.

Instead, the Commission must approve the architectural design review permit in order to facilitate the project, consistent with its obligations under the HAA. A failure to do so exposes the City to legal action by the applicant and housing organizations such as CalHDF. (Id. at subd. (k)(1)(A)(i); see, e.g., C a l i f o r n i aH o u s i n gD e f e n s eF u n dv .C i t yo fL aC a ñ a d a Flintridge, Case No. 23STCP02614, Ruling Issued Mar. 4, 2024 [compelling city to process application for housing development project under the HAA].) As you are well aware, California remains in the throes of a statewide crisis-level housing s h o r t a g e .N e wh o u s i n gs u c ha st h i si sap u b l i cb e n eʉit; it will bring increased tax revenue and it would house our most vulnerable residents, senior citizens. While no one project will solve the statewide housing crisis, the proposed development is a step in the right direction.

CalHDF urges the Commission to approve it, consistent with its obligations under state law.

CalHDF is a 501(c)3 non-proʉit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased access to housing for Californians at all income levels, including low-income households.

You may learn more about CalHDF atwww.calhdf.org.

Sincerely,
Dylan Casey
CalHDF Executive Director
2o f3
James M. Lloyd
CalHDF Director of Planning and Investigations
3o f3

From: Matt Gelfand on behalf of [email protected]
To: Lisa Flores; Edwin Arreola; [email protected] Subject: RE: Correspondence from Californians for Homeownership Date: Tuesday, June 11, 2024 1:39:41 PM
Attachments: 2024-6-11 - Letter to Planning Commission.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Folks,

We have sent the attached letter to the Planning Commission. I write to you separately to speak with a bit more candor.

It is 2024. You all know by now that a local agency cannot use the bases listed in these proposed findings to justify denying this project. By preparing this draft, you are marching the City toward litigation. The better course—and the only lawful one—is to simply advise the Commission that there is way for you to draft findings of denial that are consistent with your professional duties to ensure that the City acts lawfully. I really hope you consider saying as much this evening.

Matt Gelfand

From: Matt Gelfand <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2024 1:33 PM
To: '[email protected]' <[email protected]>
Cc: '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]> Subject: Correspondence from Californians for Homeownership

Hello,

Please provide the attached comment to the Planning Commission in connection with Consent Calendar Item 1 on its agenda today.

All the best,

Matthew Gelfand

Matthew Gelfand
Counsel, Californians for Homeownership
525 S. Virgil Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90020
[email protected]
Tel: (213) 739-8206

Californians for Homeownership is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization that works to address California’s housing crisis through impact litigation and other legal tools.

MATTHEW GELFAND, COUNSEL
[email protected]
TEL: (213) 739-8206

June 11, 2024

VIA EMAIL
Planning Commission
City of Arcadia
240 West Huntington Dr.

P.O. Box 60021
Arcadia, CA 91066
Email: [email protected]

RE: The Ivy Arcadia (1150 W. Colorado Blvd.)

To the Planning Commission:

Californians for Homeownership is a 501(c)(3) organization devoted to using legal tools to address California’s housing crisis. We are writing regarding the Ivy Arcadia project. The City’s approval of this project is governed by the Housing Accountability Act, Government Code Section 65589.5. For the purposes of Government Code Section 65589.5(k)(2), this letter constitutes our written comments on the project.

The Housing Accountability Act generally requires the City to approve a housing development project unless the project fails to comply with “applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete.” Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(1). To count as “objective,” a standard must “involve[e] no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and be[] uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official.” Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(8). In making this determination, the City must approve the project if the evidence “would allow a reasonable person to conclude” that the project met the relevant standard.

Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(4). Projects subject to modified standards pursuant to a density bonus are judged against the City’s standards as modified. Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(3).

The City is subject to strict timing requirements under the Act. If the City desires to find that a project is inconsistent with any of its land use standards, it must issue written findings to that effect within 30 to 60 days after the applic ation to develop the project is determined to be complete. Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(2)(A). If the City fails to do so, the project is deemed consistent with those standards. Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(2)(B).

If the City determines that a project is consistent with its objective standards, or a project

June 11, 2024

Page 2 ends

is deemed consistent with such standards, but the City nevertheless proposes to reject it, it must make written findings, supported by a preponderance of the evidence, that the project would have a “specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety,” meaning that the project would have “a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.” Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(1)(A); see Gov. Code § 65589.5(k)(1)(A)(i)(II).

Once again, “objective” means “involving no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and being uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official.” Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(8).

Even if the City identifies legally sufficient health and safety concerns about a project, it may only reject the project if “[t]here is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact . . . other than the disapproval of the housing development project . . . .” Gov.

Code § 65589.5(j)(1)(B). Thus, before rejecting a project, the City must consider all reasonable measures that could be used to mitigate the impact at issue.

For projects that provide housing for lower-income families, the Act is even more restrictive. In many cases, the City must approve su ch a project even if it fails to meet the City’s objective land use standards. See Gov. Code § 65589.5(d).

These provisions apply to the full range of housing types, including single-family homes, market-rate multifamily projects, and mixed-use developments. Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(2); see Honchariw v. Cty. of Stanislaus , 200 Cal. App. 4th 1066, 1074-76 (2011). And the Legislature has directed that the Act be “interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing.” Gov. Code § 65589.5(a)(2)(L).

When a locality rejects or downsizes a housing development project without complying with the rules described above, the action may be challenged in court in a writ under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5. Gov. Code § 65589.5(m). The legislature has significantly reformed this process over the last few years in an effort to increase compliance. Today, the law provides a private right of action to non-profit organizations like Californians for Homeownership. Gov.

Code § 65589.5(k). A non-profit organization can sue without the involvement or approval of the project applicant, to protect the public’s interest in the development of new housing. A locality that is sued to enforce Section 65589.5 must prepare the administrative record itself, at its own expense, within 30 days after service of the petition. Gov. Code § 65589.5(m). And if an enforcement lawsuit brought by a non-profit organization is successful, the locality must pay the organization’s attorneys’ fees. Gov. Code § 65589.5(k)(2). In certain cases, the court will also impose fines that start at $10,000 per proposed housing unit. Gov. Code § 65589.5(k)(1)(B)(i).

In recent years, there have been a number of successful lawsuits to enforce these rules:
x In Honchariw, 200 Cal. App. 4th 1066, the Court of Appeal vacated the County of Stanislaus’s denial of an application to subdivide a parcel into eight lots for the

June 11, 2024

Page 3 ends

development of market-rate housing. The court held that the county did not identify any objective standards that the proposed subdivision would not meet, and therefore violated the Housing Accountability Act in denying the application. x In Eden Housing, Inc. v. Town of Los Gatos , Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 16CV300733, the court determined that Los Gatos had improperly denied a subdivision application based on subjective factors. The court found that the factors cited by the town, such as the quality of the site design, the unit mix, and the anticipated cost of the units, were not objective because they did not refer to specific, mandatory criteria to which the applicant could conform. x San Francisco Bay Area Renters Federation v. Berkeley City Council , Alameda County Superior Court Case No. RG16834448, was the final in a series of cases relating to Berkeley’s denial of an application to build three single family homes and its pretextual denial of a demolition permit to enable the project. The Court ordered the city to approve the project and to pay $44,000 in attorneys’ fees. x In 40 Main Street Offices v. City of Los Altos , Santa Clara County Superior Court Consolidated Case Nos. 19CV349845 & 19CV350422, the court determined that the Los Altos violated the Housing Accountability Act, among other state housing laws, by failing to identify objective land use criteria to justify denying a mixed- use residential and commercial project. The City was ultimately forced to pay approximately $1 million in delay compensation and attorneys’ fees in the case. x In Californians for Homeownership v. City of Huntington Beach , Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2019-01107760-CU-WM-CJC, a case brought by our organization, the court ruled that Huntington Beach violated the Housing Accountability Act when it rejected a 48-unit condominium project based on vague concerns about health and safety. Following the decision, the City agreed to pay $600,000 in attorneys’ fees to our organization and two other plaintiffs.

Based on the above legal framework, state law requires the City to approve this project. If you do not, we are likely to initiate litigation under the Housing Accountability Act.

Sincerely,

Matthew Gelfand

cc: Lisa L. Flores, Dep. Dev. Svcs. Dir. (by email to [email protected]) Edwin Arreola, Acting Senior Planner (by email to [email protected]) Michael Maurer, Esq., City Attorney (by email to [email protected])

$WWDFKPHQW1R8
Letter to City Council from Cox
Castle dated August 14, 2024
$WWDFKPHQW1R8
105167\17821195v1

www.coxcastle.com Los Angeles | Orange County | San Francisco Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP
3121 Michelson Drive, Suite 200
I r v i n e , C a l i f o r n i a 9 2 6 1 2- 5678
P: 949.260.4600 F: 949.260.4699
Christopher Burt
949.260.4606
[email protected]

August 14, 2024

VIA E-MAIL
Arcadia City Council
City of Arcadia
240 West Huntington Drive
P.O. Box 60021
Arcadia, CA 91066
Re: The Ivy Arcadia Project (ADR 23-13 and CUP 23-09)
Dear Mayor Cao and City Councilmembers:

This firm represents O & I Development, LLC (“O&I”), the applicant proposing The Ivy Arcadia project, a three-story senior assisted living/memory care facility with 100 residential units and 114 beds. The project is proposed to be located at 1150 W. Colorado Boulevard, a commercially zoned site located at the intersection of Colorado Boulevard and Michillinda Avenue, two major thoroughfares within the City of Arcadia (“City”). The project will be presented to the City Council on August 20, 2024.

I write this letter to emphasize three salient issues related to the City Council’s consideration of the project:

1. First, O&I made noteworthy project changes and conducted significant neighborhood outreach to address resident concerns about the project and provide comfort that the project will not adversely impact the neighborhood. Those revisions were in addition to the original design of the project, which was sensitive to the surrounding community. For instance, the project proposes setbacks far in excess of what is required by the Arcadia Municipal Code (“AMC”).

2. Second, the proposed project is a “housing development project” subject to the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”). As such, the City Council cannot deny the project – which is consistent with all applicable objective standards – unless the agency concludes that the project would have a specific, adverse impact on the public health or safety. (Govt. Code § 65589.5(j)(1).) The project would not result in a specific, adverse impact on the public health or safety, and the City Council’s discretion is limited by the HAA. (Govt. Code § 65589.5(a)(3) [HAA expressly states that “the conditions that would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety … arise infrequently”].)
105167\17821195v1
Arcadia City Council
August 14, 2024

Page 2 ends

3. Third, the proposed project provides a much-needed housing type within the City and Southern California, one that serves an aging population. The units will range from 396 square foot studios to 1,146 square foot two-bedroom units.

I. Applicant’s Project Changes
The project was first presented to the City Planning Commission on May 14, 2024, with a staff recommendation for approval given the project’s consistency with the underlying General Plan designation, zoning, and applicable development standards. However, ignoring that recommendation and instead heeding the concerns expressed by a few residents, the Planning Commission voted to recommend denial of the proposed project. The resident concerns largely related to building height and purported view, neighborhood consistency, and privacy concerns, but also other minor design issues.

Because staff’s recommendation was for approval, a resolution recommending denial had to be drafted. Therefore, the project was scheduled to return to the Planning Commission on June 11, 2024. O&I, hearing the concerns expressed at the earlier hearing, immediately started engaging surrounding residents and incorporating design changes that directly responded to stated concerns.

First, O&I’s representative contacted residents to hear their specific concerns, including hosting a June 3rd community meeting (with invites sent to all residences within a 300-foot radius of the project site). That meeting was attended by 18 homeowners. O&I also met with individual homeowners at their residences, discussing individual concerns and receiving feedback.

Second, with that feedback, O&I made strategic design revisions to address resident concerns. Those revisions include, among other things:
a. Electrical Charging Parking Spaces: The initial design included EV parking spaces along the eastern property line. The EV spaces were relocated to the eastern side of the building close to the pedestrian sidewalk and away from the adjacent residences.
b. Resident Balconies. The community expressed concern that the southern and eastern façade had multiple traditional balconies. However, the majority of the units have “Juliette” balconies, which are an attractive architectural embellishment rather than a traditional balcony, which functions as an outdoor living amenity. There are only two traditional balconies on the each the southern and eastern elevations (for a total of four traditional balconies). The remainder are Juliette, which were specifically included for design articulation purposes and because future residents that require assistance with daily living are unlikely to use full balconies.
105167\17821195v1
Arcadia City Council
August 14, 2024

Page 3 ends

c. Parking Spaces: The Planning Commission and residents expressed concern about the parking spaces proposed near the southern and eastern property lines. O&I removed six (6) spaces along the southern property line and four (4) along the eastern property line.
d. Enhanced Green Screening: A number of residents expressed a strong desire for green screening along their property line. The project proposes to retain 54 of the existing trees on-site and plant 83 additional trees to enhance screening. O&I offered to do view simulations for concerned residents, showing that the existing and proposed landscaping would substantially screen the project from view. e. Perimeter Wall Safety: The original project design included limited space between the project’s proposed retaining wall and the existing wall. O&I was able to successfully re-engineer the perimeter boundary, successfully eliminating the need for new retaining walls.
f. Dog Park Smell: O&I moved the dog park further away from the property line.

Also, as with all O&I’s communities, the dog park will be meticulously maintained to ensure cleanliness and hygiene by a dedicated maintenance team.

The above demonstrates that, although the project complies with all objective development standards, the project applicant has engaged significantly in the public process to design a project that is sensitive to the surrounding community. However, notwithstanding O&I’s efforts, the Planning Commission still recommended the City Council deny the proposed project.

II. The Project Is Subject to the HAA
The proposed project is a housing development project subject to the HAA, which was enacted to facilitate housing projects and limit arbitrary denial of such projects. (California Renters Legal Advocacy & Education Fund v. City of San Mateo (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 820, 844 [the HAA “cabins the discretion of a local agency to reject proposals for new housing”].) For the HAA, a “housing development project” is a use consisting of any of the following: (1) residential units only, (2) mixed-use developments consisting of residential and nonresidential uses with at least 2/3rds of the square footage designated for residential uses, and (3) transitional housing or supportive housing. (Govt. Code § 65895.5(h)(2).)
An assisted living/memory care (“ALMC”) facility is a housing development project because it consists of residential uses and ancillary supportive/service uses that, even construed as nonresidential uses, do not take the project out of the HAA (because more than 2/3rds of the square footage is for residential uses/units). The Civil Code defines a “senior citizen housing development” as “a residential development developed … for, senior citizens that has at least 35 dwelling units.” (Civil Code § 51.3 [emphasis added].) A “dwelling unit” or “housing” is defined 105167\17821195v1
Arcadia City Council
August 14, 2024

Page 4 ends

to mean “any residential accommodation other than a mobile home.” (Id. [emphasis added].) The project is clearly a “housing development project” under the HAA.1 Because the project is a housing development project, the City may not deny or condition a proposed project because of an alleged inconsistency with a subjective development standard. (Id. at 831 [HAA restricts “the ability of local governments to deny an application to build housing if the proposed project complies with general plan, zoning, and design review standards that are objective”].) A standard is subjective, as opposed to objective, if it cannot be applied without personal interpretation or subjective judgment. (Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Diego (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 755, 778.)
To that end, the Planning Commission’s recommendation for denial, which was based on subjective conclusion that the project “is not compatible in terms of design, height, and scale with the residential land use in the vicinity” of the project site, violates the HAA. (Resolution No. 2146.) The project is, in fact, consistent with all applicable objective standards. It does exceed the maximum FAR of 0.50, but the project is also a Density Bonus Law (“DBL”) project and is entitled to waiver of that standard. (Govt. Code § 65915.) Importantly, a project’s deviation from a development standard pursuant to the DBL is not grounds to conclude that the project is not consistent with all applicable objective standards. The HAA expressly states that the HAA and DBL function together, and that the receipt of a density bonus, incentive, concession, or waiver, or reduction of development standard under the DBL “shall not constitute a valid basis on which to find a proposed housing development project is inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity” with an applicable standard. (Govt. Code § 65589.5(j)(3).) If a housing development project complies with applicable objective standards, an agency may only deny or reduce the density of the proposed project if it finds, by a preponderance of the evidence in the record, that (1) the project would have a specific, adverse impact on the public health or safety, and (2) that there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified other than denial or approval of the project at a lower density. (Govt.

Code § 65589.5(j)(1)(A); Save Lafayette v. City of Lafayette (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 842, 850.) A “specific, adverse” impact is defined narrowly to mean “a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.” (Id.

However, specific, adverse impacts are a rarity, a fact the HAA recognizes. (Govt. Code § 65589.5(a)(3) [“the conditions that would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety … arise infrequently”].) Thus, agencies proposing to disapprove or limit density of a proposed project face an extremely high burden.

1 The trial court in Yes In My Back Yard v. City of Simi Valley reached this exact conclusion, holding that ALMC facility is a housing development project under the HAA. (Ventura County Superior Court Case No. 56 -2020- 00539590-CU-WM-VTA.)
105167\17821195v1
Arcadia City Council
August 14, 2024

Page 5 ends

There is no evidence that the proposed project would, as designed to be consistent with objective standards, would result in a specific, adverse impact on the public health and safety.

Therefore, the City’s discretion regarding the proposed project is limited by the HAA and the City Council may not deny the project or reduce its density (or FAR here, which is used to calculate density).

In fact, quite the opposite is true. The project is thoughtfully designed (and was redesigned) to ensure consistency with the surrounding area, which intermingles devoutly commercial uses (as the existing General Plan designation and zoning reflect) and residential uses. With that thoughtful design, which is actually less intensive than other uses that could be established by-right, the project proposes a much needed residential product that will serve aging residents.

I appreciate your time and attention to this matter. O&I looks forward to presenting The Ivy Arcadia project to the City Council on August 20, 2024.

Sincerely,
Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP
Christopher Burt

cc:

Michael Maurer, City Attorney
Jason Kruckeberg, Development Services Director
Lisa Flores, Deputy Development Services Director

Arcadia City CouncilAugust 20, 2024

Arcadia City Council
August 20, 2024