Item 09a - The Ivy Arcadia — Arcadia City Council, August 20, 2024 (part 1 of 2)

DATE: August 20, 2024

TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council

FROM: Jason Kruckeberg, Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director Lisa L. Flores, Deputy Development Services Director
By: Edwin Arreola, Acting Senior Planner

SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 75 72 APPROVING ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. ADR 23-13 WITH A DENSITY BONUS AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CUP 23 -09 FOR A REVISED SENIOR ASSISTED LIVING CARE FACILITY (“THE IVY ARCADIA”) WITH AN ADDENDUM TO

THE ADOPTED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION UNDER THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (“CEQA”) AT 1150 W.

COLORADO BOULEVARD
CEQA: Adopt Addendum to Previously Approved Mitigated Negative Declaration
Recommendation: Adopt

SUMMARY
The Applicant, O&I Development, LLC, on behalf of the property owner, Artis Senior Living, LLC, is requesting approval of Architectural Design Review No. ADR 23-13 with a density bonus and Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 23- 09, to amend a project that was approved by the City Council in 2020 for a new two-story senior assisted living care facility project with 80 units (Artis Senior Living Project) at 1150 W. Colorado Boulevard. The revised project, known as “The Ivy Arcadia,” will be a three- story senior assisted living care facility with 100 units and 114 beds. The revised project includes a density bonus to allow the Floor Area Ratio ( “FAR”) of 0.88, which exceeds the maximum permitted FAR of 0.50. The Planning Commission voted 3-0, with two Commissioners absent , to recommend denial of the proposed project to the City Council. The Planning Commission determined that the project was not compatible with the adjacent neighborhood in terms of scale and height.

It is recommended that the City Council find that the proposal adheres to the required findings and regulations and adopt Resolution No. 7572 adopting the Addendum to the Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration and approving Architectural Design Review No.

ADR 23 -13 with a density bonus and Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 23- 09 for the revised project known as the “The Ivy Arcadia.”

1150 W. Colorado Boulevard – The Ivy Arcadia
August 20, 2024

Page 2 of 16 ends

BACKGROUND
The subject site is located at the southeast corner of W. Colorado Boulevard and Michillinda Avenue at 1150 W. Colorado Boulevard. It is zoned General Commercial (C - G) and has a General Plan Land Use Designation of Commercial (.50 FAR). The site is approximately 2.82 acres in size and is currently developed with a vacant 13,088 square foot building that was previously occupied by Coco’s Bakery and Restaurant , which closed in July 2021. The site is surrounded by the 210 Freeway to the north, commercial uses to the west in unincorporated Los Angeles County , and single- family residential properties to the east and south. The residential properties adjacent to this site along the west side of N. Altura Road and both the north and south side of Altura Terrance are not within the Lower Rancho Homeowners Association (“HOA”) but the homes beyond those are located within the Lower Rancho HOA - refer to Figure 1 for an aerial view of the area, and Attachment No. 2 for an Aerial Photo with Zoning Information.

Figure 1 – Aerial View of the Site
On August 18, 2020, the City Council adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approved the Artis Senior Living Project. The Artis Senior Living Project involved the demolition of the former Coco’s building and the development of a new two-story 44,192 square foot senior living care facility with 80 senior housing units and on- site amenities, inclusive of a community center, a gallery, a café, a barber/beauty shop, a small health N

1150 W. Colorado Boulevard – The Ivy Arcadia
August 20, 2024

Page 3 of 16 ends

center for the residents, and 58 parking spaces and one loading space for deliveries. The approval also included a Zone Change for the removal of the Architectural Design Overlay Zone and the Automobile Parking Overlay Zone from the site, which restricted the height and buildable area on the lot.

The City granted the Applicant two one- year extensions, primarily as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and the impacts on the industry, but the entitlements expired on March 18, 2024. On November 9, 2023, the Applicant for The Ivy Arcadia filed a revised assisted living care facility project proposal with the City.

DISCUSSION
The revised project consists of demolishing the existing 13,088 square foot restaurant building and construct ing a new 107,706 square foot, three- story Traditional/Cape Cod architectural style building that will provide assisted living and memory care services for seniors that have Alzheimer’s and other related memory loss – refer to Attachment No. 3 for the Architectural Plans and Renderings. The Development Code allows a Large- Residential Care Facility in the General Commercial (C -G) Zone subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit.

The Applicant, O&I Development, LLC , together with Oakmont Management Group, based in Irvine, California, operate 90 facilities in California, Hawaii, and Nevada that serve over 8,000 seniors. This will be Oakmont’s first facility in Arcadia, known as “ The Ivy Arcadia ”. This facility will provide 24 -hour staffing and will provide residents with services such as daily meals, housekeeping services, transportation services, social activities, and other support services. The facility will serve persons 60 years of age or older; however, the average resident age for assisted living is 86 years old. The facility will have up to 20 employees working between the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. and 25 employees between the hours of 2:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.

The Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 14, 2024, to forward a recommendation to the City Council on the proposed project . During the public hearing, five residents from the adjacent properties spoke against the project citing concerns with privacy due to the height and scale of the project as well as noise impacts. After discussion, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend denial to the City Council and have staff return with a revised Resolution at its June 11 meeting – refer to Attachment No. 5 for an Excerpt of the May 14, 2024, Planning Commission Minutes and the Planning Commission Staff Report.

At the June 11, 2024, Planning Commission meeting, the item was pulled from the consent calendar for further discussion. The Applicant was given additional time to present changes to the original project that was brought forth to the Planning Commission after hearing the neighboring property owners’ concerns with privacy, noise, and project aesthetics at the May 14, 2024, Planning Commission hearing. The Applicant conducted outreach to the neighboring property owners and held a meeting with the neighbors on June 3, 2024, to provide redesign updates and address any additional concerns. While 1150 W. Colorado Boulevard – The Ivy Arcadia
August 20, 2024

Page 4 of 16 ends

the square footage, number of units, and number of beds will remain the same, the Applicant has made revisions that further address some of the neighbors’ concerns , as later discussed in this analysis. The Applicant also provided view simulations of the project from the neighboring residential properties. A total of four residents spoke in opposition to the revised changes. The residents still had concerns with privacy due to the height and scale of the project. After discussion, the Planning Commission voted to adopt Resolution No. 2146 recommending denial to the City Council.

The facility will have 100 units with a total of 114 beds. The units w ill consist of varying room types, including studio, one-bedroom, and two-bedroom units for assisted living and private and shared studios for memory care. The units will range between 396 square foot studios to 1,146 square foot two- bedroom units – refer to Figure 2 below for a Unit Summary. Unit amenities will include kitchens in some of the units, bathrooms, and closet space. The first floor will be comprised of 14 units for assisted living, 30 units for memory care, lobbies, offices, a dining room and a café, a laundry room, a sensory wellness room, a reading room, and a sitting and music area, as well as separate open-air courtyards in the middle of the building. The second floor will be comprised of 36 units for assisted living, offices, a laundry room, and a staff lounge. The third floor w ill include 20 units for assisted living, a dining room with an exhibition kitchen, a bar/lounge, an activity room, a media room, a fitness center with a physical therapy area, a beauty salon, and storage areas. Additionally, the facility will have an exterior outdoor patio for memory care patients, a workout area, a trash enclosure, and an emergency generator room. A dog park and a bocce ball court will be located on the southeastern portion of the property. 1150 W. Colorado Boulevard – The Ivy Arcadia
August 20, 2024

Page 5 of 16 ends

Figure 2 – Unit Summary
After the neighbors adjacent to the easterly property line brought up concerns with the proximity of these amenities at the Planning Commission hearing, the Applicant reduced the size of the dog park area from 1,380 square f eet to approximately 685 square feet and both the bocce ball court and dog park have been set back approximately 22’ -5” instead of the originally proposed 10’ -0” from the neighboring properties to the east to accommodate additional landscape screening. The project design is intended to accommodate the needs of assisted living residents in addition to memory care residents, which requires space for additional quality of life amenities and services for the two

1150 W. Colorado Boulevard – The Ivy Arcadia
August 20, 2024

Page 6 of 16 ends

resident populations. As with the previously approved project, this proposal will provide housing options to the aging population in the region, and assistance for those with memory care needs. The redevelopment of the site with a senior assisted living care facility was determined by the City Council and Planning Commission back in 2020 as an appropriate use and development for this pr operty that will not negatively affect the adjacent residential properties.

The proposed height and setbacks for the revised project have been summarized in Figure 3 below. As can be seen, the proposed setbacks significantly exceed the setbacks required in the zone.

Proposed Required
Height 40’-0” 40’-0” Maximum
Front Setback 20’-0” None
Street Side Setback 50’-0” 5’-0” Minimum
Interior Side Setback 51’-9” 10’-0” Minimum
Rear Setback 35’-0” 20’-0” Minimum
Figure 3 – Proposed Height and Setbacks
Most of the units on the second and third floors do not face the adjacent residential properties. On the south side of the building, a total of three (3) units on the second floor and three (3) units on the third floor face the adjacent residential properties . On the east side of the building, a total of nine (9) units on the second floor and four (4) units on the third floor face the adjacent residential properties to the east. Furthermore, the additional setback and landscape screening, which was added after hearing the neighbors’ concerns at the Planning Commission hearing, provide additional privacy to the neighboring property owners along the property line. Therefore, the project has incorporated design elements to provide added privacy to the neighbors. The senior assisted living care facility has been designed to be functionally suitable for the proposed site and greater setbacks were provided to be sensitive to the neighbors in terms of privacy.

The underlying General Commercial (C -G) Zone allows a maximum FAR of 0.5. The proposed senior assisted living care facility has a FAR of 0.88, which exceeds the maximum permitted FAR. However, under the California Density Bonus Law, a project is entitled to receive a density bonus as a matter of right if it meets the requirements of California Government Code Section 65915. In addition, pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 713 that was signed by the Governor in October 2023, a local government cannot apply any development standard that precludes the construction of a development seeking a density bonus. Since the project is a senior housing development, it is entitled to receive a density 1150 W. Colorado Boulevard – The Ivy Arcadia
August 20, 2024

Page 7 of 16 ends

bonus and deviate from the maximum permitted FAR, which would otherwise physically preclude the construction of the proposal based on the maximum allowable residential density under the C -G Zone. The density bonus law does not require affordability for senior housing projects. By virtue of it being a senior housing project, it is subject to the density bonus law requirements. Aside from the FAR, the project would comply with all applicable development standards of the General Commercial C-G Zone, including height and setbacks.

Similar to the approved project, the proposed building is designed in a Traditional/Cape Cod architectural style with varied massing and materials and articulation on each of the building façades to help break up the building size – refer to Figure 4 below for renderings of the project . The location on the southeastern corner of W. Colorado Boulevard and Michillinda Avenue provides a suitable focal point as an entryway to the City. The proposed design is consistent with the community character, and will enhance the overall streetscape, as it provides a transition from the commercial corridor to the west of the site, to the residential neighborhoods to the east. The design contains architectural features commonly found within the Traditional and Cape Cod architectural styles, such as white and gray colored vertical and horizontal cement fiber board siding, gray colored shingle siding, gray asphalt shingle roofing, and stone veneer at the base of the building.

The design also includes many decorative features, such as white colored Juliet balconies and navy colored wooden shutters on most of the windows, accent gray sta nding seam metal roofing, planter boxes along the sides of the building, and a porte cochere and front porch that act as focal points on the street side elevations of the building. The use of the various materials along with the articulation provided on each of the building façades helps prevent long or tall looking wall expanses that would otherwise make the building appear large.

The overall design is well balanced and aesthetically pleasing with the use of neutral tone colors. Although commercial buildings are typically encouraged to be placed closer to the street, the large setback provided to this building helps it fit in more as a part of the residential neighborhood, in proximity. This revised design will elevate this corner as one of the gateways into the City.

1150 W. Colorado Boulevard – The Ivy Arcadia
August 20, 2024

Page 8 of 16 ends

Figure 4 – Rendering View from W. Colorado Boulevard (top) and Michillinda Avenue (bottom) Vehicular access to the site w ill be provided off the two existing driveways, one along Colorado Boulevard near the northeastern corner of the property and another along Michillinda Avenue near the southwestern corner. These driveways are proposed to be reconstructed in the same general l ocation in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). A porte cochere will also be provided in front of the main entrance to the facility as a loading and unloading area for the residents.

The Development Code requires one (1) parking space for every three (3) licensed beds within the residential care facility. With a total of 114 beds proposed, the project requires a total of 38 parking spaces for the residents, employees, and visitors. Although the Code does not require additional parking for the employees, the Applicant is proposing 22 more parking spaces than the minimum required to ensure there is more than sufficient parking at any given time. The Applicant has reduced the number of parking spaces from 70 spaces to 60 spaces to address the neighbors’ concerns with potential noise from the vehicles along the shared property lines. Four (4) spaces were removed from alongside the eastern property line and six (6) spaces were removed from alongside the southern property line. T he site will provide 49 standard spaces, 3 handicap parking spaces, 7 electric vehicle ( “EV”) spaces, and 1 EV space that complies with ADA requirements.

Parking will be located along the perimeter of the site and EV spaces, after the neighboring residents expressed concerns about the location of spaces along the eastern property line, have been relocated away from the property line and along the eastern side of the proposed building - refer to Figure 5 for the Site Plan. The number of parking spaces proposed is expected to be more than adequate for the site due to the nature of the use, with most residents not having a vehicle. Additionally, according to the traffic analysis, this senior assisted living care facility is expected to generate less trips than the previous Coco’s restaurant operation.

1150 W. Colorado Boulevard – The Ivy Arcadia
August 20, 2024

Page 9 of 16 ends

Figure 5 – Site Plan
There are 72 existing trees on site. Of those trees, 22 unprotected ones will be removed.

A total of 16 trees on site are protected trees and will be preserved. The Applicant has revised the proposed landscaping to provide denser screening of the proposed building from the residential properties to the east and south, as privacy was a major concern with the adjacent residents. Per the revised conceptual landscape plan, screening shrubs are proposed to be planted as an additional layer along portions of the trees that currently exist along the property line. Additional trees are proposed to be planted in areas where trees are not present adjacent to the property line. An approximately 20-foot-wide landscape screening area runs along most of the easterly property line consisting of three layers: the existing trees adjacent to the property line; a proposed row of screening shrubs; and a row of Brisbane box and crape myrtle trees. In total, 83 new trees are proposed to be planted on site and on the public parkway as part of the conceptual landscape plan. The Applicant will be required to comply with all the tree protection measures in the Arborist Report to ensure that the protected trees will not be harm ed

1150 W. Colorado Boulevard – The Ivy Arcadia
August 20, 2024

Page 10 of 16 ends

during any construction activities – refer to condition of approval no. 4 and Attachment No. 4.

The previously approved project required a Protected Tree Encroachment Permit for the encroachment into the driplines of four off-site protected trees. However, the Development Code was amended in 2021 to not require an encroachment permit for any trees off-site that are not protected Oak or Sycamore trees. Since these four protected trees are not oaks or sycamores, a Protected Tree Encroachment Permit is no longer required.

Originally, a retaining wall was being proposed along portions of the eastern and southern property line. Residents expressed safety and aesthetic concerns with the location of that wall. Thus, the Applicant has reworked the grading on site and relocated the retaining wall further into the subject lot, eliminating the need for the retaining wall to be adjacent to the property line.

As part of the new development, a 4- foot-wide dedication along W. Colorado Boulevard and Michillinda Avenue will be granted to the City to accommodate the widening of the public rights -of-way from approximately 8 feet to 12 feet in width. Construction of the project is expected to occur over a 20-month period.

FINDINGS
The following findings must be made to approve the proposed project. The sections below contemplate the required findings in totality of the proposal, including the modifications made in response to adjacent property owner concerns.

Conditional Use Permit
Section 9107.09.050(B) of the Development Code requires that for a Conditional Use Permit to be granted, it must be found that all of the following prerequisite findings can be satisfied:

1. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan; and is allowed within the applicable zone, subject to the granting of a Conditional Use Permit, and complies with all other applicable provisions of the Development Code and the Municipal Code.

Page 11 of 16 ends

Alzheimer’s disease and related memory delays. Aside from the FAR, which is a concession of the density bonus, t he project complies will all the development standards of the General Commercial C -G Zone. The proposed project will not adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan, and is consistent with the following General Plan goals and policies:
• Goal LU-1: A balance of land uses that preserves Arcadia status as a Community of Homes and a community of opportunity.
• Policy LU-1.1: Promote new infill and redevelopment projects that are consistent with the City’s land use and compatible with surrounding existing uses. • Policy LU-1.2: Promote new uses of land that provide diverse economic, social, and cultural opportunities, and that reinforce the characteristics that make Arcadia a desirable place to live.
• Policy LU-1.5: Require that effective buffer areas be created between land uses that are of significantly different character or that have operating characteristics which could create nuisances along common boundary.

2. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed activity will be compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity.

Facts to Support This Finding: The project provides a transition between the commercial businesses in the Los Angeles County area to the west of the site and the adjacent residential properties to the east and south as a senior assisted living use.

The proposed building will be set back more than the minimum required from the adjacent residential properties and will have a parking and landscape buffer between the facility and the residential uses. The proposed use, being more of a residential use, is not expected to negatively affect the adjacent properties. Parking for the project is above the minimum required and is expected to be an adequate amount for the site due to the nature of the use. Additionally, transportation services will be provided to the residents, and the project will result in an overall reduction of vehicular traffic as compared to the existing use and most other commercial uses that could be considered for the property. The project site is adequate in size and location to accommodate the revised development. Thus, the proposed senior assisted living care facility will be compatible with the existing and future uses in the vicinity.

3. The site is physically suitable in terms of:
a. Its design, location, shape, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed use in order to accommodate the use, and all fences, landscaping, loading, parking, spaces, walls, yards, and other features required to adjust the use with the land and uses in the neighborhood.

Facts to Support This Finding: The site measures approximately 2.82 acres and is large enough to physically support the new senior care facility. The current utility infrastructure on site is more than capable of accommodating the proposed use. 1150 W. Colorado Boulevard – The Ivy Arcadia
August 20, 2024

Page 12 of 16 ends

Landscaping is being maintained along the perimeter of the lot and various new pockets of landscaping will be introduced around the building site. The project will have two points of access on to the lot and will also provide more than the required amount of parking. The proposed project will comply with all of the regulations within the Development Code except for the FAR , which is allowed to exceed the maximum because of the density bonus for senior housing development.

Therefore, the site is adequate in size to accommodate the proposed senior assisted living care facility.
b. Streets and highways adequate in width and pavement type to accommodate public and emergency vehicle (e.g., fire and medical) access.

Facts to Support This Finding: The project will be located at the southeast corner of W. Colorado Boulevard and Michillinda Avenue. The site will have two access points, with one driveway off each street frontage. Both streets have been designated and designed with the capacity to accommodate both normal public vehicular travel and emergency vehicles. Additionally, the project is expected to generate less traffic than the previous use. Thus, the adjacent streets are adequate in width and pavement type to carry the traffic that would be generated by the proposed facility and to accommodate emergency vehicle access. c. Public protection services (e.g., fire protection, police protection, etc.).

Facts to Support This Finding: The construction of the senior assisted living care facility will comply with the Building and Fire Codes, and all other applicable regulations to ensure the safety of the residents and facilitate emergency services.

As part of the environmental review process, the Addendum to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration determined that Fire and Police protection services can handle the demand for the proposed senior assisted living care facility.
d. The provision of utilities (e.g., potable water, schools, solid waste collection and disposal, storm drainage, wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal, etc.).

Facts to Support This Finding: It has been determined that t he existing infrastructure and public utilities can handle the demand for the proposed senior assisted living care facility , and no upgrades are required. The proposed project will also comply with the Low Impact Development ( “LID”) requirements for stormwater discharge through the implementation of a modular wetland on site.

4. The measure of site suitability shall be required to ensure that the type, density, and intensity of use being proposed will not adversely affect the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare, constitute a nuisance, or be materially injurious to the improvements, persons, property, or uses in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located.
1150 W. Colorado Boulevard – The Ivy Arcadia
August 20, 2024

Page 13 of 16 ends

Facts to Support This Finding: The proposed senior facility is not expected to be detrimental to the public health or welfare, or t he surrounding residential and commercial properties. The proposed senior assisted living care facility has been designed to be functionally suitable for the proposed site and be sensitive to the privacy and impact on the adjacent residential properties . The project includes setbacks that exceed the minimum requirement and a landscape and parking buffer.

In support of maintaining privacy between the neighboring residential properties, the existing large trees along the perimeter of the site will be kept. Additionally, most of the units on the upper floors of the south side and some units on the upper floor of the east side of the facility do not face the adjacent residential properties. Therefore, the project has incorporated design elements to provide added privacy to the neighbors .

The proposed senior assisted living care facility is expected to generate less trips than the previous restaurant use on the site and will have more than the minimum required parking. Traffic in the surrounding area is not expected to be impacted by the use. The construction of the project will meet all Building and Fire Codes and all other applicable regulations. Therefore, the proposed project will not adversely affect the public in general nor will it impact the uses in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located.

Architectural Design Review
Section 9107. 19.050(F) of the Development Code requires that for an Architectural Design Review to be granted, it must be found that all the following prerequisite findings can be satisfied:

1. The proposed development is in compliance with all applicable development standards and regulation in the Development Code.

Facts to Support This Finding: The proposed senior assisted living care facility is in compliance with all of the applicable development standards for the C -G Zone, such as the maximum height, setbacks, and parking. The revised project proposes a Floor Area Ratio (“FAR”) of 0.88. The revised project is a senior housing development under the State’s Density Bonus Law and is entitled to exceed the otherwise maximum FAR, which would physically preclude construction of the revised project to the maximum allowable residential density under the General Plan and Zoning. Therefore, the revised project meets the intent of this finding.

2. The proposed development is consistent in the objectives and standards of the applicable Design Guidelines.

Facts to Support This Finding: The proposed senior assisted living care facility is designed in the Traditional/Cape Cod architectural style. The design contains architectural features and materials that are commonly found within the proposed architectural styles and which are present in the residential neighborhoods near the site. The proposed design provides varied massing and materials and articulation on each of the building façades to help break up the building size, which is encouraged 1150 W. Colorado Boulevard – The Ivy Arcadia
August 20, 2024

Page 14 of 16 ends

by the Design Guidelines. The development also considers the privacy and site layout guidelines to ensure that there are minimal impacts on the surrounding properties.

Therefore, the project has been designed to be consistent with the Design Guidelines.

3. The proposed development is compatible in terms of scale and aesthetic design with surrounding properties and developments.

Facts to Support This Finding: The building was strategically placed away from residential properties to the east and south to minimize any potential impacts to the adjacent residential properties and was pushed back from the street s to maintain a comparable streetscape with the residential properties. The overall design has a balanced and aesthetically pleasing design that will complement the surrounding residential properties in the general vicinity. The use, although commercial in nature, will provide more of a residential type of use and will be less commercially active than other potential developments that could be developed on this site. The proposed design will enhance the overall streetscape, as it provides a transition from the commercial corridor to the west of the site to the residential neighborhoods to the east.

The location of the project on the southeastern corner of W. Colorado Boulevard and Michillinda Avenue also provides a suitable focal point as an entryway to the City.

4. The proposed development will have an adequate and efficient site layout in terms of access, vehicular circulation, parking, and landscaping.

Facts to Support This Finding: The site, being a corner lot, will have two points of access, with one driveway from W. Colorado Boulevard and another driveway from Michillinda Avenue. The two access points will assist in providing ease of circulation on the lot along with the drive aisl es on site , which meet the minimum 25’ -0” width required for two-way traffic. Parking will be provided along all four sides of the building and a total of 60 parking spaces are being provided despite the Code only requiring 38 spaces. Additionally, the lot will retain much of the existing mature landscaping along the perimeters of the property in supplying screening to the adjacent residential neighbors, which consist of large trees and hedging, and new pockets of landscaping will be introduced around the building to enhance the architectural desi gn of the building.

5. The proposed development will be in compliance with all of the applicable criteria identified in Section 9107.19.040(C.5).

Facts to Support This Finding: All City requirements regarding disabled access and facilities, occupancy limits, building safety, health code compliance, emergency equipment, environmental regulation compliance, and parking and site design shall be complied with by the property owner/applicant to the satisfaction of the Building Official, City Engineer, Deputy Development Services Director , Fire Marshal, and Public Works Services Director, or their respective designees. Additionally, the proposed development will be in compliance with the General Plan, Development 1150 W. Colorado Boulevard – The Ivy Arcadia
August 20, 2024

Page 15 of 16 ends

Code, Density Bonus law for senior housing developments, the City’s Design Guidelines, and all other applicable City regulations.

Based on the foregoing and the attached documentation, all required findings can be made.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
On August 18, 2020, the City Council adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) for the Approved Project – The Artis Senior Living Project. An Addendum to the adopted MND for The Ivy Arcadia was prepared to consider the environmental impacts of the revised project compared to those of the approved project, in accordance with the requirements of California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the CEQA Guidelines.

As with the originally Approved Project, the Revised Project would be required to comply with all the mitigation measures identified in the adopted 2020 MND. There are no design features included within the Revised Project that would suggest that these mitigation measures would not be sufficient to address any potentially significant impact that would arise from the implementation of the Revised Project. As such, it has been determined that the Revised Project would not result in any new significant environmental impacts from what was previously analyzed in the adopted 2020 MND – Refer to Attachment No.

6. As such, an Addendum to the MND can be adopted.

PUBLIC NOTICE/COMMENTS
A public hearing notice for this item was posted at the City Clerk’s Office, City Council Chambers, the Arcadia Library, the City’s website, in the Arcadia Weekly and mailed to the property owners located within 300 feet of the subject property on May 2, 2024, prior to the Planning Commission meeting. During the notification period, one concern from the property owner at 545 N. Altura Road was received regarding damage to their rear wall because of the mature trees that lie on the project site. Under the conditions of approval for the project, the Applicant will be required to replace the property line wall along the entire perimeter if they can obtain owner approval. After the May 14 Planning Commission Meeting, a total of four letters of opposition were received from the adjacent residents and two letters of support were received from housing organizations – refer to Attachment No. 7 for all the public comments.

It should also be noted that the Applicant also presented the project to the Lower Rancho Homeowners Association Architectural Review Board ( “ARB”) on March 21, 2024. The ARB was pleased with Oakmont’s team and their expertise in senior living management, and they were satisfied with the building’s design and its height.

Subsequent to the Planning Commission hearing and the revisions to the project based on input received, a second notice was mailed and published in the same manner as the original notice on August 8, 2024, specifically for the City Council Meeting. As of August 16, 2024, staff has not received any additional concerns or comments from the public. 1150 W. Colorado Boulevard – The Ivy Arcadia
August 20, 2024

Page 16 of 16 ends

FISCAL IMPACT

The project will have no significant impact on City revenues or expenditures.

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council make the required findings and adopt Resolution No. 7572 and approve Architectural Design Review No. ADR 23-13 with a density bonus and Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 23- 09, and adopt the Addendum to the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration, subject to the following conditions of approval.

Attachment No. 1: Resolution No. 7572
Attachment No. 2: Aerial Photo and Zoning Information and Photos of the Subject Property
Attachment No. 3: Architectural Plans and Renderings
Attachment No. 4: Arborist Report, dated April 2024
Attachment No. 5: Resolution No. 2146, Excerpt of the Planning Commission Minutes, dated May 14, 202 4, and Planning Commission Staff Report (Without Attachments)
Attachment No. 6: Addendum to the Adopted Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and the Adopted MND. Technical studies to the Adopted MND are available at:
www.arcadiaca.gov/significantprojects

Attachment No. 7: Comment Letters
Attachment No. 8: Letter to City Council from Cox Castle dated August 14, 2024

$WWDFKPHQW1R
5HVROXWLRQ1R7572
$WWDFKPHQW1R

Attachment No. 2
Aerial Photo with Zoning Information and
Photos of the Subject Property and the
Surrounding Properties
Attachment No. 2
Overlays
Selected parcel highlighted
Parcel location within City of Arcadia
N/A
Property Owner(s):

Lot Area (sq ft):

Year Built:

Main Structure / Unit (sq. ft.):

C-G
Number of Units:

C
Property Characteristics
1976
13,088
0 Property Owner
Site Address: 1150 W COLORADO BLVD
Parcel Number: 5776-001-012
N/A
Zoning:

General Plan:

N/A
Downtown Overlay:

Downtown Parking Overlay:

Architectural Design Overlay: N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Residential Flex Overlay:

N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Special Height Overlay:

N/A
Parking Overlay:

Racetrack Event Overlay:

This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable.

Report generated 30-Apr-2024

Page 1 of 1 ends

Subject site
Subject site: West view

Subject site: East view
Subject site: East view

Subject site: West view
Subject site: East parking lot area
Subject site: South parking lot area
Subject site: South parking lot area

I-210 Freeway located north of the site
Commercial building located across the street

Gas station located across the street
Residential properties to the south west of the site

Residential properties that abut to the east of the site along N. Altura Rd.

Residential properties that abut to the south of the site along Altura Terrace.

Residential properties that abut to the east of the site along N. Altura Rd.

Residential properties that abut to the south of the site along Altura Terrace.

Attachment No.
Architectural Plans and Renderings
$WWDFKPHQW1R

<.)*
897.5.3,
9>5
5&70.3,
7*8.)*39.&1(&7*+&(.1.9>
5&70.3,89&115*71.(*38*)'*)8

1.(*38*)&88.89*)1.;.3,'*)8 "

1.(*38*)2*247>(&7*'*)8 "
949&17*6:.7*)5&70.3, "
5&70.3,89&118
949&1574;.)*)5&70.3, "
89&3)&7)5&70.3,85&(*8 "

(1*&3&.7*;85&(*8 "
.3(1;&3
&((*88.'1*85&(*
&((*88.'1*5&70.3,85&(*8 "
;&3&((*88.'1*5&70.3,85&(*8 "
*;5&70.3,(&1(:1&9.438
*;7*&)>85&(*8
(&1,7**39&'1* "
*;(&5&'1*85&(*8
(&1,7**39&'1* "

&((*88.'1**;(-&7,.3,85&(*
('(9&'1*'ª
";&3&((*88.'1*
'.0*5&70.3,
8-479ª9*72'.0*5&70.3,
7*6:.7*)
4+24947.?*);*-.(1*5&70.3,85&(*8
949&124947.?*);*-.(1*5&70.3,85&(*8"
7*6:.7*)8-479ª9*72'.0*5&70.3,
]"
574;.)*)8-479ª9*72'.0*5&70.3,
5&70.3,85&(*8"
&7(-.9*(9
GMNQQXFWHMNYJHYZWJ5(
8'4<3<&>
'4.8*.)&-4

ª
ª
(*1*89*-&&8*
HMFFXJ%GMNQQXFWHMHTR
4<3*7
4 .)*;*1452*3911(
5&7051&?&8:.9*

.7;.3*(&

ª
ª
(&7.88&8&;&39
HXF[FSY%TFSINIJ[JQTURJSYHTR
(.;.1*3,.3**7
'0+*3,.3**78

2&(&79-:7(4:798:.9*
3*<5479'*&(-(&

ª
ª

'7:(*0.7'>
GPNWG^%GPKHTR
1&3)8(&5*&7(-.9*(9
'14(8)*8.,3,74:55(
2&>'*11*&;*8:.9*
4&01&3)(&

ª
ª

'1&0*942.11484ª7.3*-&79
GQFPJ%GQTHXIJXNLSLWTZUHTR
(439&(98
574/*(9.3+472&9.43
&53

ªª
5745*79>8.?*

&(7*8
8+
?43.3,)*8.,3&9.43 (ª,
(43897:(9.439>5* ;ª&
857.301*78 +:11>857.301*7*)
3:2'*74+8947.*8 8947.*8
':.1).3,,7488&7*&

8+
149&7*&(4;*7*)

+&7

2&=':.1).3,-*.,-9

ª
4((:5&3(>,74:58 7&'8
;.(.3.9>2&5

8.9*1*,*3)
&((*88.'1*74:9*
5&70.3,1491&3)8(&5.3,
5&70.3,149&7*&

8+

2.31&3)8(&5.3,7*6:.7*)

8+
574;.)*)5&70.3,1491&3)8(&5.3,
8+

(4147&)4'1;)
+449-.11+<>

2.(-.11.3)&&;*
748*2*&)'1;)
+449-.11'1;)
+449-.11+<>
&19:7&7)

8.9*
$
$
$
$

574548*)ª8947>':.1).3,
89+1447

8+
3)+1447

8+
7)+14478+
949&1':.1).3,&7*&

8+
*=.9
(4:79>&7)*=.9
,*3*7&9477442
2&.3*397>
5479*
(4(-*7*
*=.9
*=9*7.47
5&9.4
(4:79>&7)
&1?-*.2*7
*=9*7.475&9.4
&1?-*.2*7
(4:79>&7)
(4:79>&7)
*=.9
*1*(97.(;*-.(1*
(-&7,.3,89&9.43
8<.9(-,*&7
(4;*7*)97&8-*3(148:7*
(2:ª5*72&9*7.&18
8(-*):1*8**&
$6
$
*=.89.3,8.)*<&10

2.(-.11.3)&&;*3:*(*39*71.3*
(4147&)4'1;)(*39*71.3*
5745*79>1.3*

*=.89.3,8(7**3<&11
7*5&.7
7*51&(*&8
3*(*88&7>
*=.89.3,8(7**3<&11
7*5&.7
7*51&(*&8
3*(*88&7>
*=.89.3,&)/&(*39

8.3,1*+&2.1>
7*8.)*3(*9>5

ª

ª

ª

ª

ª

ª
5&70.3,8*9'&(0

ª

ª

8-:991*

(9&+$5*,1*21/<(9&+$5*,1*21/<
*1*(97.(;*-.(1*
(-&7,.3,89&9.43

ª

$

$

ª

ª
5745*79>1.3*

47.,.3&1
5745*79>1.3*
'4((*
(4:79
5*9&7*&
5:99.3,
,7**3
8-4799*72
'.0*5&70.3,
9>5

ª

ª
<5'%,1
<5'%,1

7$//2:
25*$1,&6

$6
%
+.7*(4397417442
<034='4=

[
&/($5

574548*)243:2*39

8.,3
(:94++;.8.4397.&3,1*
(:94++;.8.43

97.&3,1*
(:94++;.8.43

97.&3,1*
574548*)243:2*39

8.,3
&
$6

4;*7-*&)
744+*&;*8
9>5

ª

ª

ª

ª

ª
$ $

ª

ª

ª

ª
5&70.3,149

1.,-9.3,9>5
8***8

8*9'&(0

ª

ª

ª
8*9'&(0

ª

47.,.3&15745*79>1.3*
5745*79>1.3*
)*).(&9.43

ª

ª

ª

ª

ª

*=8.9.3,<&11

)*).(&9.43

ª

$

$

$

(9&+$5*,1*21/<(9&+$5*,1*21/<(9&+$5*,1*21/<(9&+$5*,1*21/<(9&+$5*,1*21/<(9&+$5*,1*21/<
$

574548*)7*9&.3.3,<&11

ª

ª

ª

ª

&
$6

ª

&((*88.'1*74:9*

841.)2*9&1,&9*
5&.39*)'1&(0+.3.8-

841.)2*9&1,&9*
5&.39*)'1&(0+.3.8-
>7)'.3
47,
>7)'.3
47,
(2:ª<89:((4
+.3.8-(2:ª5*7
2&9*7.&18(-*):1*
8**&
(43(7*9*81&'
89**1(41:23+.11*)
<(43(7*9*

ª
(1*&7

ª

+:11>,74:9*)(2:<&11
(2:ª<89:((4+.3.8-
(2:ª5*72&9*7.&1
8(-*):1*8**&
130+&$5/0
%3"8/#:
05#%"5&
$)&$,&%#:
46#.*55"-%"5&
3&7*4*0/4
CIJMMTBSDIJUFDUVSF
1$
TPVUI CPXO XBZ
CPJTF] JEBIP]
P
WW COMBH ILLS A RC HW
CIJMMT
ARCHITECTURE
5)&4&%&4*(/4"/%%3"8*/(4"3&5)&
&9$-64*7&1301&35:0'CIJMMTBSDIJUFDUVSF

1$"/%"3&/0550#&64&%03%61-*$"5&%
8*5)0651&3.*44*0/
$01:3*()5h
"--3*()543&4&37&%
4HEÚ)VYÚ!RCADIA
Ú7Ú#/,/2!$/Ú",6$
!2#!$)!
Ú#!Ú

.6
&+
$5&+,7(&785$/
6,7(3/$1
!3
1"3,*7(3061--$$00*%&7&-01.&/51"3,1-";" 46*5&*37*/&
$"
3479-
8(&1*
"
ª
& 5&70.3,897.5.3,
8(&1* "
ª

8.9*51&3

)((76&$/(
8(&1*
"
ª
' *31&7,*)97&8-*3(148:7*

8(&1*
"
ª
( 97&8-*3(148:7*8*(9.43

3/$11,1*
&200(176

3/$11,1*
&200(176

3/$11,1*
&200(176

9>5744+945
2*(-&3.(&1:3.9
5745*79>1.3*

*=.89.3,8.)*<&10
*>*1*;*1

1.3*4+8.,-9
*=.89.3,97**8
*=.89.3,8(7**3<&11
7*5&.7
7*51&(*&8
3*(*88&7>
5745*79>1.3*
9>5744+945
2*(-&3.(&1:3.9
*=.89.3,&)/&(*39

8.3,1*+&2.1>7*8.)*3(*

ª
.;>&7(&).&574548*)+.3.8-+1447

ª*>*1*;*1

1.3*4+8.,-9
&79.8574548*)+.3.8-+1447

&79.8574548*)':.1).3,4:91.3*
&79.8574548*),7&)*
.;>&7(&).&574548*)++

&79.8574548*)++

.;>&7(&).&574548*)+.3.8-+1447

&79.8574548*)+.3.8-+1447

&79.8574548*)':.1).3,4:91.3*
*=.89.3,97**8 *=.89.3,8(7**3<&11
7*5&.7
7*51&(*&8
3*(*88&7>
5745*79>1.3*
*=.89.3,&)/&(*39

8.3,1*+&2.1>7*8.)*3(*
&79.8574548*),7&)*

ª*>*1*;*1

1.3*4+8.,-9
5745*79>1.3*

ª
*>*1*;*1

1.3*4+8.,-9
9>5744+945
2*(-&3.(&1:3.9
9>5744+945
2*(-&3.(&1:3.9
.;>&7(&).&574548*)++

&79.8574548*)++

130+&$5/0
%3"8/#:
05#%"5&
$)&$,&%#:
46#.*55"-%"5&
3&7*4*0/4
CIJMMTBSDIJUFDUVSF
1$
TPVUI CPXO XBZ
CPJTF] JEBIP]
P
WW COMBH ILLS A RC HW
CIJMMT
ARCHITECTURE
5)&4&%&4*(/4"/%%3"8*/(4"3&5)&
&9$-64*7&1301&35:0'CIJMMTBSDIJUFDUVSF

1$"/%"3&/0550#&64&%03%61-*$"5&%
8*5)0651&3.*44*0/
$01:3*()5h
"--3*()543&4&37&%
4HEÚ)VYÚ!RCADIA
Ú7Ú#/,/2!$/Ú",6$
!2#!$)!
Ú#!Ú

&+
&+
%8,/',1*6(&7,21
!
1"3,*7(3061--$$00*%&7&-01.&/51"3,1-";" 46*5&*37*/&
$"
8(&1* "
ª
*&89ª<*89':.1).3,8*(9.43<&79.84;*71&>

)((76&$/(
8(&1* "
ª
3479-ª84:9-':.1).3,8*(9.43<&79.84;*71&>
3/$11,1*
&200(176

9>5744+945
2*(-&3.(&1:3.9
5745*79>1.3*

*=.89.3,8.)*<&10
*>*1*;*1

1.3*4+8.,-9
*=.8.93,97**8 *=.89.3,8(7**3<&11
7*5&.7
7*51&(*&8
3*(*88&7>
5745*79>1.3*
9>5744+945
2*(-&3.(&1:3.9
*=.89.3,&)/&(*39

8.3,1*+&2.1>7*8.)*3(*

ª
.;>&7(&).&574548*)+.3.8-+1447

ª*>*1*;*1

1.3*4+8.,-9
&79.8574548*)+.3.8-+1447

&79.8574548*)':.1).3,4:91.3*
&79.8574548*),7&)*
*=.89.3,(4(4
8':.1).3,4:91.3*
**==..8899..33,,((44((44

88++..33..88--++11444477
..;;>>&&77((&&))..&&557744554488**))++++

&79.8574548*)++

.;>&7(&).&574548*)+.3.8-+1447

*=.89.3,(4(4
8+.3.8-+1447
&79.8574548*)':.1).3,4:91.3*
*=.89.3,97**8 *=.89.3,8(7**3<&11
7*5&.7
7*51&(*&8
3*(*88&7>
5745*79>1.3*
*=.89.3,&)/&(*39

8.3,1*+&2.1>7*8.)*3(*
&79.8574548*),7&)*

ª*>*1*;*1

1.3*4+8.,-9
5745*79>1.3*

ª
*>*1*;*1

1.3*4+8.,-9
9>5744+945
2*(-&3.(&1:3.9
9>5744+945
2*(-&3.(&1:3.9
*=.89.3,(4(4
8':.1).3,4:91.3*
&79.8574548*)+.3.8-+1447

.;>&7(&).&574548*)++

&79.8574548*)++

130+&$5/0
%3"8/#:
05#%"5&
$)&$,&%#:
46#.*55"-%"5&
3&7*4*0/4
CIJMMTBSDIJUFDUVSF
1$
TPVUI CPXO XBZ
CPJTF] JEBIP]
P
WW COMBH ILLS A RC HW
CIJMMT
ARCHITECTURE
5)&4&%&4*(/4"/%%3"8*/(4"3&5)&
&9$-64*7&1301&35:0'CIJMMTBSDIJUFDUVSF

1$"/%"3&/0550#&64&%03%61-*$"5&%
8*5)0651&3.*44*0/
$01:3*()5h
"--3*()543&4&37&%
4HEÚ)VYÚ!RCADIA
Ú7Ú#/,/2!$/Ú",6$
!2#!$)!
Ú#!Ú

&+
&+
%8,/',1*
6(&7,216
! 1"3,*7(3061--$$00*%&7&-01.&/51"3,1-";" 46*5&*37*/&
$"
8(&1* "
ª
*&89ª<*89':.1).3,8*(9.43<&79.8
(4(4
84;*71&>
8(&1* "
ª
3479-ª84:9-':.1).3,8*(9.43<&79.8
(4(4
84;*71&>

Attachment No. 5
Resolution No. 2146, Excerpt of
the Planning Commission Minutes,
dated May 14, 2024, and Planning
Commission Staff Report (Without
Attachments)
Attachment No. 5

DATE: May 14, 2024

TO: Honorable Chairman and Planning Commission

FROM: Lisa L. Flores, Deputy Development Services Director Edwin Arreola, Associate Planner

SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 2146 – ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. ADR 23-13 WITH A DENSITY BONUS AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.

CUP 23-09 TO CONSIDER A REVISED SENIOR ASSISTED LIVING
CARE FACILITY (“THE IVY ARCADIA”) WITH AN ADDENDUM TO THE

ADOPTED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION UNDER THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (“CEQA”) AT 1150 W.

COLORADO BOULEVARD
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2146 Recommending
Approval to the City Council

SUMMARY
The Applicant, O&I Development, LLC , on behalf of the property owner, Artis Senior Living, LLC, is requesting approval of Architectural Design Review No. ADR 23-13 with a density bonus and Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 23-09 to amend a project that was approved by the City Council in 2020 for a new two-story senior assisted living care facility project with 80 units (Artis Senior Living Project ) at 1150 W. Colorado Boulevard . The revised project, known as “ The Ivy Arcadia, ” will be a three- story senior assisted living care facility with 100 units and 114 beds. The revised project includes a density bonus to allow the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.88, which exceeds the maximum permitted FAR of

0.50. It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2146 (Attachment No. 1) recommending that the City Council adopt the Addendum to the Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment No. 5) and approve Architectural Design Review No.

ADR 23-13 with a density bonus and Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 23- 09 for the revised project known as the “The Ivy Arcadia.”

The Ivy Arcadia
1150 W. Colorado Boulevard
May 14, 2024

Page 2 of 24 ends

BACKGROUND
The subject site is located at the southeast corner of W. Colorado Boulevard and Michillinda Avenue at 1150 W. Colorado Boulevard. It is zoned General Commercial (C- G) and has a General Plan Land Use Designation of Commercial (.50 FAR). The site is approximately 2.82 acres and is currently developed with a vacant 13,088 square foot building that was previously occupied Coco’s Bakery and Restaurant that closed in July 2021. The site is surrounded by the 210 freeway to the north, commercial uses to the west in the Los Angeles County area, and single-family residential properties to the east and south. The residential properties adjacent to this site along the west side of N. Altura Road and both the north and south side of Altura Terrance are not within the Lower Rancho Homeowners Association (HOA) but the homes beyond those are located within the Lower Rancho HOA - refer to Figure No.1 for an aerial view of the area , and Attachment No. 2 for an Aerial Photo with Zoning Information.

Figure 1 – Aerial View of the Site
On August 18, 2020, the City Council adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approved the Artis Senior Living Project. The Artis Senior Living Project involved the demolition of the building and the development of a new two- story 44,192 square foot senior living care facility with 80 senior housing units and on- site amenities, inclusive of a community center, a gallery, a café, a barber/beauty shop, a small health center for the residents, and 58 parking spaces and one loading space for deliveries. The approval also

The Ivy Arcadia
1150 W. Colorado Boulevard
May 14, 2024

Page 3 of 24 ends

included a Zone Change for the removal of the Architectural Design Overlay Zone and the Automobile Parking Overlay Zone from the site which restricted the height and buildable area on the lot.

The City granted the Applicant two one-year extensions and the entitlements expired on March 18, 2024. On November 9, 2023, the Applicant for The Ivy Arcadia filed a revised project of the assisted living care facility with the City.

PROPOSAL
The revised project consists of demolishing the existing 13,088 square foot restaurant building and construct a new 107,706 square foot, three -story Traditional/Cape Cod architectural style building that will provide assisted living and memory care services for seniors that have Alzheimer’s and other related memory loss – refer to Attachment No. 3 for the Architectural Plans and Renderings, and Figure No. 2 below for a rendering of the project.

The Applicant, O&I Development, LLC - Oakmont Senior Living operates 90 facilities in California, Hawaii, and Nevada. This will be Oakmont’s first facility in Arcadia, known as The Ivy Arcadia, and they will provide 24-hour staffing and services such as daily meals, housekeeping services , transportation services, social activities, and other support services. The facility will serve persons 60 years of age or older, however, their average residence age for assisted living is 86 years old. They will have approximately 10 employees between the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. and 15 employees between the hours of 2:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.

The facility will have 100 units with 114 beds. The units would consist of varying types, including studio, one-bedroom, and two-bedroom units for assisted living and private and shared studios for memory care. The building is proposed to be built at the maximum height of 40’ -0” and will have a n interior side yard setback of 51’ -9”, whereas 10’-0” is required, a street-side yard setback of 50’-0”, whereas 5’-0” is required, a minimum rear yard setback of 35’ -0”, whereas 20’-0” is required , and a 29’ -0” front yard setback, whereas no setback is required.

Figure 2 – Rendering View from W. Colorado Boulevard

The Ivy Arcadia
1150 W. Colorado Boulevard
May 14, 2024

Page 4 of 24 ends

The units will range between 396 square foot studios to 1,146 square foot two- bedroom units (see Figure 3 below for a Unit Summary) . Unit amenities will include kitchens in some of the units, bathrooms, and closet space. The first floor will comprise of 14 units for assisted living, 30 units for memory care, lobbies, offices, a dining room and a café, a laundry room, a sensory wellness room, a reading room, and a sitting and music area, as well as separate open- air courtyards in the middle of the building. The second floor will comprise of 36 units for assisted living, offices, a laundry room, and a staff lounge. The third floor w ill comprise of 20 units for assisted living, a dining room with an exhibition kitchen, a bar/lounge, an activity room, a media room, a fitness center with a physical therapy area, a beauty salon, and storage areas. Additionally, the facility will have an exterior outdoor patio for memory care patients , a workout area, a trash enclosure, and an emergency generator room . A dog park and a bocce ball court w ill be located in the southeastern portion of the property.

Figure 3 – Unit Summary
Vehicular access to the site w ill be provided off the two existing driveways, one along Colorado Boulevard near the northeastern corner of the property and another along Michillinda Avenue near the southwestern corner. These driveways are proposed to be reconstructed in the same general l ocation for American with Disabilities Act ( ADA) compliance. A porte cochere would also be provided in front of the main entrance to the facility as a loading and unloading area for the residents. In terms of parking, the site will provide 70 parking spaces: 61 standard spaces, 2 handicap parking spaces, 6 electric

The Ivy Arcadia
1150 W. Colorado Boulevard
May 14, 2024

Page 5 of 24 ends

vehicle (EV) spaces, and 1 EV space that complies with ADA requirements. Parking will be located along the perimeter of the site (refer to the Site Plan below under Figure 4).

Figure 4 – Site Plan
As part of the project, 22 unprotected trees will be removed. All 16 of the protected trees on site will be preserved, and additional trees will be planted alongside the remaining unprotected trees to provide screening of the proposed building from the residential properties to the east and south. The Applicant will be required to comply with all the tree protection measures in the Arborist Report to ensure that the protected trees will not be harm during any construction activities – refer to condition of approval no. 4 and Attachment No. 4.

As part of the new development, a 4 -foot-wide dedication along W. Colorado Boulevard and Michillinda Avenue will be granted to the City to accommodate the widening of the

The Ivy Arcadia
1150 W. Colorado Boulevard
May 14, 2024

Page 6 of 24 ends

public rights -of-way from approximately 8 feet to 12 feet in width. Construction of the project is expected to occur over a 20-month period.

ANALYSIS
The Development Code allows a Large- Residential Care F acility in the General Commercial (C-G) zone subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The senior assisted living care facility has been designed to be functionally suitable for the proposed site and be sensitive to the privacy and impact on the adjacent residential properties. As with the previously approved project, this proposal will provide housing options to the aging population of the region, and assistance for those with memory care needs. The redevelopment of the site with a senior assisted living care facility was determined by the City Council and Planning Commission back in 2020 as an appropriate use and development for this property. According to the traffic analysis, this senior assisted living care facility is expected to generate less trips than the previous Coco’s restaurant when it was in operation.

The underlying General Commercial (C-G) zone allows a maximum FAR of 0 .5. The proposed senior assisted living care facility has a FAR of 0.88, which exceeds the maximum permitted FAR. However, under the California Density Bonus Law, a project is entitled to receive a density bonus as a matter of right if it meets the requirements of California Government Code Section 65915. In addition, pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 713, which was signed by Governor Newsom in October 2023, a local government cannot apply any development standard that precludes the construction of a development seeking a density bonus. Since the project is a senior housing development, it is entitled to receive a density bonus and deviate from the maximum permitted FAR, which would otherwise physically preclude the construction of the proposal based on the maximum allowable residential density under the C-G zone. The density bonus law does not require affordability for senior housing projects. By virtue of it being a senior housing project, it is a density bonus law project, and any requests for a density bonus has to be approved by City Council.

The proposed building will be situated 35’-0” from the adjacent residential properties to the south, and 51’-9” from the residential properties to the east. To maintain the existing privacy between facility and the neighboring residential properties, the existing large trees along the perimeter of the site will be kept and new trees and/or hedges will be added where there is a gap. Additionally, most of the units on the upper floors of the south side of the facility do not face the adjacent residential properties. Therefore, the project has incorporated design elements to provide added privacy to the neighbors.

In terms of parking, the Development Code requires one (1) parking space for every three (3) licensed beds within the residential care facility. With a total of 114 beds proposed, the project requires a total of 38 parking spaces for the residents, employees, and visitors.

Although the Code does not require additional parking for the employees, the Applicant is proposing 32 more parking spaces to ensure there is more than sufficient parking at any given time. The project would comply with all other applicable development standards, including height, and setbacks.

The Ivy Arcadia
1150 W. Colorado Boulevard
May 14, 2024

Page 7 of 24 ends

The previously approved project required a Protected Tree Encroachment Permit for the encroachment into the driplines of four, off -site, protected trees. However, the Development Code has since been amended to not require an encroachment permit for any trees off -site that are not a protected Oak or Sycamore trees. Since these four protected trees are not oaks or sycamores, a Protected Tree Encroachment Permit is no longer required.

Architectural Style
Similarly to the approved project, the proposed building is designed in a Traditional/Cape Cod architectural style with varied massing and materials and articulation on each of the building façades to help break up the building size. The proposed design complements the adjoining residential properties and will enhance the overall streetscape, as it provides a transition from the commercial corridor to the west of the site to the residential neighborhoods to the east – refer to Attachment No. 3 for the architectural plans and to the rendering above. The design contains architectural features that are commonly found within the Traditional and Cape Cod architectural styles, such as white and gray colored vertical and horizontal cement fiber board siding, gray colored shingle siding, gray asphalt shingle roofing, and stone veneer at the base of the building. The design also includes many decorative features, such as white colored Juliet balconies and navy colored wooden shutters on most of the windows, accent gray standing seam metal roofing , planter boxes along the sides of the building, and a porte cochere and front porch that act as focal points on the street side elevations of the building. The use of the various materials along with the articulation provided on each of the building façades helps prevent long or tall looking wall expanses that would otherwise make the building appear large. The overall design is well balanced and aesthetically pleasing with the use of neutral tone colors. T he location on the southeastern corner of W. Color ado Boulevard and Michillinda Avenue provides a suitable focal point as an entryway to the City.

Although commercial buildings are typically encouraged to be placed closer to the street, the large setback provided to this building helps make it fit in as more of a part of the residential neighborhood in proximity.

Figure 5 – Rendering View from Michillinda Avenue

The Ivy Arcadia
1150 W. Colorado Boulevard
May 14, 2024

Page 8 of 24 ends

This revised design will elevate this corner as the City has also envisioned a high- end development at this location since this is one of the gateways into the City.

FINDINGS
Conditional Use Permit
Section 9107.09.050(B) of the Development Code requires that for a Conditional Use Permit to be granted, it must be found that all of the following prerequisite findings can be satisfied:

Facts to Support This Finding: Approval of the senior assisted living care facility will be consistent with the Commercial General Plan Land Use Designation. The site is zoned General Commercial (C -G) and pursuant to the Arcadia Development Code Section 9102.03.020, Table 2- 8, allows a Large- Residential Care Facility in the General Commercial C -G zone subject to the review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The underlying zone allows for a broad array of commercial uses that are both neighborhood and citywide serving. The senior assisted living care facility will allow a business that can serve the aging population of the City, specifically those with Alzheimer’s disease and related memory delays. Aside from the FAR, which is a concession of the density bonus, t he project complies will all the development standards of the General Commercial C -G zone. The proposed project will not adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan, and is consistent with the following General Plan goals and policies:
• Goal LU-1: A balance of land uses that preserves Arcadia status as a Community of Homes and a community of opportunity.
• Policy LU-1.1: Promote new infill and redevelopment projects that are consistent with the City’s land use and compatible with surrounding existing uses. • Policy LU-1.2: Promote new uses of land that provide diverse economic, social, and cultural opportunities, and that reinforce the characteristics that make Arcadia a desirable place to live.
• Policy LU-1.5: Require that effective buffer areas be created between land uses that are of significantly different character or that have operating characteristics which could create nuisances along common boundary.

2. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed activity will be compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity.

Facts to Support This Finding: The project provides a transition between the commercial businesses in the Los Angeles County area to the west of the site and the The Ivy Arcadia
1150 W. Colorado Boulevard
May 14, 2024

Page 9 of 24 ends

adjacent residential properties to the east and south as a senior assisted living use.

Additionally, transportation services will be provided to the residents. Additionally, the project will result in an overall reduction of vehicular traffic as compared to the existing use and most other commercial uses that could be considered for the property. The project site is adequate in size and location to accommodate the revised development.

Thus, the proposed senior assisted living care facility will be compatible with the existing and future uses in the vicinity.

Landscaping is being maintained along the perimeter of the lot and various new pockets of landscaping will be introduced around the building site. The project will have two points of access on to the lot and will also provide more than the required amount of parking. The proposed project will comply with all of the regulations within the Development Code except for the FAR which is allowed to exceed the maximum because of the density bonus for senior housing development .

Therefore, the site is adequate in s ize to accommodate the proposed senior assisted living care facility.
b. Streets and highways adequate in width and pavement type to accommodate public and emergency vehicle (e.g., fire and medical) access.

Facts to Support This Finding: The project will be located at the southeast corner of W. Colorado Boulevard and Michillinda Avenue. The site will have two access points, with one driveway off of each street frontage. Both streets have been designated and designed with the capacity to accommodate both normal public vehicular travel and emergency vehicles. Additionally, the project is expected to generate less traffic than the previous use. Thus, the adjacent streets are adequate in width and pavement type to carry the traffic that would be ge nerated by the proposed facility and to accommodate emergency vehicle access.

The Ivy Arcadia
1150 W. Colorado Boulevard
May 14, 2024

Page 10 of 24 ends

c. Public protection services (e.g., fire protection, police protection, etc.).

Facts to Support This Finding: It has been determined that t he existing infrastructure and public utilities can handle the demand for the proposed senior assisted living care facility , and no upgrades are required. The proposed project will also comply with the Low Impact Development (LID) requirements for stormwater discharge through the implementation of a modular wetland on site.

In support of maintaining privacy between the neighboring residential properties, the existing large trees along the perimeter of the site will be kept. Additionally, mos t of the units on the upper floors of the south side of the facility do not face the adjacent residential properties. Therefore, the project has incorporated design elements to provide added privacy to the neighbors . The proposed senior assisted living care facility is expected to generate less trips than the previous restaurant use on the site and will have more than the minimum required parking. Traffic in the surrounding area is not expected to be impacted by the use. The construction of the project will meet all Building and Fire Codes, and all other applicable regulations. Therefore, the proposed project will not adversely affect the public in general nor will it impact the uses in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located.

The Ivy Arcadia
1150 W. Colorado Boulevard
May 14, 2024

Page 11 of 24 ends

Architectural Design Review
Section 9107. 19.050(F) of the Development Code requires that for an Architectural Design Review to be granted, it must be found that all of the following prerequisite findings can be satisfied:

1. The proposed development is in compliance with all applicable development standards and regulation in the Development Code.

Facts to Support This Finding: The proposed senior assisted living care facility is in compliance with all of the applicable development standards for the C -G zone, such as the maximum height, setbacks, and parking. The revised project proposes a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.88. The revised project is a senior housing development under the State’s Density Bonus Law and is entitled to exceed the otherwise maximum FAR, which would physically preclude construction of the revised project to the maximum allow residential density under the General Plan and Zoning. Therefore, the revised project meets the intent of this finding.

2. The proposed development is consistent in the objectives and standards of the applicable Design Guidelines.

Facts to Support This Finding: The proposed senior assisted living care facility is designed in the Traditional/Cape Cod architectural style. The design contains architectural features and materials that are commonly found within the proposed architectural styles. The proposed design provides varied massing and materials and articulation on each of the building façades to help break up the building size which is encouraged by the Design Guidelines . The development also considers the privacy and site layout guidelines to ensure that there are minimal impacts on the surrounding properties. Therefore, the project has been designed to be consistent with the Design Guidelines.

3. The proposed development is compatible in terms of scale and aesthetic design with surrounding properties and developments.

The location of the project on the southeastern corner of W. Colorado Boulevard and Michillinda Avenue also provides a suitable focal point as an entryway to the City.

The Ivy Arcadia
1150 W. Colorado Boulevard
May 14, 2024

Page 12 of 24 ends

4. The proposed development will have an adequate and efficient site layout in terms of access, vehicular circulation, parking, and landscaping.

Facts to Support This Finding: The site, being a corner lot, will have two points of access, with one driveway from W. Colorado Boulevard and another driveway from Michillinda Avenue. The two access points will assist in providing ease of circulation on the lot along with the drive aisl es on site which meet the minimum 25’ -0” width required for two-way traffic. Parking will be provided along all four sides of the building and a total of 70 parking spaces are being provided despite the code only requiring 38 spaces. Additionally, the lot will retain much of the existing landscaping along the perimeters of the property in supplying screening to the adjacent residential neighbors, which consist of large trees and hedging, and new pockets of landscaping will be introduced around the building to enhance the architectural design of the building.

5. The proposed development will be in compliance with all of the applicable criteria identified in Section 9107.19.040(C.5).

Facts to Support This Finding: All City requirements regarding disabled access and facilities, occupancy limits, building safety, health code compliance, emergency equipment, environmental regulation compliance, and parking and site design shall be complied with by the property owner/applicant to the satisfaction of the Building Official, City Engineer, Deputy Development Services Director , Fire Marshal, and Public Works Services Director, or their respective designees. Additionally, the proposed development will be in compliance with the General Plan, Development Code, Density Bonus law for senior housing developments, the City’s Design Guidelines, and all other applicable City regulations.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
On August 18, 2020, the City Council adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Approved Project – The Artis Senior Living Project. An Addendum to the adopted MND for The Ivy Arcadia was prepared to consider the environmental impacts of the revised project compared to those of the approved project, and in accordance with the requirements of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines.

As with the Approved Project, the Revised Project would be required to comply with all the mitigation measures identified in the adopted 2020 MND. There are no design features included within the Revised Project that would suggest that these mitigation measures would not be sufficient to address any potentially significant impact that would arise from the implementation of the Revised Project. As such, there are no changes to the circumstances, and implementation of the Revised Project would not result in any new significant or substantially more severe environmental impacts that would affect the determination of less -than-significant impact and less -than-significant impact with mitigation in the adopted 2020 MND – Refer to Attachment No. 5.

The Ivy Arcadia
1150 W. Colorado Boulevard
May 14, 2024

Page 13 of 24 ends

PUBLIC NOTICE/COMMENTS
A public hearing notice for this item was posted at the City Clerk’s Office, City Council Chambers, the Arcadia Library, the City’s website, and in the Arcadia Weekly on May 2, 2024. It was also mailed to the property owners located within 300 feet of the subject property. As of May 10, 2024, no comments were received regarding this project.

The Applicant also presented the project to the Lower Rancho Homeowners Association Architectural Review Board (ARB) on March 21, 2024. The ARB was pleased with Oakmont’s team and their expertise in senior living management, and they were satisfied with the building’s design and its height.

During the notification period, Staff did receive one concern from the property owner at 545 N. Altura Road regarding damage to their rear wall because of the mature trees that lies on the project site. Due to this concern, the Applicant intends to replace th eir wall, and possibly the entire eastern perimeter wall if they can obtain all the owner’s approval.

As a result, a condition of approval has been added that the Applicant shall file a separate permit for the tree permit (removal or encroachment) with the Planning Division and it shall be processed administratively by the staff – refer to condition no. 5.

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning C ommission adopt Resolution No. 2146 recommending approval of Architectural Design Review No. ADR 23 -13 with a density bonus and Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 23 -09 for new 107,706 square foot, three- story building containing 100 units with 114 beds , and adopt the Addendum to the approved Mitigated Negative Declaration, subject to the following conditions of approval:

1. The project shall be developed and maintained by the Property Owner/Applicant in a manner that is consistent with the plans submitted and conditionally approved for Architectural Design Review No. ADR 23- 13 with a density bonus and Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 23 -09, subject to the satisfaction of the Deputy Development Services Director or designee.

2. The Property Owner/Applicant shall submit an official ALTA survey of the property to the City prior to submitting plans into Building Services for plan- check. The City shall retain all access and other rights over the sanitary sewer easement and storm drain easement that are located on and under the subject property, and the Property Owner/Applicant shall make any adjustment , modifications, and/or abandon the sewer line in its development of the property, or amendments to current e asement of record, deemed by the City to reasonably necessary for the City to maintain such infrastructure and access. All new or existing manholes to remain on the site as part of the new development shall be within a paved area. Final placement of the manholes shall be subject to review and approval of the Public Works Department.

Any agreement that is required by the City to allow the development to occur over the easements shall be prepared by the Property Owner/Applicant and shall be subject to approval by the City Attorney prior to recordation in the Los Angeles County Recorder’s Office. For purposes of the City Attorney review of any such The Ivy Arcadia
1150 W. Colorado Boulevard
May 14, 2024

Page 14 of 24 ends

document, the Property Owner/Applicant shall submit to the City a deposit of $5,000, of which any funds remaining after review and approval by the City shall be returned to the Property Owner/Applicant.

3. Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, the Property Owner/ Applicant shall submit to Planning Services a copy of the form of lease or occupancy agreement that will be utilized for the proposed senior living facility. The form of such agreement must require all future residents to acknowledge the potential health risk associated with living within 500 feet of a freeway. Such acknowledgment shall be placed in all such future agreements for the senior living facility.

4. The Property Owner/Applicant shall comply with all the tree protection measures in the Arborist Report that was prepared by a Certified Arborist, dated April 2024 to ensure that all 16 protected trees will not be harm or impacted by any construction activities. If any of the protected trees do not survive prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy from the Building Division, the tree shall be replaced and the Deputy Development Services Director or designee has the discretion to approve the tree size and its location.

5. The replacement of the eastern perimeter wall (a portion or the entire wall) and any tree removal or encroachment shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Division prior to issuance of a building permit.

6. The Property Owner/Applicant shall submit a haul route map and construction staging plan to Planning Services prior to issuance of a Demolition permit.

7. The Property Owner/Applicant shall be responsible for the repair of all damage to public improvements in the public right -of-way resulting from construction related activities, including, but not limited to, the movement and/or delivery of equipment, materials, and soils to and/or from the site. The need for such repair shall be determined by the Deputy Development Services Director, the Public Works Services Director, City Engineer, or designees, during construction and up until issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.

8. Accessible routes shall be provided from the public sidewalk, any public transportation stops, and the trash enclosure to an accessible building entrance.

9. An international symbol of accessibility (ISA) shall be provided at the head end of the accessible electric vehicle (EV) charging spaces. A 30” by 48” clear floor space shall be provided at the EV charger to approach and operate the charger.

10. The plans that are submitted to Building Services for plan- check shall comply with the latest adopted edition of the following codes as applicable:
a. California Building Code (CBC)
b. California Electrical Code
c. California Mechanical Code
The Ivy Arcadia
1150 W. Colorado Boulevard
May 14, 2024

Page 15 of 24 ends

d. California Plumbing Code
e. California Energy Code
f. California Fire Code
g. California Green Building Standards Code
h. California Existing Building Code
i. Arcadia Municipal Code

11. Prior to the issuance of a building permit from Building Services, the Property Owner/Applicant shall irrevocably dedicate to the City 4’ -0” along the frontage of Colorado Boulevard and Michillinda Avenue for a total parkway width of 12’ -0”, as measured from curb to property line. A corner cutback at Michillinda Avenue/Colorado Boulevard is also required to accommodate an ADA curb per Caltrans standard A88A. Both dedications shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer.

12. The Property Owner/Applicant shall be required to remove and replace the existing sidewalk, curb, and gutter along the property frontage of Michillinda Avenue and Colorado Boulevard. Red curb locations shall be repainted after construction of the new curb.

13. Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy by Building Services, the Property Owner/Applicant shall modify the median island left turn pocket to accommodate the driveway approach on W. Colorado Boulevard in accordance with plans which shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer, or designee.

14. The Property Owner/Applicant shall be required to remove the existing driveway approaches and construct new driveway approaches per City Standards with ADA access around each approach.

15. A Low Impact Development (LID) plan is required for this development. It shall comply with the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works 2014 LID standard manual, and the measurements must be shown on the grading plan.

16. Coordinate with the utility companies to underground all utilities, including but not limited to, cable television, telephone, and electrical systems. If above ground utilities are being proposed, the utilities must be placed outside of the public right - of-way, on private property, and reviewed by the City Engineer prior to installation.

17. The Property Owner/Applicant shall coordinate with the Public Works Services Department on the replacement and/or protection of street trees prior to issuance of a grading permit from Building Services.

18. The Property Owner/Applicant shall make its fair share payment into the cost of a Citywide Standard of Cover Risk Assessment Survey to evaluate Fire resources Citywide. The fee shall be determined by the Fire Chief and the fee shall be collected prior to issuance of a building permit from Building Services.

The Ivy Arcadia
1150 W. Colorado Boulevard
May 14, 2024

Page 16 of 24 ends

19. The building shall be fully fire sprinklered per the City of Arcadia Fire Department Commercial Sprinkler Standard. The fire sprinkler system shall be monitored by a UL listed central station. Notification appliances shall be provided in all common areas. The dwelling units shall be provided with the ability to install visual appliances.

20. Single station smoke alarms shall be provided in all the dwelling units. Carbon monoxide alarms shall also be provided if gas fueled appliances are being used.

Any commercial cooking hoods shall be protected by an automatic extinguishing system and the system shall be monitored by a fire alarm system.

21. An on- site minimum 26 -foot wide fire lane extending from Michillinda Avenue to Colorado Boulevard shall be provided.

22. The Property Owner/Applicant shall install three (3) new fire hydrants. The locations shall be depicted on the site plan and shall be subject to review and approval by the Fire Marshall prior to issuance of a building permit for the project. The fire hydrants shall be placed at the following locations:
a. A public hydrant on Michillinda Avenue located adjacent to the driveway entry.
b. A public hydrant on Colorado Boulevard located adjacent to the driveway entry.
c. A private hydrant on the east side of the property.

23. A Two-Way Communication system shall be provided per the Fire Department.

24. All passenger elevators shall be EMS capable.

25. Any use of delayed egress systems shall be per CBC 1010.

26. Refuge areas shall be provided within each smoke compartment per CBC 420.6.2.

27. Low-level exit signage shall be provided in all fire rated exit corridors.

28. Knox boxes shall be provided at the front entry and exterior doors at the southeast and southwest stairwells. Stairwell doors shall be keyed to provide for exterior emergency access.

29. Minimum 2A:10BC fire extinguishers shall be provided in all common areas. The maximum travel distance to a fire extinguisher shall be 75 feet.

30. In order to verify the required water service size for the project, the Property Owner/Applicant shall submit to the Public Works Services Department calculations for the maximum commercial use demand and maximum fire demand prior to the issuance of a building permit. Fire protection requirements shall be as stipulated by the Arcadia Fire Department and shall be conformed to Arcadia Standard Plan. A separate fire service with Double Check Detector Assembly (DCDA) shall be installed for fire service required.

The Ivy Arcadia
1150 W. Colorado Boulevard
May 14, 2024

Page 17 of 24 ends

31. The Property Owner/Applicant shall provide separate water services and meters for the facility and outdoor irrigation system. A reduced pressure backflow device shall be installed for each water service.

32. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Property Owner/Applicant shall submit a Water Meter Permit Application to the Public Works Services Department.

33. The Property Owner/Applicant shall provide a new water service installation.

Installation shall be according to the specifications of the Public Works Services Department, Engineering Division. Abandonment of existing water services, if necessary, shall be completed by the Property Owner/Applicant, according to Public Works Services Department, Engineering Section specifications.

34. The Property Owner/Applicant shall connect to the Los Angeles County sewer line on Michillinda Avenue. The Property Owner/Applicant shall coordinate with the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (LACSD) for connection.

35. The Property Owner/Applicant shall abandon the entire easement portion of the existing sewer line between the project site and Altura Road.

36. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Property Owner/Applicant shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and shall obtain a Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) number from the State.

37. The trash enclosure area shall be installed by the Property Owner/Applicant and shall comply with the following:
a. A minimum interior width of 9’-7” in order to accommodate three (3) 3-yard bin.
b. A minimum roof clearance of 10-0” to allow the bin lids to open completely. c. Shall include a trash, recycling and organics recycling bins. d. Provide a minimum of one (1) foot clearance around the trash bin/recycling bin.

38. The Property Owner/Applicant shall comply with all City requirements regarding building safety, fire prevention, detection, suppression, emergency access, public right-of-way improvements, parking, water supply and water facilities, sewer facilities, trash reduction and recycling requirements, and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) measures, all to the satisfaction of the Building Official, Fire Marshal, Public Works Services Director, and Deputy Development Services Director . Complianc e with these requirements is to be determined by having fully detailed construction plans submitted for plan check review and approval by the foregoing City officials and employees.

39. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Applicant must defend, indemnify, and hold the City, any departments, agencies, divisions, boards, and/or commissions of the City, and its elected officials, officers, contractors serving as City officials, agents, The Ivy Arcadia
1150 W. Colorado Boulevard
May 14, 2024

Page 18 of 24 ends

employees, and attorneys of the City (“Indemnitees”) harmless from liability for damages and/or claims, actions, or proceedings for damages for personal injuries, including death, and claims for property damage, and with respect to all other actions and liabilities for damages caused or alleged to have been caused by reason of the Applicant’s activities in connection with ADR 23 -13 and CUP 23 -09 (“Project”) on the Project site, and which may arise from the direct or indirect operations of the Applicant or those of the Applicant’s contractors, agents, tenants, employees or any other persons acting on Applicant’s behalf, which relate to the development and/or construction of the Project. This indemnity provision applies to all damages and claims, actions, or proceedings for damages, as described above, regardless of whether the City prepared, supplied, or approved the plans, specifications, or other documents for the Project.

In the event of any legal action challenging the validity, applicability, or interpretation of any provision of this approval, or any other supporting document relating to the Project, the City will notify the Applicant of the claim, action, or proceedings and will cooperate in the defense of the matter. The Applicant must indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Indemnitees, and each of them, with respect to all liability, costs and expenses incurred by, and/or awarded against, the City or any of the Indemnitees in relation to such action. Within 15 days’ notice from the City of any such action, the Applicant shall provide to the City a cash deposit to cover legal fees, costs, and expenses incurred by City in connection with defense of any legal action in an initial amount to be reasonably determined by the City Attorney. The City may draw funds from the deposit for such fees, costs, and expenses. Within 5 business days of each and every notice from the City that the deposit has fallen below the initial amount, Applicant/Property Owner shall replenish the deposit each and every time in order for City’s legal team to continue working on the matter. The City shall only refund to the Applicant/Property Owner any unexpended funds from the deposit within 30 days of : (i) a final, non- appealable decision by a court of competent jurisdiction resolving the legal action; or (ii) full and complete settlement of legal action. The City shall have the right to select legal counsel of its choice. The parties hereby agree to c ooperate in defending such action. The City will not voluntarily assist in any such third- party challenge(s). In consideration for approval of the Project, this condition shall remain in effect if the entitlement(s) related to this Project is rescinded or revoked, at the request of the Applicant or not.

40. Approval of Architectural Design Review No. ADR 23-13 and Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 23-09 shall not be in effect unless the Property Owner and Applicant have executed and filed the Acceptance Form with the City on or before 30 calendar days after the Planning Commission has adopted the Resolution. The Acceptance Form to the Development Services Department is to indicate awareness and acceptance of the conditions of approval.

Mitigation Measures as Conditions of Approval
The Ivy Arcadia
1150 W. Colorado Boulevard
May 14, 2024

Page 19 of 24 ends

The following conditions are found in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). They are recorded here to facilitate review and implementation. More information on the timing and responsible parties for these mitigation measures are detailed in the MMRP.

Biological Resources

41. 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 Deputy Development Services Director or Designee.

42. 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:
a. 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. b. 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.
c. 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. d. 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.
e. 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.

The Ivy Arcadia
1150 W. Colorado Boulevard
May 14, 2024

Page 20 of 24 ends

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

Cultural Resources

43. 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 r ecovered archaeological materials at an appropriate curation facility.

Geology and Soils

44. GEO-1: 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 paleont ologist determines that monitoring is no longer necessary, monitoring activities shall be discontinued.

Noise

45. 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:
a. 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.

The Ivy Arcadia
1150 W. Colorado Boulevard
May 14, 2024

Page 21 of 24 ends

b. 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 t o 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 Deputy Development Services Director (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.
c. During construction, stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers. d. Prior to issuance of any Grading or Building Permit, the Project applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Deputy Development Services 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 di stance between construction equipment staging areas and occupied residential areas, and utilizing electric air compressors and similar power tools.
e. Construction haul routes shall be designed to avoid noise- sensitive uses (e.g., residences and convalescent homes) to the extent feasible.

Tribal Cultural Resources

46. TCR-1: 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 th e 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.

The Ivy Arcadia
1150 W. Colorado Boulevard
May 14, 2024

Page 22 of 24 ends

47. 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 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. F or 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 s hall be offered to the tribe or a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes.

48. 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 t his 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 The Ivy Arcadia
1150 W. Colorado Boulevard
May 14, 2024

Page 23 of 24 ends

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 time s, 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.

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 p late 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 includ es 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 m aterial. 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. Th e 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.

49. 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 The Ivy Arcadia
1150 W. Colorado Boulevard
May 14, 2024

Page 24 of 24 ends

with Native American archaeological sites in Southern California. The qualified archaeologist shall ensure that all other personnel are appropriately trained and qualified.

PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2146 recommending that the City Council adopt the Addendum to the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve Architectural Design Review No. ADR 23- 13 with a density bonus and Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 23-09 approving the revised project, “The Ivy Arcadia” for a new three- story senior assisted living care facility with 100 units and 114 beds at 1150 W. Colorado Boulevard.

If any Planning Commissioner or other interested party has any questions or comments regarding this matter prior to the May 14, 2024 hearing, please contact Lisa Flores , Deputy Director at (626) 574-5445, or by email at [email protected].

Approved:

Lisa L. Flores
Deputy Development Services Director

Attachment No. 1: Resolution No. 2146
Attachment No. 2: Aerial Photo and Zoning Information and Photos of the Subject Property
Attachment No. 3: Architectural Plans and Renderings
Attachment No. 4: Arborist Report
Attachment No. 5: Addendum to the Adopted Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and the Adopted MND. Technical studies to the Adopted MND are available at www.arcadiaca.gov/significantprojects

$WWDFKPHQW1R
$GGHQGXPWRWKH$GRSWHG,QLWLDO6WXG\
0LWLJDWHG1HJDWLYH'HFODUDWLRQ
01'
DQG
WKH$GRSWHG01'±7HFKQLFDO6WXGLHV

$SSHQGL[$
±(
FDQEHIRXQGDW

ZZZ$UFDGLD&$JRYVLJQLILFDQWSURMHFWV
$WWDFKPHQW1R
Addendum to the Artis Senior Living Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
LEAD AGENCY:

City of Arcadia
240 W. Huntington Drive
Arcadia, CA 91007
Contact: Edwin Arreola, Associate Planner
(626) 821-4334
PREPARED BY:

Michael Baker International
3760 Kilroy Airport Way, Suite 270
Long Beach, California 90806
April 2024

Addendum to the Artis Senior Living Project IS/MND April 2024 City of Arcadia Page 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION
On August 18, 2020, the City of Arcadia City Council adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration (2020 MND) for the Artis Senior Living Project, which was proposed at the southeastern corner of the intersection of Colorado Boulevard and Michillinda Avenue at 1150 West Colorado Boulevard in the City of Arcadia (see Figure 1). The Artis Senior Living Project involved the demolition of an approximately 13,000-square-foot building (previously occupied by a Coco’s Bakery and Restaurant) and the development of a new two-story, 44,192-square-foot senior/assisted living care facility with 80 senior housing units and on-site amenities, inclusive of a community center, a gallery, a café, a barber/beauty shop, and a small health center for the residents, and 58 parking spaces and one loading space (Approved Project).

The Project Applicant, O&I Development, LLC, is now proposing to develop the Project Site with a new 107,706-square-foot, three-story building containing 100 units (with 114 beds), which constitutes the Revised Project, known as The Ivy Arcadia. In considering whether to approve the Revised Project, the City, as the lead agency pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), is required to consider the environmental impacts of the Revised Project as compared to those of the Approved Project. Therefore, this addendum assesses the environmental impacts of the Revised Project as compared to those of the Approved Project in accordance with the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.

2.0 STATUTORY BACKGROUND
Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(c), once a project has been approved, the lead agency’s role in project approval is completed unless further discretionary approval on that project is required. Information appearing after an approval does not require reopening of that approval. If, after the project is approved, any of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a) occurs, a subsequent MND shall only be prepared by the public agency which grants the next discretionary approval for the project.

More specifically, CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 states the following:
(a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or

PROJECT SITE

MICHILLINDA AVEMICHILLINDA AVE

N AL TURA RDN AL TURA RD

VALIDO RDVALIDO RD

COLORADO BLVDCOLORADO BLVD

MONTE VISTA RDMONTE VISTA RD

VOLANTE DRVOLANTE DR

MONTE VERDE DRMONTE VERDE DR

E GREEN STE GREEN ST

ROSEMEAD BLVDROSEMEAD BLVD

CORTA CALLECORTA CALLE

FOOTHILL BLVDFOOTHILL BLVD

MOHAWK STMOHAWK ST

ELMA RDELMA RD

PALOMA DRPALOMA DR
Figure 1
Project Location Map

NOT TO SCALE
02/2024 • JN 198590
Source: Google Earth Pro, December 2023

THE IVY ARCADIA

ADDENDUM
Addendum to the Artis Senior Living Project IS/MND April 2024 City of Arcadia Page 3
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 states the following:
(a) The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.
(b) An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred.
(c) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR or adopted negative declaration. (d) The decision making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR or adopted negative declaration prior to making a decision on the project. (e) A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency’s findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence.

3.0 SUMMARY OF APPROVED PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Under the Approved Project, the existing, vacant building on-site, which was previously occupied by Coco’s Bakery and Restaurant, would be demolished, and associated landscaping and surface parking lot would be removed. However, the majority of the trees along the perimeter of the Project Site were proposed to be retained and incorporated into the Approved Project’s landscaping plan to continue to form a vegetative screen between the Project Site and the residential uses to the east and south. The Approved Project proposed to devel op a W-shaped senior living facility, which was planned to support memory care and assisted living services. This facility was proposed to be entirely Addendum to the Artis Senior Living Project IS/MND April 2024 City of Arcadia Page 4
dedicated to people afflicted with Alzheimer’s disease and related memory disorders. The Approved Project proposed a new two-story (with a maximum height of 37.5 feet), 44,192-square-foot building with 80 senior housing units and on-site amenities, inclusive of a community center, a gallery, a café, a barber/beauty shop, and a small health center for the residents. The Approved Project also proposed to include decorative landscaping, private walking paths, and an outdoor plaza on the west and south sides of the Project Site, which were proposed to be enclosed with an 8-foot-high wooden fence that would connect to the northwestern and northeastern corners of the building and extend to the southern property line. The Approved Project required a Minor Administrative Modification to allow the fence to exceed the maximum permitted height of 6 feet.

Under the Approved Project, vehicle parking was proposed to include 55 regular parking stalls and 4 parking stalls that comply with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Vehicular access to the new building was proposed to be from a single ingress/egress point on Colorado Boulevard, located at an existing ingress/egress point for the Project Site.

The Approved Project proposed to remove 18 of the 60 unprotected trees on-site, including 13 trees in the center of the Project Site around the existing building. Although no protected trees were proposed to be removed or irrevocably damaged during Project-related grading and construction, some minor damage to the protected tree root systems was anticipated. Accordingly, the Approved Project required a Tree Encroachment Permit and the implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2 to prevent substantial damage to on- and off-site protected trees.

4.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Existing Conditions
The Project Site consists of 2.82 acres of developed land in the northwestern portion of the City of Arcadia. The Project Site is located on the southeastern corner of the Colorado Boulevard and Michillinda Avenue intersection, immediately south of Interstate 210 (I-210/Foothill Freeway), as shown in Figure 1. The Project Site contains a vacant commercial building, previously occupied by Coco’s Bakery and Restaurant. The existing building, which comprises 13,088 square feet in total floor area, is a rectangular, one-story building located in the center of the Project Site. The building is surrounded on all sides by a surface parking lot with two driveway locations, one at the northeastern corner of the Project Site along Colorado Boulevard and another at the southwestern corner of the Project Site along Michillinda Avenue. Mature eucalyptus trees flank the western and eastern sides of the existing building. Additionally, there are decorative shrubs and turf along the northern, eastern, and western façades of the building, with one mature fern pine near its northeastern corner. Currently, there is a mix of trees along the perimeter of the Project Site, serving as a landscape buffer between the Project Site and neighboring streets to the north and west and between the Project Site and the residential neighborhoods to the east and south.

The Colorado Boulevard and Michillinda Avenue frontages are both improved with a sidewalk, curb and gutter, two streetlights along each street, two traffic signal poles with safety lights, and one curb ramp at the southeastern corner. Each frontage is characterized by decorative ground cover; mature trees; a short, white-painted cinderblock wall; and decorative shrubs located between the sidewalk and the property line.

The Project Site is designated in the City’s General Plan as Commercial (0.5 FAR) with a corresponding zoning of General Commercial (C-G).

Addendum to the Artis Senior Living Project IS/MND April 2024 City of Arcadia Page 5
Revised Project
Under the Revised Project, the Project Applicant is proposing a new 107,706-square-foot, three- story building (with a maximum height of 40 feet from the average grade of the building) containing 100 units of varying types, including studio, one-bedroom, and two-bedroom units for assisted living and private and shared studios for memory care, providing a total of 114 beds. As with the Approved Project, the Revised Project would support assisted living and memory care services, the latter of which would entirely be dedicated to people afflicted with Alzheimer’s disease and related memory disorders.

The first floor of the proposed building would comprise 14 units for assisted living and 30 units for memory care, front and rear lobbies, offices, a dining room and a café, a laundry room, a sensory wellness room, a reading room, and a sitting and music area, as well as separate open air courtyards for assisted living and memory care patients in the middle of the building, within 39,472 square feet of floor area. The second floor would comprise 36 units for assisted living, offices, a laundry room, and a staff lounge within 37,169 square feet of floor area. The third floor would comprise 20 units for assisted living, a dining room with an exhibition kitchen, a bar/lounge, an activity room, a media room, a fitness center with a physical therapy area, a beauty salon, and storage areas within 31,065 square feet of floor area.

In addition, an exterior patio for memory care patients and a workout seating area with outdoor workout equipment would be located along the southern boundary of the Project Site. A dog park and a bocce ball court would be located in the southeastern portion of the Project Site, as shown in Figure 2.

The proposed new building would feature a Cape Cod design with varied massing and materials with articulation on each of the building façades, similar in design to that of the Approved Project.

Conceptual renderings are shown in Figure 3.

The Revised Project would include multiple new sources of light, including pole-mounted LED security lighting in parking areas and the passenger drop-off area; path lighting on internal walkways; and accent lighting over building doorways.

Vehicle parking would include 61 parking spaces, comprising 3 parking spaces that comply with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 6 electric vehicle (EV) parking spaces, and 1 EV parking space that complies with ADA requirements. Parking would be located along the perimeter of the Project Site with one ADA-compliant and one ADA-compliant/EV parking spaces located near the northeastern corner of the proposed building, two ADA-compliant parking spaces near the northwestern corner by the main entrance, and six EV parking spaces in the parking lot along the eastern boundary. Vehicular access to the proposed building would be from the two existing driveways, one along Colorado Boulevard near the northeastern corner of the Project Site and another along Michillinda Avenue near the southwestern corner of the Project; these driveways would be reconstructed in the same general location to current City standards for ADA compliance. A porte cochere would be provided in front of the main entrance to the proposed building. A covered trash enclosure would be located along the southern boundary of the Project Site immediately adjacent to the Alzheimer exterior patio. An emergency generator would be located in the generator room on the first floor near the southwestern corner of the proposed building.

Figure 2
Revised Project Site Plan
Source: B. Hills Architecture, March 2024

NOT TO SCALE
03/2024 • JN 198590

THE IVY ARCADIA

ADDENDUM
Figure 3
Conceptual Renderings
Source: B. Hills Architecture, January 2024

NOT TO SCALE
02/2024 • JN 198590

THE IVY ARCADIA

ADDENDUM

Addendum to the Artis Senior Living Project IS/MND April 2024 City of Arcadia Page 8
In addition, a modular wetland, which is proposed in the southeastern corner of the Project Site, would be used to collect and treat surface water runoff from the Project Site prior to draining to the existing curb inlet and then to the existing storm drainage system to the east. With regard to wastewater, the Revised Project would connect to an existing 21-inch County of Los Angeles sewer main to the west along Michillinda Avenue via a new sewer lateral.

Regarding on-site trees, although the Revised Project would require the removal of 22 unprotected trees, the Revised Project would not only preserve the majority of trees along the perimeter of the Project Site, as proposed under the Approved Project, but would plant additional trees to completely screen the views of the proposed building from the residential uses to the east and south, as shown in Figure 4. The existing curb, gutter, and sidewalks along the Project Site’s Colorado Boulevard and Michillinda Avenue frontages would be replaced. In addition, the Revised Project would be required to dedicate 4 feet of the Project Site along both Colorado Boulevard and Michillinda Avenue to accommodate the widening of these two public rights-of-way along the Project Site’s frontages to 12 feet in width; however, the physical improvement would be implemented by the City and is not part of the Revised Project.

The Project Site’s General Plan land use designation and zoning allow for the development of the Revised Project through a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) as the Revised Project proposes a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.88, which exceeds the maximum permitted FAR of 0.5. Under the California Density Bonus Law, a project is entitled to receive a density bonus as a matter of right if it meets the requirements of California Government Code Section 65915. In addition, pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 713, which was signed by Governor Newsom in October 2023, a local government cannot apply any development standard that precludes the construction of a development seeking a density bonus. Accordingly, pursuant to Government Code Section 65915(b)(1)(C) and SB 713, as the Revised Project is a senior citizen housing development, the Revised Project is entitled to receive a density bonus and deviate from the maximum permitted FAR, which would otherwise physically preclude the construction of the Revised Project based on the maximum allowable residential density under the General Plan land use and zoning designations. The Revised Project would comply with all other applicable development standards.

Construction of the Revised Project would occur over a 20-month period, commencing in the fall of 2024 and concluding in the summer of 2026.

The Revised Project would require the following City approvals:
x Adoption of the Addendum to the IS/MND
x Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 23-09
x Architectural Design Review No. ADR 23-13 with a Density Bonus x Other discretionary and ministerial permits and approvals that may be deemed necessary, including, but not limited to grading permit, excavation permit, dedications, and building permits

Figure 4
Conceptual Landscape Plan
Source: O & I Development, January 2024
02/2024 • JN 198590

THE IVY ARCADIA

ADDENDUM

NOT TO SCALE
Addendum to the Artis Senior Living Project IS/MND April 2024 City of Arcadia Page 10

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
This section assesses the environmental effects of the Revised Project and compares them to the environmental effects of the previously Approved Project as disclosed in the adopted 2020 MND to determine if any of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent MND have occurred. This section includes the environmental topics that were included in the 2020 MND.

5.1 A ESTHETICS
Scenic Vistas and Scenic Resources
According to the 2020 MND, there are no scenic vistas or scenic highways in the Project vicinity.

Views of the San Gabriel Mountains are only available from main arterial roadways in the City that are oriented north and south. As such, motorists traveling northbound on Michillinda Avenue (along the western boundary of the Project Site) and North Altura Road (one block east of the Project Site) have distant views of the San Gabriel Mountains, which are partially obstructed by existing mature trees and existing development along both of these streets, I-210, and the overpass over Michillinda Avenue, as well as utility poles, traffic signals, and business signs on either side of Michillinda Avenue. As a result of these existing impediments, views of the San Gabriel Mountains are only available straight north and are obstructed to the northeast and northwest and would not be significantly affected by the Approved Project. As related to scenic resources, the existing mature trees along the perimeter of the Project Site, the majority of which are considered protected by the City, could be considered scenic resources. These protected trees would be preserved by the Approved Project to continue to provide a visual barrier between the Project Site and surrounding uses and contribute to maintaining the existing visual character of the Project area. Accordingly, the 2020 MND determined that the Approved Project would have a less-than-significant impact on scenic vistas and scenic resources.

The Revised Project proposes the same land use type as the Approved Project within the boundaries of the Project Site. However, the Revised Project would involve a larger development and a slightly taller building than analyzed in the 2020 MND. Nonetheless, as with the Approved Project, views of the San Gabriel Mountains would not be significantly affected by the Revised Project given the existing intervening features that already obstruct such views and the remaining north-facing view corridors that would not be affected by the Revised Project. In addition, because the Revised Project would install additional trees along the eastern and southern boundaries of the Project Site to completely screen the views between the Project Site and the immediately adjacent residences, the increase in building height proposed under the Revised Project would not create an impact beyond those identified in the 2020 MND. Accordingly, as with the Approved Project, the Revised Project would have a less-than-significant impact on scenic vistas and scenic resources. Therefore, there are no material changes in circumstances, and the Revised Project would not result in any new significant or substantially more severe environmental impacts that would affect the less-than-significant impact determination in the 2020 MND.

Conflict with Zoning Governing Scenic Quality
According to the 2020 MND, the Approved Project would be consistent with underlying City zoning upon approval of a CUP. Additionally, because the Arcadia Development Code does not contain any specific zoning regulations that govern scenic quality other than the City’s Tree Preservation Addendum to the Artis Senior Living Project IS/MND April 2024 City of Arcadia Page 11
Ordinance, the impacts discussed focused on the protected trees on the Project Site, which would be preserved in place to provide visual barriers between the Project Site and surrounding uses and would maintain the existing visual character of the Project vicinity. Therefore, the Approved Project would be consistent with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality, and impacts were determined to be less than significant.

As with the Approved Project, the Revised Project would preserve the protected trees on the Project Site and would install additional trees along the eastern and southern boundaries of the Project Site to completely screen the views between the Project Site and the immediately adjacent residences and maintain the existing visual character of the Project vicinity. Given the approval of the Zone Change that eliminated the Architectural Design Overlay Zone and the Automobile Parking Overlay Zone from the Project Site under the Approved Project, the Revised Project would not require any additional zone change and, therefore, would be consistent with applicable zoning regulations, including the height limit of 40 feet for the C-G zoning designation, other regulations governing scenic quality, and the density bonus law. Thus, impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, there are no material changes in circumstances, and the Revised Project would not result in any new significant or substantially more severe environmental impacts that would affect the less-than-significant impact determination in the 2020 MND.

Light and Glare
According to the 2020 MND, the Approved Project would contain multiple new sources of nighttime lighting, such as security lighting on internal walkways, lights in the parking areas and at building entrances, and accent lights along walking paths adjacent to landscaped areas.

However, the Approved Project would be required to demonstrate compliance with Section 9103.01.120(D) of the Arcadia Development Code as part of the City’s design review process, which limits potential light and glare impacts by requiring that lights be directed downward and shielded/recessed to avoid spillage to adjacent properties and prohibits flashing or roof-mounted lights that are directed outward. This Arcadia Development Code section also prohibits light fixtures that are inappropriate for the scale, intensity, and height of the use they are serving.

Additionally, the Approved Project would not utilize glossy or reflective construction materials that would generate significant amounts of glare off-site. Accordingly, the 2020 MND determined that the Approved Project would not generate excessive light or glare and, by complying with lighting regulations in the Arcadia Development Code, would result in a less-than-significant impact on day or nighttime views in the Project area.

The Revised Project proposes the same land use type as the Approved Project and would not include land uses that would require more intense sources of light or building materials that would create glare beyond those identified for the Approved Project. As with the Approved Project, the Revised Project would be required to comply with the same regulations that would minimize impacts related to light and glare. Accordingly, as with the Approved Project, the Revised Project would not generate excessive light or glare and, by complying with lighting regulations in the Arcadia Development Code, would result in a less-than-significant impact on day or nighttime views in the Project area. Therefore, there are no material changes in circumstances, and the Revised Project would not result in any new significant or substantially more severe environmental impacts that would affect the less-than-significant impact determination in the 2020 MND.

Addendum to the Artis Senior Living Project IS/MND April 2024 City of Arcadia Page 12

5.2 A GRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
According to the 2020 MND, the Project Site and the surrounding area are not mapped as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance or subject to the Williamson Act contract. The Project Site is currently developed with an existing vacant building; thus, no agricultural uses, forestland, or timberland occur on the Project Site or the surrounding areas, and, as such, none of these uses would be converted to non-agricultural or non-forest uses as a result of the Approved Project. In addition, the Project Site is zoned as C-G and designated as Commercial in the City’s General Plan. Accordingly, the Approved Project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause the rezoning of, farmland, forestland, or timberland. Therefore, the 2020 MND determined that development of the Approved Project would have no impact on agriculture or forestry resources.

As with the Approved Project, the Revised Project would have no impact on agriculture and forestry resources. Therefore, there are no material changes in circumstances, and the Revised Project would not result in any new significant or substantially more severe environmental impacts that would affect the no-impact determination in the 2020 MND.

5.3 A IR QUALITY
Consistency with Plans
According to the 2020 MND, the Approved Project would result in emissions below the regional and localized emissions thresholds established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and, as such, would not have the potential to cause or affect a violation of the ambient air quality standards or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) emissions reductions goals. In addition, because the Approved Project is consistent with the underlying zoning and General Plan land use designation for the Project Site, the population and employment growth associated with the Approved Project would have been anticipated and planned for in the City’s General Plan, on which the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) bases its growth projections for the City. As the SCAQMD has incorporated these same projections into the 2016 AQMP, the 2020 MND concluded that the Approved Project would be consistent with the 2016 AQMP and have a less-than-significant impact related to consistency with the 2016 AQMP.

Since the adoption of the 2020 MND, the SCAQMD has adopted the 2022 AQMP, the air quality plan applicable to the Revised Project. The Revised Project would involve a slightly larger development than analyzed in the 2020 MND. In addition, because the restaurant occupying the existing building closed after the adoption of the 2020 MND, the trip credit from the restaurant use is no longer applied.

Accordingly, the Revised Project would generate more trips and emissions compared to the Approved Project. However, as with the Approved Project, construction and operation of the Revised Project would result in emissions below the regional and localized emissions thresholds established by the SCAQMD, as shown in Tables 1, 2, and 3, in the discussion of Criteria Pollutants Emissions, below.

As such, the Revised Project would not have the potential to cause or affect a violation of the ambient air quality standards or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or 2022 AQMP emissions reductions goals. In addition, because the Revised Project is also consistent with the underlying zoning and General Plan land use designation for the Project Site, the Revised Project would also be consistent with the 2022 AQMP and have a less-than-significant impact related to consistency with the 2022 AQMP. Therefore, there are no material changes in circumstances, and the Revised Project Addendum to the Artis Senior Living Project IS/MND April 2024 City of Arcadia Page 13
would not result in any new significant or substantially more severe environmental impacts that would affect the less-than-significant impact determination in the 2020 MND.

Criteria Pollutant Emissions
According to the 2020 MND, construction of the Approved Project, which would take approximately 20 months to complete, would result in the generation of fugitive dust and pollutant emissions, resulting in substantial short-term increases in air pollutants. Similarly, operation of the Approved Project would result in long-term air quality impacts associated with mobile source emissions from traffic generated by the Approved Project and emissions from stationary area and energy sources. As mentioned previously, a trip credit was applied from the restaurant use for operational emissions. However, the 2020 MND determined that that construction and operation of the Approved Project would not exceed daily regional SCAQMD thresholds for any of the criteria pollutants analyzed and that impacts would be less than significant.

As with the Approved Project, construction and operation of the Revised Project would result in the short-term and long-term generation of criteria pollutants, respectively. As described in Section 4.0, Project Description, of this addendum, construction for the Revised Project would occur approximately over 20 months. Since the Revised Project would involve a larger development than analyzed in the 2020 MND and the trip credit from the restaurant use is no longer applied, the Revised Project would generate more trips and emissions compared to the Approved Project.

However, as with the Approved Project, construction and operation of the Revised Project would result in emissions below the regional and localized emissions thresholds established by the SCAQMD, as shown in Tables 1 and 2 . As such, the Revised Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the region is non- attainment under California Ambient Air Quality Standards (i.e., ozone [O 3], respirable particulate
matter [PM10], and fine particulate matter [PM2.5]) and the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (i.e., O3 and PM2.5). Therefore, there are no material changes in circumstances, and the Revised Project would not result in any new significant or substantially more severe environmental impacts that would affect the less-than-significant impact determination in the 2020 MND.

Table 1
Revised Project Short-Term Construction Emissions
Emissions Source Pollutant (pounds/day)a,b
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Year 1 Construction Emissionsb 5.65 53.3 54.2 0.08 6.08 3.71 Year 2 Construction Emissionsb 3.27 29.5 37 0.06 5.59 2.83 Year 3 Construction Emissionsb 35.4 11.4 19.9 0.03 1.63 0.66 Maximum Daily Emissions 35.4 53.3 54.2 0.08 6.08 3.71
SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Notes: ROG = reactive organic gases; NO x = nitrogen oxide; CO = carbon monoxide; SO2 = sulfur dioxide; PM10 = respirable particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter a Emissions were calculated using CalEEMod version 2022.1. Higher emissions between summer and winter are presented as a conservative analysis.
b Modeling assumptions include compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403, which requires properly maintaining mobile and other construction equipment, replacing ground cover in disturbed areas quickly, watering exposed surfaces twice daily, covering stockpiles with tarps, watering all haul roads twice daily, and limiting speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour.

Source: Refer to Appendix A for assumptions used in this analysis.

Addendum to the Artis Senior Living Project IS/MND April 2024 City of Arcadia Page 14
Table 2
Revised Project Long-Term Operational Emissions
Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Pollutants
According to the 2020 MND, sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the Project Site include residential uses adjacent to the east and south, which could be potentially affected by air pollutant emissions generated during on-site construction activities. However, the 2020 MND determined that construction emissions resulting from the Approved Project would not exceed the localized significance thresholds (LSTs) established by the SCAQMD for these existing residences.

According to the SCAQMD LST methodology, LSTs would apply to the operational phase of a project if the project included stationary sources or attracted mobile sources that may spend extended periods queuing and idling at the site (e.g., warehouse or transfer facilities). The Approved Project does not include such uses. Therefore, the 2020 MND determined that impacts associated with localized emissions from the construction and operation of the Approved Project would be less than significant.

As with the Approved Project, sensitive receptors to the east and south of the Project Site may be potentially affected by air pollutant emissions generated during on-site construction activities of the Revised Project. Although the Revised Project would involve a slightly larger development than analyzed in the 2020 MND, construction of the Revised Project would not exceed the localized emissions thresholds for any criteria pollutants, as shown in Table 3. Additionally, the Revised Project proposes the same land use type as the Approved Project and would not include uses that may spend extended periods queuing and idling on the Project Site. Similar to the Approved Project, impacts associated with localized emissions from the construction and Emissions Source
Pollutant (pounds/day)a
ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Project Summer Emissions
Mobile 0.95 0.67 7.72 0.02 1.66 0.43
Area 3.08 1.55 6.31 0.01 0.12 0.12
Energy 0.02 0.28 0.12 <0.01 0.02 0.02
Total Summer Emissionsb 4.05 2.50 14.10 0.03 1.80 0.57
SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Project Winter Emissions
Mobile 0.94 0.74 7.15 0.02 1.66 0.43
Area 2.58 1.49 0.64 0.01 0.12 0.12
Energy 0.02 0.28 0.12 <0.01 0.02 0.02
Total Winter Emissionsb 3.53 2.51 7.90 0.03 1.80 0.57
SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Notes: ROG = reactive organic gases; NO x = nitrogen oxide; CO = carbon monoxide; SO2 = sulfur dioxide; PM10 = respirable particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter a Emissions were calculated using CalEEMod version 2022.1. b The numbers may be slightly off due to rounding.

Source: Refer to Appendix A for assumptions used in this analysis.

Addendum to the Artis Senior Living Project IS/MND April 2024 City of Arcadia Page 15
operation of the Revised Project would be less than significant. Therefore, there are no material changes in circumstances, and the Revised Project would not result in any new significant or substantially more severe environmental impacts that would affect the less-than-significant impact determination in the 2020 MND.

Table 3
Revised Project Construction Localized Emissions
Odor and Other Emissions
According to the 2020 MND, the Approved Project would not include any uses identified by the SCAQMD as being associated with odors. However, construction activities associated with the Approved Project may generate other e missions and detectable odors from heavy-duty equipment exhaust and architectural coatings; these construction-related emissions and odors would be short term in nature and cease upon completion of construction. In addition, the Approved Project would be required to comply with existing regulations that reduce detectable odors from architectural coating application and heavy-duty equipment exhaust by limiting construction equipment idling time. Accordingly, the 2020 MND determined that the Approved Project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people, and impacts would be less than significant.

The Revised Project proposes the same land use type as the Approved Project and would not include land uses identified by the SCAQMD as being associated with odors. As with the Approved Project, construction activities associated with the Revised Project may generate other emissions and detectable odors from heavy-duty equipment exhaust and architectural coatings.

However, as with the Approved Project, these construction-related emissions and odors would be Maximum Emissions
Pollutant (pounds/day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Year 1a 24.90 21.70 3.60 2.11
Year 2b 16.30 17.90 3.48 2.00
Year 3c 9.85 13.00 0.38 0.35
Maximum Daily Emissionsd 24.90 21.70 3.60 2.11
LST Screening Thresholde 89 623 5 3
Thresholds Exceeded? No No No No
Note: NOx = nitrogen oxide; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter a Maximum on-site daily emissions occur during demolition phase for NO X, and CO, and during grading phase for PM10, and PM2.5 in Year 1.
b Maximum on-site daily emissions occur during grading phase for NO X, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 in Year 2. c Maximum on-site daily emissions occur during building construction phase for NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 in Year 3. d The maximum daily construction emissions includes fugitive dust control measures required by SCAQMD Rule 403, which includes the following: properly maintain mobile and other construction equipment; replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly; water exposed surfaces twice daily; cover stockpiles with tarps; water all haul roads twice daily; and limit speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. e The LST Screening Threshold was determined using Appendix C of the SCAQMD Final Localized Significant Threshold Methodology guidance document for pollutants NO X, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. The Screening Threshold was based on the anticipated daily acreage disturbance for construction (one acre per day), the distance to sensitive receptors (adjacent to the Project Site, as such 25-meter threshold was used), and the source receptor area (SRA 9).

Source: Refer to Appendix A for detailed model data.

Addendum to the Artis Senior Living Project IS/MND April 2024 City of Arcadia Page 16
short term in nature and would cease upon completion of construction. In addition, the Revised Project would also be required to comply with existing regulations that reduce detectable odors from architectural coating application and heavy-duty equipment exhaust. As with the Approved Project, the Revised Project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) that would adversely affect a substantial number of people, and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, there are no material changes in circumstances, and the Revised Project would not result in any new significant or substantially more severe environmental impacts that would affect the less-than-significant impact determination in the 2020 MND.

5.4 B IOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Sensitive Species
According to the 2020 MND, due to the disturbed nature of the Project Site and lack of native habitat to species known to occur in the City of Arcadia, it was determined that the Project Site would not support special-status species listed as threatened or endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). In addition, the Arcadia General Plan does not identify any sensitive or special-status species beyond the protected trees existing on-si te as described below under Local Biological Resources Policies/Ordinances. Therefore, the 2020 MND determined that the Approved Project would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modification, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species and that impacts would be less than significant.

As with the Approved Project, development of the Revised Project would occur within the boundaries of the Project Site, where no sensitive or special-status species are known to occur.

Accordingly, the Revised Project would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modification, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species, and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, there are no material changes in circumstances, and the Revised Project would not result in any new significant or substantially more severe environmental impacts that would affect the less-than-significant impact determination in the 2020 MND.

Riparian Habitat, Wetlands, and Conservation Plans
According to the 2020 MND, the Project Site does not support any riparian habitat, sensitive communities, or wetlands, and there are no adopted, approved, or proposed habitat conservation plans, natural community conservation plans, or other approved local, regional, or State conservation plans that cover habitats located in the City. Therefore, the 2020 MND determined that development of the Approved Project would have no impact on riparian habitat, sensitive communities, or wetlands or related to such conservation plans.

As with the Approved Project, development of the Revised Project would occur within the boundaries of the Project Site, where no riparian habitat, sensitive communities, or wetlands or applicable conservation plans have been identified. Accordingly, the Revised Project would have no impact on any riparian habitat, other sensitive natural communities, or wetlands or related to such conservation plans. Therefore, there are no material changes in circumstances, and the Revised Project would not result in any new significant or substantially more severe environmental impacts that would affect the no-impact determination in the 2020 MND.

Addendum to the Artis Senior Living Project IS/MND April 2024 City of Arcadia Page 17
Migratory Wildlife
According to the 2020 MND, since the Project Site has been highly disturbed and is surrounded by developed, urban land uses, the Approved Project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. However, 72 trees, comprising 12 protected and 60 unprotected trees, were identified on-site, which could provide habitat to animals capable of flight. According to the 2020 MND, the existing building, on-site trees, and ornamental landscaping could provide suitable roosting and nesting habitat for bird species. Of the suitable habitat identified, the Approved Project would remove 18 unprotected trees, the existing building, and other existing landscaping. As such, the 2020 MND determined that, while migratory bird species are considered highly mobile, the possible removal of suitable roosting and nesting habitat would result in the potential for minor impacts to bird species. To reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level, the 2020 MND identified the following mitigation measure:

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.

Development of the Revised Project would require the removal of the existing building, 22 unprotected trees, and ornamental landscaping. Although the Revised Project would remove four additional trees when compared to the Approved Project, with implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 required for the Approved Project, development of the Revised Project would not result in impacts to migratory bird species beyond those identified for the Approved Project.

Therefore, there are no material changes in circumstances, and the Revised Project would not result in any new significant or substantially more severe environmental impacts to migratory wildlife that would affect the determination of less-than-significant impact with mitigation in the 2020 MND.

Local Biological Resources Policies/Ordinances
According to the 2020 MND, there were 72 trees located on the Project Site, 12 of which were considered protected under the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance with all but two considered to be in good health. Four additional protected trees were identified off-site but with canopies that encroach onto the Project Site. The Approved Project would not remove any of these protected trees but would remove 18 unprotected trees to accommodate the proposed development. Of the 16 protected trees that are on or adjacent to the Project Site, the 12 on-site trees would experience some light grading within their immediate area. While the Protected Tree Report prepared for the Approved Project determined that the proposed development would not adversely affect the long- Addendum to the Artis Senior Living Project IS/MND April 2024 City of Arcadia Page 18
term viability of the protected trees on or adjacent to the Project Site, some minor damage to the protected tree root systems was anticipated during construction. To prevent substantial damage to on- and off-site protected trees, meet the requirements of the Tree Preservation Ordinance, and ensure that impact to protected trees would be reduced to a less-than-significant level, the 2020 MND identified the following mitigation measure:

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.

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.

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

The tree report that was prepared for the 2020 MND was updated in April 2024 to reflect the Revised Project. As with the previous tree report, the April 2024 tree report also identified 72 trees on the Project Site, 12 of which are considered protected under the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance with all but three (one more tree than previously identified) considered to be in good health. As with the previous tree report, four additional protected trees are identified off-site but with canopies that encroach onto the Project Site. Development of the Revised Project would require the removal of four additional trees, for a total of 22 unprotected trees, and light grading within the immediate area of the protected trees, which may result in minor damage to the root systems.

However, as with the Approved Project, the Revised Project would comply with the Tree Preservation Ordinance and would implement the previously proposed mitigation measure to reduce impacts to Addendum to the Artis Senior Living Project IS/MND April 2024 City of Arcadia Page 19
protected trees. With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2 required for the Approved Project, development of the Revised Project would not result in impacts to protected trees beyond those identified for the Approved Project.
1 Therefore, there are no material changes in circumstances, and the Revised Project would not result in any new significant or substantially more severe environmental impacts that would affect the determination of less-than-significant impact with mitigation in the 2020 MND.

5.5 C ULTURAL RESOURCES
Historical Resources
According to the 2020 MND, no historical resources were identified on the Project Site as the existing building on-site does not meet the age requirement for eligibility listing in in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). Similarly, there are no cultural resources listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR within the immediate vicinity of the Project Site. Therefore, the 2020 MND determined that, because physical alterations associated with development of the Approved Project would not extend beyond the Project Site, the Approved Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, and no impact to historical resources would occur.

As with the Approved Project, development of the Revised Project would occur within the boundaries of the Project Site, where no historical resources or immediately adjacent resources have been identified. Accordingly, the Revised Project would have no impact on historical resources. Therefore, there are no material changes in circumstances, and the Revised Project would not result in any new significant or substantially more severe environmental impacts that would affect the no-impact determination in the 2020 MND.

Archaeological Resources
According to the 2020 MND, no archaeological resources were identified on the Project Site or within a quarter mile of the Project Site; further, the site sensitivity for subsurface archaeological resources was considered low because the Project Site has been developed and redeveloped.

However, the 2020 MND determined that the potential exists for unanticipated discovery of archaeological resources during ground-disturbing activities for the Approved Project. To reduce the impact of the Approved Project on archaeological resources to a less-than-significant level, the 2020 MND identified the following mitigation measure:

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 Hist orical 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

1 Arbor Care, Inc., Protected Tree Report: Tree Survey, Encroachment, Protection and Mitigation for 1150 W.

Colorado Boulevard, Arcadia, CA 91006, April 2024.

Addendum to the Artis Senior Living Project IS/MND April 2024 City of Arcadia Page 20
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.

As with the Approved Project, development of the Revised Project would result in ground- disturbing activities during construction and, as such, would result in potential impacts related to unanticipated discovery of archaeological resources. With implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 required for the Approved Project, development of the Revised Project would not result in impacts to archaeological resources beyond those identified for the Approved Project. Therefore, there are no material changes in circumstances, and the Revised Project would not result in any new significant or substantially more severe environmental impacts that would affect the determination of less-than-significant impact with mitigation in the 2020 MND.

Human Remains
According to the 2020 MND, the Approved Project would not likely disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries given that the Cultural Resources Identification Memorandum prepared for the Approved Project found no indication of any past human burial activities on or near the Project Site. However, the 2020 MND determined that the potential exists to uncover buried human remains during construction-related earth-moving activities. Nonetheless, the Approved Project would be required to comply with the requirements of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 related to the proper protocol to which the Approved Project must adhere in the event that buried human remains are discovered.

Accordingly, the 2020 MND determined that, through compliance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, impacts of the Approved Project related to the disturbance of human remains would be less than significant.

As with the Approved Project, development of the Revised Project would include construction- related earth-moving activities and, as such, would result in potential impacts related to unanticipated uncovering of buried human remains. Through compliance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, development of the Revised Project would not result in impacts to human remains beyond those identified for the Approved Project. Therefore, there are no material changes in circumstances, and the Revised Project would not result in any new significant or substantially more severe environmental impacts that would affect the less-than- significant impact determination in the 2020 MND.

5.6 E NERGY
Consumption of Energy Resources
According to the 2020 MND, the Approved Project’s net energy consumption (i.e., minus the energy consumption of the Coco’s Bakery and Restaurant that was in operation at the time) would constitute an approximate 0.0004-percent reduction from Los Angeles County’s typical annual electricity consumption and an approximate 0.0007-percent reduction from Los Angeles County’s typical annual natural gas consumption as a result of the Approved Project’s compliance with Title 24 standards, which provide efficiency standards related to various building features, including appliances, water and space heating and cooling equipment, building insulation and roofing, and lighting. Implementation of Title 24 standards significantly reduces energy usage. In addition, the Approved Project would generate a net decrease of approximately 374 daily trips when compared to the previous use on-site (i.e., Coco’s Restaurant). As a result, the Approved Project’s operational Addendum to the Artis Senior Living Project IS/MND April 2024 City of Arcadia Page 21
vehicle consumption would constitute an approximately 0.0002-percent reduction from Los Angeles County’s fuel consumption. With regard to construction, the Approved Project’s construction fuel consumption would increase Los Angeles County’s consumption by 0.0069 percent. However, the 2020 MND determined that since the construction and operation of the Approved Project would not have any unusual characteristics that would result in excessive consumption of electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuel, the Approved Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources in comparison to other similar developments in the region, and impacts related to energy resources would be less than significant.

Since the adoption of the 2020 MND, the restaurant occupying the existing building has closed, and the building has remained vacant. As such, the trip credit from the restaurant use is no longer applicable to the Revised Project. In addition, the Revised Project would also involve a slightly larger development than analyzed in the 2020 MND. Accordingly, the Revised Project would result in higher energy consumption than the Approved Project. As shown in Table 4, the Revised Project’s energy usage would constitute an approximate 0.0006-percent increase over Los Angeles County’s typical annual electricity consumption, an approximate 0.0004 percent increase over Los Angeles County’s typical annual natural gas consumption, and an approximate 0.4351-percent increase over Los Angeles County’s fuel consumption. The Revised Project’s construction off-road and construction on-road fuel consumption would increase the County’s consumption by 0.1307 percent and 0.2683 percent, respectively. These increases would be considered nominal compared to the County’s annual energy consumption.

Table 4
Revised Project and Countywide Energy Consumption

ENERGY TYPE

PROJECT
ANNUAL
ENERGY
CONSUMPTIONa

LOS ANGELES

COUNTY ANNUAL
ENERGY
CONSUMPTIONb

PERCENTAGE

INCREASE
COUNTYWIDEb
Electricity Consumption 386 MWh 68,484,956 MWh 0.0006
Natural Gas Consumption 11,107 Therms 2,820,285,935
Therms

0.0004
Fuel Consumption
Construction Off-road Consumptionc 41,852 Gallons 32,013,160 Gallons 0.1307 Construction On-road Consumption 29,661 Gallons 11,054,467 Gallons 0.2683 Operational Automotive Fuel
Consumption3 45,837 Gallons 10,533,272 Gallons 0.4351
Notes: MWh = mega-watt hours
a As modeled in CalEEMod version 2022.1.
b The Revised Project’s increases in electricity and natural gas consumption are compared to the total consumption in Los Angeles County in 2022. The Revised Project’s increase in construction and operational automotive fuel consumption is compared with the projected countywide heavy-duty vehicle/diesel fuel consumption and on-road automotive fuel consumption in 2024 (the year when construction starts). Los Angeles County electricity consumption data source: California Energy Commission, Electricity Consumption by County, http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx, accessed December 27, 2023.

Los Angeles County natural gas consumption data source: California Energy Commission, Gas Consumption by County, http://www.ecdms.energy. ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx, accessed December 27, 2023. c Project fuel consumption calculated based on CalEEMod results. Countywide fuel consumption is from the California Air Resources Board EMFAC2021 model.

Refer to Appendix A for assumptions used in this analysis.

Addendum to the Artis Senior Living Project IS/MND April 2024 City of Arcadia Page 22
As with the Approved Project, because the Revised Project would not have any unusual characteristics that would result in excessive operational energy consumption associated with electricity and natural gas usage and vehicular travel, the Revised Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources in comparison to other similar developments in the region, and impacts related to energy resources would be less than significant. Therefore, there are no material changes in circumstances, and the Revised Project would not result in any new significant or substantially more severe environmental impacts that would affect the less-than-significant impact determination in the 2020 MND.

Consistency with Plans
According to the 2020 MND, the Approved Project’s overall energy efficiency measures, such as the use of energy-efficient appliances, heaters, and heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems; use of water-efficient landscaping (which would reduce the electricity used for water transport and treatment); and incorporation of building code-mandated energy-efficient design features, would generally support the energy reduction goals established in the City’s 2019 Energy Action Plan. The Approved Project’s energy consumption would be typical of senior living development projects in Southern California and would not result in an increased energy demand beyond the capacity of Southern California Edison (SCE) or Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas). Accordingly, the 2020 MND determined that the Approved Project would not conflict with or obstruct any plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and no impact would occur.

The Revised Project would involve a slightly larger development than analyzed in the 2020 MND.

However, as with the Approved Project, the Revised Project would use energy-efficient appliances, heaters, HVAC systems, and water-efficient landscaping (which would reduce the electricity used for water transport and treatment) and incorporate building code-mandated energy efficient design features that would generally support the energy reduction goals established in the City’s 2019 Energy Action Plan. As with the Approved Project, the Revised Project’s energy consumption would be typical of senior living development projects in Southern California and would not have any unusual characteristics that would result in excessive energy consumption beyond the capacity of SCE or SoCalGas. Similarly, the Revised Project would not conflict with or obstruct any plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and no impact would occur. Therefore, there are no material changes in circumstances, and the Revised Project would not result in any new significant or substantially more severe environmental impacts that would affect the no-impact determination in the 2020 MND.

5.7 G EOLOGY AND SOILS
Fault Rupture, Seismic Ground Shaking, Liquefaction, Unstable Soils, and Expansive Soils According to the 2020 MND, the Project Site is near the Sierra Madre and Raymond Fault zones; thus, it is in an area subject to strong ground shaking due to these and other regional faults. The Project Site is also located within a liquefaction zone due to the relatively shallow groundwater depth at the Project Site. However, the Project Site is located outside Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault and Hazard Management Zones. The Project Site is also located in an area with potential to contain expansive soils. The Approved Project would be required to adhere to building regulations and seismic and building design standards that dictate seismic safety, earthquake- resistant structural design, and structural integrity of structures to minimize the impacts resulting from ground shaking, liquefaction, unstable soils (which may result in lateral spreading, Addendum to the Artis Senior Living Project IS/MND April 2024 City of Arcadia Page 23
subsidence, or ground collapse), and expansive soils. Accordingly, with the Approved Project’s adherence to applicable building regulations and seismic and building design standards, the 2020 MND determined that the Approved Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, lateral spreading, subsidence, ground collapse, and expansive soils, and that impacts of the Approved Project related to these issues would be less than significant.

As with the Approved Project, development of the Revised Project would be required to adhere to the same building regulations and seismic and building design standards that would minimize the impacts resulting from ground shaking, liquefaction, unstable soils, and expansive soils. With adherence to such regulations and standards, the Revised Project would not result in impacts related to these issues beyond those identified for the Approved Project. Therefore, there are no material changes in circumstances, and the Revised Project would not result in any new significant or substantially more severe environmental impacts that would affect the less-than- significant impact determination in the 2020 MND.

Landslides
According to the 2020 MND and the City’s General Plan Safety Element, the Project Site is not located within an earthquake-induced landslide hazard area. Therefore, the 2020 MND determined that the Approved Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides, and no impact related to landslides would occur.

As with the Approved Project, development of the Revised Project would occur within the boundaries of the Project Site, where no earthquake-induced landslide hazard area has been identified. Accordingly, development of the Revised Project would have no impact related to landslides. Therefore, there are no material changes in circumstances, and the Revised Project would not result in any new significant or substantially more severe environmental impacts that would affect the no-impact determination in the 2020 MND.

Soil Erosion/Loss of Topsoil
According to the 2020 MND, because of the extensive ground alterations that have occurred on- site from the development of the existing building (previously occupied by a Coco’s Bakery and Restaurant) and the prior uses consisting of the Eaton’s Santa Anita Hotel and Restaurant, it is unlikely that any native topsoil remains in the near surface, and, thus, no impact involving the loss of topsoil would occur. However, during construction of the Approved Project, the uncovered soils may become exposed to wind or rainstorms and thus be subject to erosion. Nonetheless, to prevent stormwater-related erosion, the Approved Project would be required to comply with existing regulations, including, but not limited to, SCAQMD Rule 403 to reduce wind erosion the County of Los Angeles’ National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit requirements to reduce stormwater erosion. The Approved Project would also prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to establish erosion and sedimentation controls as required by the City. Accordingly, with the Approved Project’s compliance with existing regulations, the 2020 MND determined that the potential for soil erosion during construction activity would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

Addendum to the Artis Senior Living Project IS/MND April 2024 City of Arcadia Page 24
As with the Approved Project, development of the Revised Project would be required to comply with the same regulations that would minimize the potential for soil erosion. Through compliance with existing regulations, development of the Revised Project would not result in substantial soil erosion beyond those identified for the Approved Project. Therefore, there are no material changes in circumstances, and the Revised Project would not result in any new significant or substantially more severe environmental impacts that would affect the less-than-significant impact determination in the 2020 MND.

Paleontological Resources
According to the 2020 MND, no paleontological resources were identified on the Project Site.

However, the 2020 MND determined that the potential exists for encountering vertebrate paleontological resources during grading activities for the Approved Project. To avoid the potential destruction of paleontological resources and ensure proper identification and treatment of such resources that may be discovered during grading, the 2020 MND identified the following mitigation measure to reduce the potential impact of the Approved Project to paleontological resources to a less-than-significant level:

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.

As with the Approved Project, development of the Revised Project would include ground- disturbing activities during construction and, as such, would result in potential impacts related to the unanticipated discovery of paleontological resources. With implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 required for the Approved Project, development of the Revised Project would not result in impacts to paleontological resources beyond those identified for the Approved Project. Therefore, there are no material changes in circumstances, and the Revised Project would not result in any new significant or substantially more severe environmental impacts that would affect the determination of less-than-significant impact with mitigation in the 2020 MND.

5.8 G REENHOUSE GAS (GHG) EMISSIONS
According to the 2020 MND, the Approved Project would result in a net decrease in daily trips, thereby causing a net decrease in GHG emissions over existing conditions. Accordingly, the 2020 MND determined that the Approved Project would generate levels of GHG emissions that would have a less-than-significant impact on the environment. In addition, according to the 2020 MND, the Approved Project would be consistent with the plans, policies, regulations, and GHG reduction actions/strategies outlined in the 2017 CARB Scoping Plan and SCAG 2016-2040 RTP/SCS.

Therefore, the Approved Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation Addendum to the Artis Senior Living Project IS/MND April 2024 City of Arcadia Page 25
of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing emissions of GHGs, and impacts would be less than significant.

The Revised Project would involve a slightly larger development than analyzed in the 2020 MND.

In addition, because the restaurant occupying the existing building closed and has remained vacant since the adoption of the 2020 MND, the trip credit from the restaurant use is no longer applied. As a result, the Revised Project would emit a total of 598.30 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO
2e) per year, which would be 801.95 MTCO 2e per year higher than the Approved Project, as shown in Table 5.

Table 5
Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Since there is no applicable adopted numerical threshold of significance for GHG emissions, the methodology for evaluating the Revised Project’s impacts related to GHG emissions focuses on its consistency with Statewide, regional, and local plans adopted for the purpose of reducing and/or Source
CO2 CH4 N2O Refrigerants CO2e
Metric Tons/yeara,b
Approved Project Emissions
Total Approved Project-Related Emissionsc -202.95 MTCO2e/year Revised Project Emissions
Direct Emissions
Construction (amortized over 30 years)d 27.27 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 27.27 Area Source 23.20 0.01 <0.01 0.00 23.20
Mobile Source 294.00 0.02 0.01 0.44 299.00
Refrigerants 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.22
Total Direct Emissions 344.47 0.03 0.01 0.67 349.70
Indirect Emissions
Energy 152.00 0.01 <0.01 0.00 153.00
Solid Waste 24.10 2.41 0.00 0.00 84.40
Water Demand 7.31 0.12 <0.01 0.00 11.20
Total Indirect Emissions 183.41 2.54 <0.01 0.00 248.60
Total Revised Project-Related Emissions 598.30 MTCO2e/year Difference between Approved Project and
Revised Project Emissionse 801.95 MTCO2e/year
Notes:
a Emissions calculated using California Emissions Estimator Model Version 2022.1 (CalEEMod) computer model. b Totals may be slightly off due to rounding.
c Total Approved Project GHG emissions are from the 2020 MND. In the 2020 MND, the P roject resulted in a GHG emissions reduction of approximately 202.95 MT CO 2e per year when compared to the existing Coco’s Restaurant.

This overall reduction in G HG emissions was attributed to the decrease in total daily vehicle trips associated with the development as compared with existing conditions at the time. d Total Revised Project construction GHG emissions equate to 818.00 MTCO 2e. Value shown is amortized over the lifetime of the Revised Project (assumed to be 30 years). e Overall resultant emissions were derived by subtracting the Approved Project’s emissions from the Revised Project’s Emissions.

Refer to Appendix A for detailed model input/output data.

Addendum to the Artis Senior Living Project IS/MND April 2024 City of Arcadia Page 26
mitigating GHG emissions. Since the adoption of the 2020 MND, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has adopted the 2022 Scoping Plan, and SCAG has adopted the 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). Accordingly, the evaluation of consistency with such plans is the sole basis for determining the significance of the Revised Project’s GHG-related impacts on the environment. The 2022 Scoping Plan describes the approach the State will take to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045, and the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS includes strategies that will assist the region to reach the regional target of reducing GHG from transportation sector.

The 2022 Scoping Plan identifies reduction measures necessary to achieve the goal of carbon neutrality by 2045 or earlier. Actions that reduce GHG emissions are identified for each Assembly Bill (AB) 32 inventory sector. An evaluation of applicable reduction actions/strategies by emissions source category to determine how the Revised Project would be consistent with or exceed reduction actions/strategies outlined in the 2022 Scoping Plan is provided in Table 6.

Table 6
Consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan
Actions and Strategies Project Consistency Analysis
Smart Growth/Vehicles Miles Traveled (VMT)
Reduce VMT per capita to
25% below 2019 levels by
2030, and 30% below
2019 levels by 2045
Consistent. The Revised Project would provide a dining room, a café, a laundry room, a sensory wellness room, a reading room, a sitting and music area, a beauty salon, a fitness center with a physical therapy area, a bar/lounge, an activity room, a media room, and separate open-air courtyards and outdoor spaces. Providing these amenities on-site would reduce VMT as the residents do not need to drive off-site for services. In addition, the residents are anticipated to have limited mobility and, as such, are expected to generate a very small number of vehicle trips. Furthermore, the Revised Project would provide bicycle parking, which would promote an alternative mode of transportation for visitors and employees.

As such, the Revised Project would be consistent with this action.

New Residential and Commercial Buildings
All electric appliances
beginning 2026
(residential) and 2029
(commercial), contributing
to 6 million heat pumps
installed statewide by 2030
Consistent. The City of Arcadia has not adopted an ordinance or program limiting the use of natural gas for on-site cooking and/or heating. However, if such an ordinance is adopted, the Revised Project would be required to comply with the applicable goals or policies limiting the use of natural gas equipment in the future.

Furthermore, the Revised Project would install high efficiency lighting and appliances. As such, the Revised Project would be consistent with this action.

Construction Equipment
25% of energy demand
electrified by 2030 and
75% electrified by 2045
Consistent. The City of Arcadia has not adopted an ordinance or program requiring electric-powered construction equipment. However, if such an ordinance is adopted, the Revised Project would be required to comply with the applicable goals or policies requiring the use of electric construction equipment in the future. As such, the Revised Project would be consistent with this action.

Non-combustion Methane Emissions
Divert 75% of organic
waste from landfills by
2025
Consistent. SB 1383 establishes targets to achieve a 50 percent reduction in the level of the statewide disposal of organic waste from the 2014 level by 2020 and a 75 percent reduction by 2025. The Revised Project would comply with local and regional regulations and recycle or compost 75 percent of waste by 2025 pursuant to SB 1383. As such, the Revised Project would be consistent with this action.

Source: California Air Resources Board, 2022 Scoping Plan, November 16, 2022.

Addendum to the Artis Senior Living Project IS/MND April 2024 City of Arcadia Page 27
The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS includes performance goals that were adopted to help focus future investments on the best-performing projects, as well as different strategies to preserve, maintain, and optimize the performance of the existing transportation system. The SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS is forecast to help California reach its GHG emissions reduction goals by reducing GHG emissions from passenger cars by 8 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 19 percent by 2035 in accordance with the California Air Resources Board targets adopted in March 2018. Five key SCS strategies are included in the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS to help the region meet its regional vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and GHG reduction goals, as required by the State.

Table 7 presents the Revised Project’s consistency with these five strategies. As shown therein, the Revised Project would be consistent with the GHG emission reduction strategies contained in the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS.

Table 7
Consistency with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS

Reduction Strategy
Applicable
Land Use
Tools Project Consistency Analysis
Focus Growth Near Destinations and Mobility Options
x Emphasize land use patterns that facilitate
multimodal access to work, educational and other
destinations
x Focus on a regional jobs/housing balance to reduce
commute times and distances and expand job
opportunities near transit and along center-focused
main streets
x Plan for growth near transit investments and
support implementation of first/last mile strategies
x Promote the redevelopment of underperforming
retail developments and other outmoded
nonresidential uses
x Prioritize infill and redev elopment of underutilized land to accommodate new growth, increase
amenities and connectivity in existing
neighborhoods
x Encourage design and transportation options that
reduce the reliance on and number of solo car trips
(this could include mixed uses or locating and
orienting close to existing destinations)
x Identify ways to “right size” parking requirements
and promote alternative parking strategies (e.g.
shared parking or smart parking)
Center
Focused
Placemaking,
Priority Growth
Areas (PGA),
Job Centers,
High Quality
Transit Areas
(HQTAs),
Transit Priority
Areas (TPA),
Neighborhood
Mobility Areas
(NMAs),
Livable
Corridors,
Spheres of
Influence
(SOIs), Green
Region, Urban
Greening

Consistent. The Project Site is
located within an area that is near
residential uses. The Revised Project
would be required to incorporate
pedestrian-oriented features, bicycle
parking, EV charging stations, and
vanpool/carpool parking spaces to
promote other forms of transportation.

Existing bus stops are located less
than 1 mile south of the Project Site.

Therefore, the Revised Project would
focus growth near destinations and
mobility options.

Promote Diverse Housing Choices
x Preserve and rehabili tate affordable housing and
prevent displacement
x Identify funding opportunities for new workforce and
affordable housing development
x Create incentives and reduce regulatory barriers for
building context sensitive accessory dwelling units
to increase housing supply
PGA, Job
Centers,
HQTAs, NMA,
TPAs, Livable
Corridors,
Green Region,
Urban
Greening
Consistent. The Revised Project
would involve development of an
assisted living facility within a mile of a
transit station, which increases
housing supply and supports reduction
of GHG emissions. Therefore, the
Revised Project would be consistent
with this reduction strategy.

Addendum to the Artis Senior Living Project IS/MND April 2024 City of Arcadia Page 28
Table 7
Consistency with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS
Reduction Strategy
Applicable
Land Use
Tools Project Consistency Analysis
x Provide support to local jurisdictions to streamline
and lessen barriers to housing development that
supports reduction of greenhouse gas emissions
Leverage Technology Innovations
x Promote low emission technologies such as
neighborhood electric vehicles, shared rides
hailing, car sharing, bike sharing and scooters by
providing supportive and safe infrastructure such as
dedicated lanes, charging and parking/drop-off
space
x Improve access to services through technology—
such as telework and telemedicine as well as other
incentives such as a “mobility wallet,” an app-based
system for storing transit and other multi-modal
payments
x Identify ways to incorporate “micro-power grids” in
communities, for example solar energy, hydrogen
fuel cell power storage and power generation
HQTA, TPAs,
NMA, Livable
Corridors
Consistent. The Revised Project
would provide seven EV parking
spaces, including one that is ADA-
compliant. Therefore, the Revised
Project would promote low emission
technology innovations and help the
City, County, and State meet their
GHG reduction goals. The Revised
Project would be consistent with this
reduction strategy.

Support Implementation of Sustainability Policies
x Pursue funding opportunities to support local
sustainable development implementation projects
that reduce greenhouse gas emissions
x Support statewide legislation that reduces barriers
to new construction and that incentivizes
development near transit corridors and stations
x Support local jurisdictions in the establishment of
Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts
(EIFDs), Community Revitalization and Investment
Authorities (CRIAs), or other tax increment or value
capture tools to finance sustainable infrastructure
and development projects, including parks and
open space
x Work with local jurisdictions/communities to identify opportunities and assess barriers to implement
sustainability strategies
x Enhance partnerships with other planning
organizations to promote resources and best
practices in the SCAG region
x Continue to support long range planning efforts by
local jurisdictions
Provide educational opportunities to local decisions
makers and staff on new tools, best practices and
policies related to implementing the Sustainable
Communities Strategy

Center
Focused
Placemaking,
PGA, Job
Centers,
HQTAs, TPA,
NMAs, Livable
Corridors,
SOIs, Green
Region, Urban
Greening.

Consistent. The Revised Project
would be located close to bus stops
and provide bicycle parking spaces,
which would promote alternative
modes of transportation. Furthermore,
the Revised Project would be required
to comply with 2022 Title 24 standards
and install high efficiency features,
such as energy-efficient appliances,
low-flow fixtures, and water-efficiency
irrigation. Thus, the Revised Project
would be consistent with this
reduction strategy.

Promote a Green Region
x Support development of local climate adaptation
and hazard mitigation plans, as well as project
Green Region,
Urban
Consistent. The Revised Project
involves development of an assisted
Addendum to the Artis Senior Living Project IS/MND April 2024 City of Arcadia Page 29
In summary, the Revised Project’s characteristics render it consistent with statewide, regional, and local climate change mandates, plans, policies, and recommendations. More specifically, the GHG plan consistency analysis demonstrates that the Revised Project would comply with the regulations and GHG reduction goals, policies, actions, and strategies outlined in the 2022 Scoping Plan and 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. Consistency with these plans would reduce the impact of the Revised Project’s incremental contribution of GHG emissions. Accordingly, the Revised Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, regulation, or recommendation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Therefore, there are no material changes in circumstances, and the Revised Project would not result in any new significant or substantially more severe environmental impacts that would affect the determination of less-than-significant impact in the 2020 MND.

5.9 H AZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Routine Transport, Use, Disposal, or Accidental Release of Hazardous Materials According to the 2020 MND, given the age of the existing restaurant building on-site (constructed in the 1970s), there is potential for the building to contain asbestos-containing materials (ACM) and/or lead-based paint (LBP). However, the Approved Project would be required to comply with existing regulations to properly identify, remove, handle, and dispose of ACMs and LBP.

Compliance with these regulations would ensure that existing hazardous materials would be effectively disposed of during the demolition phase and would, therefore, have no effect on the health and safety of construction workers and area residents. In addition, the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials, as well as the potential release of these materials to the environment, are closely regulated through State and federal laws. Furthermore, the use of hazardous materials during operation of the Approved Project would likely involve minor quantities of typical household hazardous materials, such as cleaning products, solvents, adhesives, Table 7
Consistency with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS

Reduction Strategy
Applicable
Land Use
Tools Project Consistency Analysis
implementation that improves community resiliency
to climate change and natural hazards
x Support local policies for renewable energy
production, reduction of urban heat islands and
carbon sequestration
x Integrate local food production into the regional
landscape
x Promote more resource efficient development
focused on conservation, recycling and reclamation
x Preserve, enhance and restore regional wildlife
connectivity
x Reduce consumption of resource areas, including
agricultural land
x Identify ways to improve access to public park
space
Greening,
Greenbelts and
Community
Separators
living facility on developed land and,
therefore, would not interfere with
regional wildlife connectivity or
agricultural land. As discussed above,
the Revised Project would be required
to comply with the 2022 Title 24
standards, which would help reduce
energy consumption and reduce GHG
emissions. Thus, the Revised Project
would support efficient development
that reduces energy consumption and
GHG emissions. The Revised Project
would be consistent with this reduction
strategy.

Source: Southern California Association of Governments, 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy – Connect SoCal, September 3, 2020.

Addendum to the Artis Senior Living Project IS/MND April 2024 City of Arcadia Page 30
refrigerants, paints, other chemical materials used in building maintenance, small amounts of oil and fuels from internal combustion engines, pesticides and herbicides, sharp or used needles, and electronic waste. This level of hazardous materials use would be typical for institutional uses and, thus, is not identified as a significant threat to the environment. Accordingly, the 2020 MND determined that based on the type of land use proposed, the relatively minor anticipated level of use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials and compliance with various State and federal laws regulating hazardous materials, the Approved Project would result in a less-than-significant impact involving the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or the accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment.

The Revised Project proposes the same land use type as the Approved Project and would not include land uses that may generate hazardous materials or hazardous waste beyond those identified for the Approved Project. As with the Approved Project, the Revised Project would be required to comply with the same regulations that would minimize the impacts to the public and the environment as related to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or the accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment, including the removal of ACM and LBP if found on-site. Therefore, there are no material changes in circumstances, and the Revised Project would not result in any new significant or substantially more severe environmental impacts that would affect the less-than-significant impact determination in the 2020 MND.

Impacts Related to Hazardous Emissions, Cortese List Site, Airports, and Wildland Fires According to the 2020 MND, there are no schools within a quarter mile of the Project Site, and, as such, the Approved Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within a quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. In addition, the Project Site is not included on the Cortese List, which is the list of hazardous waste sites or facilities compiled by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control under Government Code Section 65962.5. As such, the Approved Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Furthermore, the nearest airport to the Project Site is the San Gabriel Airport, which is approximately 4.5 miles to the southeast, and, as such, the Approved Project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project area. Finally, the Project Site is not located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, as identified by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, or surrounded by wildland areas. As such, the Approved Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fire. Accordingly, the 2020 MND determined that the Approved Project would have no impact related to these issues.

The Revised Project would be developed within the boundaries of the Project Site and proposes the same land use type as the Approved Project. Accordingly, as with the Approved Project, the Revised Project would have no impact related to hazardous emissions near schools, creating a hazard as a hazardous waste site, airport safety hazards, or wildland fires. Therefore, there are no material changes in circumstances, and the Revised Project would not result in any new significant or substantially more severe environmental impacts that would affect the no-impact determination in the 2020 MND.

Emergency Evacuation Plan
Access to the Project Site is currently available on Michillinda Avenue and Colorado Boulevard.

According to the 2020 MND, the Approved Project would have access to major thoroughfares that Addendum to the Artis Senior Living Project IS/MND April 2024 City of Arcadia Page 31
have been identified as a Principal Travel Corridor by the City’s General Plan, such as Michillinda Avenue, I-210, and Foothill Boulevard, during an emergency evacuation. In addition, the Approved Project would reduce the number of daily trips and peak hour trips generated by the Coco’s Bakery and Restaurant, which was in operation at the time, thereby reducing traffic on adjacent and nearby thoroughfares. Therefore, the 2020 MND determined that development of the Approved Project would not impair implementation of an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan.

The Revised Project proposes the same land use type as the Approved Project and would not include land uses that may interfere with or obstruct emergency evacuation of the Project Site and the Project vicinity. As with the Approved Project, the Revised Project would have access to major thoroughfares during an emergency evacuation. The Revised Project would generate no more than 30 vehicle trips in the peak hours, as presented in Appendix B of this Initial Study.

This minimal increase in peak hour trips would have a negligible impact on the area intersections.

Accordingly, as with the Approved Project, development of the Revised Project would not impair implementation of an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan. Therefore, there are no material changes in circumstances, and the Revised Project would not result in any new significant or substantially more severe environmental impacts that would affect the less-than- significant impact determination in the 2020 MND.

5.10 H YDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Water Quality
According to the 2020 MND, the Approved Project could have both short- and long-term impacts on water quality. Short-term impacts would occur during the construction phase, when the pollutants of greatest concern are sediment and hydrocarbon or fossil fuel remnants, which could run off the Project Site without any best management practices (BMPs) in place. Long-term impacts would result from stormwater runoff from the Project Site during operation of the Approved Project. However, construction runoff is regulated by the NPDES Construction General Permit, which requires identification of a variety of water quality control BMPs to be specified on construction plans and implemente d throughout constru ction. Similarly, the Approved Project would be required to comply with the City’s Low Impact Development (LID) Ordinance, which requires the preparation of a LID Plan that addresses on-site stormwater runoff retention and treatment and implementation of post-construction BMPs, such as cleaning the parking areas and the sidewalks along the Project Site’s frontages. Accordingly, the 2020 MND determined that through compliance with existing regulations and the preparation of a LID Plan, potential water quality impacts during construction and operation of the Approved Project would be avoided or reduced to less-than-significant levels, and the Approved Project would not result in violations of any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.

As with the Approved Project, the Revised Project would be required to comply with the same regulations that would minimize the impacts on water quality, including the preparation of a LID Plan, and, as such, would not substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality and result in impacts beyond those identified for the Approved Project. Therefore, there are no material changes in circumstances, and the Revised Project would not result in any new significant or substantially more severe environmental impacts that would affect the less-than-significant impact determination in the 2020 MND.

Addendum to the Artis Senior Living Project IS/MND April 2024 City of Arcadia Page 32
Groundwater
According to the 2020 MND, there are no groundwater wells on the Project Site, and none were proposed by the Approved Project. The Approved Project would reduce, but not substantially change, the amount of impervious surface area on-site and, as such, would not have an effect on groundwater levels beneath the Project Site; if any, the effect would be minimal and likely beneficial given the Approved Project’s reduction in overall impervious surfaces as compared to existing conditions. As such, operation of the Approved Project would not interfere with groundwater recharge. Accordingly, the Approved Project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Approved Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. Therefore, impacts to groundwater would be less than significant.

As with the Approved Project, development of the Revised Project would not substantially change the amount of impervious surface area on-site and would not have an effect on groundwater levels beneath the Project Site. Similar to the Approved Project, the Revised Project would likely have a beneficial effect given the reduction in overall impervious surfaces as compared to existing conditions. Accordingly, the Revised Project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Revised Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin, and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, there are no material changes in circumstances, and the Revised Project would not result in any new significant or substantially more severe environmental impacts that would affect the less-than-significant impact determination in the 2020 MND.

Drainage
According to the 2020 MND, there are no natural drainage courses on the Project Site, and, because the Project Site is currently fully developed with impervious surfaces, the Approved Project would not result in a substantial alteration of the existing drainage pattern of the Project Site. The Approved Project would be required to comply with existing regulations to (1) minimize erosion that may lead to siltation on- or off-site during construction; (2) ensure proper drainage to avoid or redirect flooding on- or off-site; and (3) prevent discharge of sediment and polluted stormwater runoff, and retain, control, and treat stormwater runoff on the Project Site. Accordingly, the 2020 MND determined that the Approved Project would not alter the existing drainage pattern of the Project Site in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site, substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site, create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of the existing stormwater drainage system or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, or impede or redirect flood flows. Therefore, impacts related to drainage would be less than significant.

As with the Approved Project, development of the Revised Project would not substantially change the amount of impervious surface area on-site as compared to existing conditions. In addition, the Revised Project would be required to comply with same existing regulations as the Approved Project. Furthermore, similar to the Approved Project, the Revised Project would likely have a beneficial effect given the reduction in overall impervious surfaces as compared to existing conditions. A modular wetland is proposed in the southeastern corner of the Project Site to collect and treat surface water runoff from the Project Site prior to draining to the existing curb inlet and then to the existing storm drainage system to the east. Accordingly, the Revised Project would Addendum to the Artis Senior Living Project IS/MND April 2024 City of Arcadia Page 33
not alter the existing drainage pattern of the Project Site that would result in flooding on- or off- site, create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of the existing stormwater drainage system or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, or impede or redirect flood flows; as such, impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, there are no material changes in circumstances, and the Revised Project would not result in any new significant or substantially more severe environmental impacts that would affect the less-than-significant impact determination in the 2020 MND.

Flooding
According to the 2020 MND, the Project Site is not located near any reservoir, other bodies of water, or the Pacific Ocean to be potentially inundated by seiches or tsunamis. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map for the area, the Project Site is located within Zone X, which represents an area of minimal flood hazard. However, according to the City’s General Plan Safety Element, the Project Site is located within a designated inundation area for the Morris S. Jones Reservoir. Nonetheless, dams are regulated and monitored for structural safety by the California Department of Water Resources in accordance with the California Water Code to reduce the potential for catastrophic failure and inundation of downstream areas, such as the Project Site. In addition, the Approved Project would be required to implement a LID plan, which would incorporate water quality control features on- site, such as maintenance of landscape areas and proper storage of any hazardous materials, which would prevent the release of pollutants in the unlikely event that the Project Site is inundated by catastrophic dam failure. Therefore, the 2020 MND determined that the Approved Project would not risk release of pollutants due to inundation, and no impact would occur.

As with the Approved Project, development of the Revised Project would occur within the boundaries of the Project Site, which has been identified as not being subject to inundation by seiches or tsunamis. Given that the Revised Project is located within a designated inundation area for the Morris S. Jones Reservoir, the Revised Project would be required to implement water quality control features on-site to prevent the release of pollutants when inundated. Accordingly, the Revised Project would not risk release of pollutants due to inundation, and no impact would occur. Therefore, there are no material changes in circumstances, and the Revised Project would not result in any new significant or substantially more severe environmental impacts that would affect the no-impact determination in the 2020 MND.

Consistency with Water Quality Control Plan or Sustainable Groundwater Management Plan
According to the 2020 MND, because the Approved Project would not result in a substantial increase in potable water demand and because it would not involve the use, disposal, or storage of hazardous chemicals that could impact water quality, the Approved Project would not interfere with the Main Basin Watermaster’s 2019 Supply Plan, and impacts would be less than significant.

Although the Revised Project would consume and generate more water and wastewater, respectively, than the Approved Project, the Revised Project would also not result in a substantial increase in potable water demand. As discussed in Section 5.19, Utilities/Service Systems, of this addendum, because the Revised Project is consistent with the underlying zoning and General Plan designation for the Project Site, the population and employment growth associated with the Revised Project would have been incorporated into the SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS growth projections, on which the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) was based.

Addendum to the Artis Senior Living Project IS/MND April 2024 City of Arcadia Page 34
According to the 2020 UWMP, the City can meet water demands during normal years, single dry years, and five consecutive year drought periods through 2045.2 In addition, as with the Approved Project, because the Revised Project would not involve the use, disposal, or storage of hazardous chemicals that could impact water quality, the Revised Project would not interfere with the Main Basin Watermaster’s 2019 Supply Plan, and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, there are no material changes in circumstances, and the Revised Project would not result in any new significant or substantially more severe environmental impacts that would affect the less- than-significant impact determination in the 2020 MND.

5.11 L AND USE AND PLANNING
Physical Division of an Established Community
According to the 2020 MND, the Approved Project would not result in physical alterations to any land use beyond the Project Site boundaries or significant changes to the public rights-of-way beyond the widening of Colorado Boulevard and Michillinda Avenue along the Project Site’s frontages to be implemented by the City following the Approved Project’s 4-foot dedication from the Project Site. Therefore, the 2020 MND determined that the Approved Project would not physically divide an established community, and no impact would occur.

As with the Approved Project, development of the Revised Project would occur on the Project Site and, as such, would not result in physical alterations to any land use beyond the Project Site boundaries. Similar to the Approved Project, the Revised Project would dedicate 4 feet from the Project Site to allow the City to improve and widen Colorado Boulevard and Michillinda Avenue along the Project Sites frontages. In addition, the Revised Project would connect to an existing 21-inch sewer main to the west along Michillinda Avenue via a new sewer lateral. However, as with the Approved Project, the Revised Project would not physically divide an established community, and no impact would occur. Therefore, there are no material changes in circumstances, and the Revised Project would not result in any new significant or substantially more severe environmental impacts that would affect the no-impact determination in the 2020 MND.

Conflict with Plans, Policies, or Regulations
According to the 2020 MND, the Approved Project would be consistent with the development standards and regulation of the underlying C-G zone upon approval of a CUP. In addition, the Arcadia General Plan Parks, Recreation, and Community Resources Element and the Safety Element do not identify any land use restrictions for the Project Site that, respectively, (1) would require conservation of the Project Site for purposes of protecting wildlife habitat or other natural resources or (2) pertain to avoidance of environmental hazards on or near the Project Site. The Project Site is not within an area where special land use policies or zoning standards have been created for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects. Accordingly, the 2020 MND determined that the Approved Project would not conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation established for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, and impacts related to land use and planning would be less than significant.

As with the Approved Project, development of the Revised Project would occur on the Project Site and not within an area where special land use policies or zoning standards have been created

2 City of Arcadia, Final 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, June 2021.

Addendum to the Artis Senior Living Project IS/MND April 2024 City of Arcadia Page 35
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects. Additionally, the Revised Project would be consistent with the existing General Plan Land Use designation of Commercial and zone of G-C. As discussed in Section 4.0, Project Description, of this addendum, the Revised Project is entitled to receive a density bonus and deviate from the maximum permitted FAR for the Project Site through a CUP; the Revised Project would comply with all other applicable development standards. Accordingly, as with the Approved Project, the Revised Project would not conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation established for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, and impacts related to land use and planning would be less than significant. Therefore, there are no material changes in circumstances, and the Revised Project would not result in any new significant or substantially more severe environmental impacts that would affect the less-than-significant impact determination in the 2020 MND.

5.12 M INERAL RESOURCES
According to the 2020 MND, since the Project Site is currently developed with a building previously occupied by Coco’s Bakery and Restaurant and surface parking, development of the Approved Project on the Project Site would not result in the loss of availability of (1) a known mineral resource that would be of regional or Statewide value or (2) a locally-important mineral resource recovery site. Accordingly, the 2020 MND determined that the Approved Project would have no impact to mineral resources.

As with the Approved Project, development of the Revised Project would occur within the Project Site boundaries and, as such, would not result in the loss of a known mineral resource or a locally- important mineral resource recovery site. Therefore, there are no material changes in circumstances, and the Revised Project would not result in any new significant or substantially more severe environmental impacts that would affect the no-impact determination in the 2020 MND.

5.13 N OISE
Temporary or Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels According to the 2020 MND, although construction noise is allowed during the City’s allowable construction hours and is not considered to be a significant impact during those hours, construction of the Approved Project could expose adjoining residential uses to temporary high noise levels. To reduce the short-term construction impacts on adjacent sensitive receptors to less-than-significant levels, the 2020 MND identified the following mitigation measure:

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:
x 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.
x 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 Addendum to the Artis Senior Living Project IS/MND April 2024 City of Arcadia Page 36
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 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.
x During construction, stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers. x 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.
x Construction haul routes shall be designed to avoid noise-sensitive uses (e.g., residences and convalescent homes) to the extent feasible.

In addition, according to the 2020 MND, the Approved Project would generate fewer trips when compared to the existing use on the Project Site at the time (i.e., Coco’s Bakery and Restaurant).

As such, the 2020 MND determined that, because the Approved Project’s trip generation would reduce existing traffic volumes along local roadways, traffic noise levels also would be reduced and would be less than significant. Additionally, the 2020 MND determined that the Approved Project’s operational stationary noise associated with mechanical equipment, slow-moving trucks, and parking areas would not exceed the City’s noise standards or introduce new sources of noise in the Project vicinity compared to existing conditions. Therefore, operation of the Approved Project was determined to result in less-than-significant noise impacts in the 2020 MND.

As with the Approved Project, development of the Revised Project would occur within the boundaries of the Project Site, with sensitive receptors located immediately adjacent to the east and south. Although the Revised Project would involve a slightly larger development and, thus, longer construction duration than analyzed in the 2020 MND, there would be no change in the construction equipment anticipated to be used or the distance between the closest receptors and the proposed construction activities. As with the Approved Project, 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 Revised Project could expose adjoining residential uses to temporary high noise levels and would, therefore, be required to comply with Mitigation Measure NOI-1 to reduce short-term construction noise impacts to less-than-significant levels. Therefore, there are no material changes in circumstances, and the Revised Project would not result in any Addendum to the Artis Senior Living Project IS/MND April 2024 City of Arcadia Page 37
new significant or substantially more severe environmental impacts that would affect the determination of less-than-significant impact with mitigation in the 2020 MND.

As discussed in Section 5.17, Transportation/Traffic, of this addendum, the Revised Project would generate more trips compared to the Approved Project. However, the Revised Project would only add 17 or fewer trips to the two driveways when compared to the Approved Project; this increase in traffic would be equivalent to an average of no more than 1 trip every 3.5 minutes and, as such, would have a negligible impact on the area intersections. In addition, according to the City of Arcadia Traffic Volume Map, existing daily traffic volumes along Colorado Street and Michillinda Avenue are 20,842 and 18,522 trips per day, respectively. 3 As determined by the California
Department of Transportation, a doubling in roadway traffic volumes is required to generate any noticeable increase in roadway noise levels. 4 Accordingly, the Revised Project’s minimal trip generation of approximately 296 trips per day (compared to the 208 trips per day generated by the Approved Project) would not double existing traffic volumes along Colorado Boulevard and Michillinda Avenue or result in a perceptible increase in traffic noise. In addition, the Revised Project proposes the same land use type as the Approved Project and would not include stationary sources, such as mechanical equipment, slow-moving trucks, and parking areas, beyond those identified for the Approved Project. Therefore, the Revised Project’s operational stationary noise levels would not exceed the City’s noise standards or introduce new sources of noise in the Project vicinity compared to existing conditions and would be considered less than significant. Therefore, there are no material changes in circumstances, and the Revised Project would not result in any new significant or substantially more severe environmental impacts that would affect the less-than-significant impact determination in the 2020 MND.

Groundborne Vibration
According to the 2020 MND, construction of the Approved Project would not generate groundborne vibration exceeding the building damage or human annoyance thresholds established by the Federal Transit Administration. Similarly, operation of the Approved Project would not include uses that would generate excessive groundborne vibration. Accordingly, the 2020 MND determined that the Approved Project would not result in excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels, and impacts would be less than significant.

As with the Approved Project, development of the Revised Project would occur within the boundaries of the Project Site, with sensitive receptors located immediately adjacent to the east and south. Although the Revised Project would involve a larger development and longer construction duration than analyzed in the 2020 MND, there would be no change in the construction equipment anticipated to be used or the distance between the closest receptors and the proposed construction activities. Accordingly, construction and operation of the Revised Project would not generate groundborne vibration exceeding the building damage or human annoyance thresholds or include uses that would generate excessive groundborne vibration beyond those identified for the Approved Project. Therefore, there are no material changes in circumstances, and the Revised Project would not result in any new significant or substantially more severe environmental impacts that would affect the less-than-significant impact determination in the 2020 MND.

3 City of Arcadia, Traffic Volume Map, February 2019.
4 California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, September 2013.

Addendum to the Artis Senior Living Project IS/MND April 2024 City of Arcadia Page 38
Airport-Related Noise
As discussed in Section 5.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this addendum, the nearest airport to the Project Site is the San Gabriel Airport, which is approximately 4.5 miles to the southeast, and, as such, the Approved Project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project area. Accordingly, the 2020 MND determined that the Approved Project would have no impact related to excessive noise levels associated with aircraft operation.

The Revised Project would be developed within the boundaries of the Project Site and proposes the same land use type as the Approved Project. Accordingly, as with the Approved Project, the Revised Project would have no impact related to excessive noise levels associated with aircraft operation. Therefore, there are no material changes in circumstances, and the Revised Project would not result in any new significant or substantially more severe environmental impacts that would affect the no-impact determination in the 2020 MND.

5.14 P OPULATION AND HOUSING
According to the 2020 MND, the Approved Project, which was estimated to generate 80 residents and 40 employees, 5 would account for approximately 0.9 percent of the forecasted population growth and 0.7 percent of the forecasted employment growth between 2012 and 2040 as projected in the SCAG 2016-2020 RTP/SCS.
6 The 2020 MND determined that the Approved
Project would not result in substantial unplanned growth in the area, and impacts would be less than significant.

The Revised Project would have 114 beds, resulting in the generation of 114 residents. Using the same assumption (based on SCAG’s Employment Density Report) as that for the Approved Project, the Revised Project is also estimated to generate 40 employees. The SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, the update to the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS, estimates that the City’s population would increase by 4,900 residents and 2,800 employees between 2016 and 2045. Accordingly, the Revised Project’s residents and employees would account for approximately 2.3 percent of the forecasted population growth and 1.4 percent of the forecasted employment growth between 2016 and 2045. Although the Revised Project would increase the number of residents and employees and the corresponding percentages in forecasted growth, the Revised Project would remain consistent with the zoning and General Plan land use designation for the Project Site pursuant to the California Density Bonus Law, as discussed in Section 4.0, Project Description, of this addendum. As with the Approved Project, the Revised Project would not result in substantial unplanned growth in the area, and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, there are no material changes in circumstances, and the Revised Project would not result in any new significant or substantially more severe environmental impa cts that would affect the less-than-significant impact determination in the 2020 MND.

With regard to displacement of people or housing, the Project Site contains an existing building, which was previously occupied by Coco’s Bakery and Restaurant and is now vacant, and surface

5 According to the 2020 MND, the number of employees was calculated using SCAG’s Employment Density Report (Employment Density Study Summary Report, Table B-1, 2001), which provided an average employee density of 14.24 employees per acre for Special Care Facilities in Los Angeles County. As the Project Site is

2.79 acres in size, the estimated number of employees serving the Approved Project would be 40. 6 The 2016-2040 RTP/SCS estimated that the population in Arcadia would increase from 56,700 to 65,900 and employment from 28,900 to 34,400 between 2012 and 2040.

Addendum to the Artis Senior Living Project IS/MND April 2024 City of Arcadia Page 39
parking. Accordingly, because there are no current residents or housing units on the Project Site, the Approved Project would not displace people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. As such, no impact related to displacement would occur. As with the Approved Project, the Revised Project would occur within the Project Site boundaries and, thus, would not displace people or housing. Therefore, there are no material changes in circumstances, and the Revised Project would not result in any new significant or substantially more severe environmental impacts that would affect the no-impact determination in the 2020 MND.

5.15 P UBLIC SERVICES
Fire and Police Protection
According to the 2020 MND, the Approved Project would incrementally increase the demand for fire and police protection services. However, the Approved Project would be required to comply with the California Fire Code and Arcadia Fire Department regulations governing hydrant placement, fire flows, and building construction, and with the Arcadia Fire Department’s review and approval of the Project Site’s access and circulation plans. With regard to police protection, the Approved Project would include on-site security resources, such as security guards and orderlies, to patrol the grounds, monitor locked entry and exit points to the property, and protect residents. In addition, the Approved Project would be required to comply with Policy S-5.11 of the Arcadia General Plan and pay its fair share of costs associated with any necessary increases in public safety equipment, facilities, and staffing to provide life safety protection. Accordingly, through compliance with existing regulations and incorporation of safety and security features in the design of the proposed development, the Approved Project would have a less-than-significant impact on fire and police protection services.

As with the Approved Project, the Revised Project would incrementally increase the demand for fire protection and emergency medical services. Although the Revised Project would generate 34 additional residents than the Approved Project, the Revised Project would not present unique or more difficult circumstances than the Approved Project that would warrant new or expanded fire or police protection services or facilities. As with the Approved Project, the Revised Project would be required to comply with existing regulations and incorporate safety and security features in the design of the proposed development resulting in a less-than-significant impact on fire and police protection services. Therefore, there are no material changes in circumstances, and the Revised Project would not result in any new significant or substantially more severe environmental impacts that would affect the less-than-significant impact determination in the 2020 MND.

Schools, Parks, and Other Public Facilities
According to the 2020 MND, because the Approved Project would be inhabited by seniors affected by memory loss, there would be no school-aged children living on the Project Site that would incrementally increase the demand for schools. In addition, the residents of the Approved Project were anticipated to have limited mobility and, thus, not expected to substantially increase the demand on parks, libraries, and other public facilities. Furthermore, the Approved Project would include activity rooms, enclosed landscaped outdoor area with gardens, walking paths, and a gazebo for use by the Project’s residents. Accordingly, the 2020 MND determined that the Approved Project would have no impact on schools, City park facilities, libraries, and other public facilities.

Addendum to the Artis Senior Living Project IS/MND April 2024 City of Arcadia Page 40
As with the Approved Project, the Revised Project would be inhabited by seniors affected by memory loss, and, as such, no school-aged children would be living on the Project Site. Similarly, the residents of the Revised Project are anticipated to have limited mobility and are not expected to substantially increase the demand on parks, libraries, and other public facilities. As with the Approved Project, the Revised Project would provide indoor recreational amenities, such as a reading room, sitting and music areas, sensory wellness room, a bar/lounge, an activity room, a media room, and a fitness center with a physical therapy area, and outdoor recreational amenities, such as open air courtyards, a seating area with outdoor workout equipment, a dog park, and a bocce ball court, for use by the Project’s residents. Accordingly, as with the Approved Project, the Revised Project would have no impact on schools, City park facilities, libraries, and other public facilities. Therefore, there are no material changes in circumstances, and the Revised Project would not result in any new significant or substantially more severe environmental impacts that would affect the no-impact determination in the 2020 MND.

5.16 R ECREATION
As discussed in Section 5.16, Public Services (Parks), residents of the Approved Project were expected to have limited mobility and, thus, not expected to increase the demand on parks or other recreational facilities. In addition, the Approved Project would include activities rooms, enclosed landscaped outdoor area with gardens, walking paths, and a gazebo for use by the Project’s residents. Accordingly, the 2020 MND determined that the Approved Project would have no impact on parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated.

As with the Approved Project, the residents of the Revised Project are anticipated to have limited mobility and are not expected to substantially increase the demand on parks or other recreational facilities. As with the Approved Project, the Revised Project would provide indoor recreational amenities, such as a reading room, sitting and music areas, sensory wellness room, a bar/lounge, an activity room, a media room, and a fitness center with a physical therapy area, and outdoor recreational amenities, such as open air courtyards, a seating area with outdoor workout equipment, a dog park, and a bocce ball court, for use by the Project’s residents. Accordingly, as with the Approved Project, the Revised Project would have no impact on parks or other recreational facilities. Therefore, there are no material changes in circumstances, and the Revised Project would not result in any new significant or substantially more severe environmental impacts that would affect the no-impact determination in the 2020 MND.

5.17 T RANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Conflict with Plans, Policies, or Regulations
According to the 2020 MND, while the Approved Project’s 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. Accordingly, the 2020 MND determined that, because the construction traffic impacts associated with the Approved Project would be temporary, they would not significantly affect the performance of the circulation system with respect to level of service standards or other metrics related to congestion and travel delay. During operation, the Approved Project would generate fewer trips when compared to the existing use on the Project Site at the Addendum to the Artis Senior Living Project IS/MND April 2024 City of Arcadia Page 41
time (i.e., Coco’s Bakery and Restaurant), resulting in a less-than-significant impact related to trip generation, trip distribution, and intersection performance. In addition, the residents of the Approved Project were anticipated to have limited mobility and, as such, would have little to no impact on surrounding bus, pedestrian, or bicycle facilities. Project employees were anticipated to have a small impact on bus, pedestrian, or bicycle systems as the number of employees and visitors that would utilize transit or bicycle infrastructure to access the senior living and memory care facility under the Approved Project as compared to those of the existing use of the Project Site at the time was deemed negligible. Accordingly, the 2020 MND determined that the Approved 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; as such, impacts related to transportation would be less than significant.

The Revised Project proposes the same land use type as the Approved Project and would temporarily affect traffic flow on the surrounding street network during construction. As with the Approved Project, the short-term nature of the construction traffic impacts would not significantly affect the performance of the circulation system with respect to level of service standards or other metrics related to congestion and travel delay. During operation, because the Revised Project would involve a larger development than analyzed in the 2020 MND and the trip credit from the restaurant use is no longer applied due to its closing, the Revised Project would generate more trips compared to the Approved Project (see Appendix B). However, the Revised Project would only add 17 or fewer trips to the two driveways when compared to the Approved Project; this increase in traffic would be equivalent to an average of no more than 1 trip every 3.5 minutes and, as such, would have a negligible impact on the area intersections. As with the Approved Project, the residents of the Revised Project are anticipated to have limited mobility and, as such, would have little to no impact on surrounding bus, pedestrian, or bicycle facilities. In addition, because the number of employees under the Revised Project would be the same as that under the Approved Project employees, as discussed in Section 5.14, Population and Housing, of this addendum, the Revised Project would not result in impacts on bus, pedestrian, or bicycle systems beyond those identified for the Approved Project. Accordingly, as with the Approved Project, the Revised 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; as such, impacts related to transportation would be less than significant. Therefore, there are no material changes in circumstances, and the Revised Project would not result in any new significant or substantially more severe environmental impacts that would affect the less-than-significant impact determination in the 2020 MND.

VMT Analysis
According to the 2020 MND, the Approved Project would result in a substantial reduction in daily trips compared to the existing use at the time. Accordingly, the 2020 MND determined that the Approved Project’s impact on citywide and regional VMT would be less than significant.

With regard to the Revised Project, the City of Arcadia Transportation Study Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled and Level of Service Assessment identifies Assisted Living Facilities as one of the types of land uses under the VMT Project Type Screening criteria. Land uses of this type are presumed to result in a less-than-significant transportation impact under CEQA and do not require a detailed quantitative VMT assessment. Accordingly, the Revised Project would not conflict with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b), and impacts would be considered less than significant. Therefore, there are no material changes in circumstances, and the Revised Project Addendum to the Artis Senior Living Project IS/MND April 2024 City of Arcadia Page 42
would not result in any new significant or substantially more severe environmental impacts that would affect the less-than-significant impact determination in the 2020 MND.

Hazards Due to a Geometric Design Feature
According to the 2020 MND, the Approved Project would not create uses that could generate an incompatible use of area roadways, which could impair circulation or safety on area roads. In addition, no internal street network was proposed as part of the Approved Project, and, therefore, no potential hazards associated with a geometric design feature, such as a sharp curve, would occur within the Project Site. The Approved Project proposed a single entrance and exit driveway onto Colorado Boulevard, which would be designed to meet the mandatory design standards of the City of Arcadia as it relates to width, intersection control, and sight distance. Accordingly, the 2020 MND determined that through compliance wi th applicable City req uirements related to roadway safety, the Approved Project would not increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses, and impacts would be less than significant.

The Revised Project proposes the same land use type as the Approved Project and, as such, would not create any uses that could impair circulation or safety on area roads. As with the Approved Project, no internal street network is proposed as part of the Revised Project, and, therefore, no potential hazards associated with a geometric design feature, such as a sharp curve, would occur within the Project Site. The Revised Project would retain the two existing driveways, which would be reconstructed in the same general location, to provide site access along Colorado Boulevard and Michillinda Avenue; the design of these driveways would be reviewed to confirm that the reconstruction meets the mandatory design standards of the City of Arcadia as they relate to width, intersection control, and sight distance. Accordingly, as with the Approved Project, through compliance with applicable City requirements related to roadway safety, the Revised Project would not increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses, and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, there are no material changes in circumstances, and the Revised Project would not result in any new significant or substantially more severe environmental impacts that would affect the less-than-significant impact determination in the 2020 MND.

Emergency Access
According to the 2020 MND, the Approved Project’s building plans and structures would be reviewed by the Arcadia Fire Department for compliance with applicable safety and emergency access standards, including the adequacy of fire flow, access, and fire hydrant placement. In addition, because the Project Site is located in an urban setting, where the surrounding street network allows for access to the Project Site from multiple directions and because the Approved Project would be designed to accommodate emergency response vehicles, the 2020 MND determined that the Approved Project’s impacts related to emergency access would be less than significant.

As with the Approved Project, the Revised Project’s building plans and structures would be reviewed by the Arcadia Fire Department for compliance with applicable safety and emergency access standards, including the adequacy of fire flow, access, and fire hydrant placement.

Similarly, because it is confined to the same Project Site, the Revised Project’s impacts related to emergency access would be less than significant. Therefore, there are no material changes in circumstances, and the Revised Project would not result in any new significant or substantially Addendum to the Artis Senior Living Project IS/MND April 2024 City of Arcadia Page 43
more severe environmental impacts that would affect the less-than-significant impact determination in the 2020 MND.

5.18 T RIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
According to the 2020 MND, no documented historic or prehistoric cultural resources were identified on the Project Site or within a quarter-mile radius of the Project Site. As such, the 2020 MND determined that the Approved Project would not cause an adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code (PRC) 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 or in a local register of historical resources, and no impact would occur.

With regard to the impact related to the significance of a resource to a California Native American tribe, the City formally consulted with the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians–Kizh Nation.

However, the information obtained during consultation did not demonstrate that existing tribal cultural resources are present within the Project Site. Accordingly, the 2020 MND determined that, due to the lack of substantial evidence as to why the Project area should be considered sensitive for tribal cultural resources, impacts related to tribal cultural resources would be less- than-significant. However, the 2020 MND included the following voluntary mitigation measures imposed by the City to address the inadvertent discovery of 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 land owner regarding treatment and curation of these resources. Typically, the tribe will request preservation in place or Addendum to the Artis Senior Living Project IS/MND April 2024 City of Arcadia Page 44
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.

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.

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 Addendum to the Artis Senior Living Project IS/MND April 2024 City of Arcadia Page 45
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.

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.

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.

As with the Approved Project, development of the Revised Project would occur within the boundaries of the Project Site, where no tribal cultural resources have been identified. Thus, development of the Revised Project would result in a less-than-significant impact on tribal cultural resources. However, as with the Approved Project, the Revised Project would include Mitigation Measures TCR-1 through TCR-4, which are voluntary mitigation measures that the City would impose as an added protection to address the inadvertent discovery of tribal cultural resources.

Addendum to the Artis Senior Living Project IS/MND April 2024 City of Arcadia Page 46
Therefore, there are no material changes in circumstances, and the Revised Project would not result in any new significant or substantially more severe environmental impacts that would affect the less-than-significant impact determination in the 2020 MND.

5.19 U TILITIES/SERVICE SYSTEMS
Water Conveyance/Supply and Wastewater Treatment/Conveyance According to the 2020 MND, the Approved Project would result in the daily consumption of approximately 10,000 gallons of water and daily generation of the same amount of wastewater.

These would represent a daily net reduction of 3,088 gallons in water consumption and wastewater generation due to the change in land use from a high turnover restaurant to an assisted living facility. Accordingly, the 2020 MND determined that the Approved Project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water or wastewater treatment facility, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects, and impacts related to water consumption/water supply and wastewater generation would be less than significant.

Furthermore, as related to wastewater, the City’s 2020 UWMP identified the three water reclamation plants owned by the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles and serving the City as having a combined treatment capacity of 415 million gallons per day of wastewater. As such, the approximately 14,250 gallons per day of wastewater generated by the Revised Project would represent 0.003 percent of the treatment capacity, which is considered a negligible increase. The Revised Project would connect to an existing 21-inch sewer main to the west along Michillinda Avenue via a new sewer lateral.

Accordingly, as with the Approved Project, the Revised Project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water or wastewater treatment facility, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects, and impacts related to water consumption/water supply and wastewater generation would be less than significant. Therefore, there are no material changes in circumstances, and the Revised Project

7 Based on the water consumption and wastewater generation rate of 125 gallons per day per bed used in the 2020 MND.
8 City of Arcadia, Final 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, June 2021.

Addendum to the Artis Senior Living Project IS/MND April 2024 City of Arcadia Page 47
would not result in any new significant or substantially more severe environmental impacts that would affect the less-than-significant impact determination in the 2020 MND.

Storm Drains
As discussed in Section 5.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this addendum, the 2020 MND determined that the Approved 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 Approved Project as compared to existing conditions. In addition, 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 Approved Project would not contribute to additional runoff as compared to existing conditions and would not 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 drainage were determined to be less than significant.

As with the Approved Project, development of the Revised Project would not substantially change the amount of impervious surface area on-site as compared to existing conditions. In addition, the Revised Project would be required to comply with the same existing regulations as the Approved Project. Furthermore, similar to the Approved Project, the Revised Project would likely have a beneficial effect given the reduction in overall impervious surfaces as compared to existing conditions. As such, the Revised Project would not alter the existing drainage pattern of the Project Site that would create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of the existing stormwater drainage system. Accordingly, as with the Approved Project, the Revised Project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded stormwater drainage facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects, and impacts related to storm drains would be less than significant. Therefore, there are no material changes in circumstances, and the Revised Project would not result in any new significant or substantially more severe environmental impacts that would affect the less-than- significant impact determination in the 2020 MND.

Electricity, Natural Gas, and Telecommunications
According to the 2020 MND, the Approved 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; further, the Approved Project could be served by existing telecommunication facilities that are available in the Project area. Accordingly, the Approved Project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded power lines, natural gas lines, or telecommunication facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. Therefore, impacts related to electricity, natural gas, and telecommunication facilities would be less than significant.

The Revised Project proposes the same land use type as the Approved Project. However, the Revised Project would involve a larger development than analyzed in the 2020 MND. In addition, because the restaurant occupying the existing building closed since the adoption of the 2020 MND, the amount of electricity and natural gas consumed by the restaurant use is no longer applied. As a result, the Revised Project would result in higher consumption of electricity and natural gas than the Approved Project. Nonetheless, as discussed in Section 5.6, Energy, of this addendum, the Revised Project’s electricity and natural gas usage would constitute a nominal increase compared to the County’s annual electricity and natural gas consumption. As with the Addendum to the Artis Senior Living Project IS/MND April 2024 City of Arcadia Page 48
Approved Project, the Revised Project could be served by existing telecommunication facilities that are available in the Project area. Accordingly, as with the Project, the Revised Project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded power lines, natural gas lines, or telecommunication facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. As such, impacts related to electricity, natural gas, and telecommunication facilities would be less than significant. Therefore, there are no material changes in circumstances, and the Revised Project would not result in any new significant or substantially more severe environmental impacts that would affect the less-than-significant impact determination in the 2020 MND.

Solid Waste
According to the 2020 MND, the Approved Project would result in the daily generation of approximately 400 pounds of solid waste, a daily net reduction of 9 pounds due to the change in land use from a high turnover restaurant to an assisted living facility. Accordingly, the 2020 MND determined that the Approved 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 and that impacts would be less than significant.

The Revised Project proposes the same land use type as the Approved Project. However, the Revised Project would involve a larger development than analyzed in the 2020 MND. In addition, because the restaurant occupying the existing building closed since the adoption of the 2020 MND, the amount of solid waste generated by the restaurant use is no longer applied. As a result, the Revised Project would generate approximately 570 pounds per day of solid waste. 9 This would
represent a daily net increase of 170 pounds of solid waste when compared to the Approved Project. However, according to the 2020 MND, 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. 10 Accordingly, as with the
Approved Project, the Revised 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, and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, there are no material changes in circumstances, and the Revised Project would not result in any new significant or substantially more severe environmental impacts that would affect the less-than- significant impact determination in the 2020 MND.

5.20 W ILDFIRE
According to the 2020 MND, the Project Site is not located within or adjacent to a state responsibility area or a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ), as designated by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Accordingly, the 2020 MND determined that the Approved Project would not (1) substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, (2) exacerbate wildfire risks and expose the residents of the Approved Project to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire, (3) 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

9 Based on the solid waste generation rate of 5 pounds per day per person used in the 2020 MND. 10 City of Arcadia, General Plan Update Draft Program EIR, September 2010, p. 4.16-33.

Addendum to the Artis Senior Living Project IS/MND April 2024 City of Arcadia Page 49
or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment, or (4) 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 related to wildfire would occur.

As with the Approved Project, development of the Revised Project would occur within the boundaries of the Project Site, which is not located within or adjacent to a state responsibility area or a VHFHSZ. Accordingly, as with the Approved Project, development of the Revised Project would have no impact related to wildfire. Therefore, there are no material changes in circumstances, and the Revised Project would not result in any new significant or substantially more severe environmental impacts that would affect the no-impact determination in the 2020 MND.

5.21 M ANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The 2020 MND determined that, with implementation of the identified mitigation measures related to biological resources, archaeological resources, paleontological resources, noise, and tribal cultural resources, the Approved Project would not degrade the quality of the environment.

Specifically, the Approved Project would not have substantial impacts to special-status species, stream habitat, and wildlife dispersal. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would ensure that tree removal would not pose a significant impact to migratory wildlife species. Furthermore, the Approved 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, with implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1, GEO-1, and TCR-1 through TCR-4, the Approved Project would not have substantial impacts to historical, archaeological, paleontological, or tribal cultural resources and, thus, would not eliminate any important examples of California history or prehistory. Therefore, the Approved Project would not result in a Mandatory Finding of Significance due to impacts to biological, cultural, paleontological, or tribal cultural resources.

In addition, the 2020 MND determined that the Approved Project would not have the potential to cause impacts that are cumulatively considerable as the Approved Project would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts in any environmental categories. In all cases, the impacts associated with the Approved Project would be limited to the Project Site and were of such a negligible degree that they would not result in a significant contribution to any cumulative impacts.

In some cases, the Approved Project would result in a net reduction when compared to existing conditions (i.e., related to emissions, transportation, water consumption, and wastewater and solid waste generation). Therefore, the Approved Project would not result in a Mandatory Finding of Significance due to cumulative impacts.

Furthermore, the Approved Project would 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 Approved Project could expose adjoining residential uses to temporary high noise levels during construction activities. Accordingly, Mitigation Measure NOI-1 was 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 Approved Project would 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 Approved Project Addendum to the Artis Senior Living Project IS/MND April 2024 City of Arcadia Page 50
would not result in a Mandatory Finding of Significance due to direct or indirect effects on human beings.

As with the Approved Project, the Revised Project would be required to comply with all mitigation measures identified in the 2020 MND. Furthermore, there are no design features included within the Revised Project that would suggest that these mitigation measures would not be sufficient to address any potentially significant impact that would arise from implementation of the Revised Project. As such, there are no material changes in circumstances, and implementation of the Revised Project would not result in any new significant or substantially more severe environmental impacts that would affect the determination of less-than-significant impact and less-than- significant impact with mitigation in the 2020 MND.

6.0 CONCLUSION
CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(b) states that the Lead Agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified negative declaration if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent negative declaration have occurred. The Revised Project described above does not result in significant modifications or have any occurrences within the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. In addition, the impact comparison provided above demonstrates that no new potentially significant impacts would occur and that no substantial increase in the severity of impacts would occur upon implementation of the Revised Project.

On the basis of the evaluation contained in this document, there are no changes in the Approved Project or the circumstances under which the Revised Project is being undertaken or any new information of substantial importance that was not known to the Lead Agency at the time the 2020 MND was adopted that trigger any of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, which would require a subsequent CEQA document. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164, this addendum has been prepared to document the changes to the adopted 2020 MND for the Revised Project to explain the Lead Agency’s decision not to prepare a subsequent CEQA document or a new MND.

Addendum to the Artis Senior Living Project IS/MND April 2024 City Arcadia Attachment A

ATTACHMENT A
Air Quality/GHG Assumptions and
Model Outputs
Artis Senior Living Project ISMND Detailed Report, 12/26/2023 1 / 49
Artis Senior Living Project ISMND Detailed Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2024) - Unmitigated

3.3. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated

3.5. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated

3.7. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
Artis Senior Living Project ISMND Detailed Report, 12/26/2023 2 / 49

3.9. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated

3.11. Paving (2024) - Unmitigated

3.13. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Artis Senior Living Project ISMND Detailed Report, 12/26/2023 3 / 49

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.4. Vehicles
Artis Senior Living Project ISMND Detailed Report, 12/26/2023 4 / 49

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
Artis Senior Living Project ISMND Detailed Report, 12/26/2023 5 / 49

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration
Artis Senior Living Project ISMND Detailed Report, 12/26/2023 6 / 49

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data
Artis Senior Living Project ISMND Detailed Report, 12/26/2023 7 / 49

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Artis Senior Living Project ISMND
Construction Start Date 10/1/2024
Operational Y ear 2026
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 0.50
Precipitation (days) 24.4
Location 1150 Colorado St, Arcadia, CA 91007, USA
County Los Angeles-South Coast
City Arcadia
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin South Coast
TAZ 4971
EDFZ 7
Electric Utility Southern California Edison
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.21

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Artis Senior Living Project ISMND Detailed Report, 12/26/2023 8 / 49
Congregate Care
(Assisted Living)
100 Dwelling Unit 6.25 107,706 0.00 — 296 —
Parking Lot 56.0 Space 0.50 0.00 0.00 — — —

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit. 1.81 35.4 11.4 19.9 0.03 0.44 1.22 1.63 0.40 0.29 0.66 — 4,035 4,035 0.17 0.11 4.86 4,076 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit. 6.73 5.65 53.3 54.2 0.08 2.31 4.41 6.08 2.13 1.74 3.71 — 10,100 10,100 0.43 0.38 0.23 10,214 Average
Daily
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit. 1.23 2.34 8.05 12.7 0.02 0.31 0.73 1.05 0.29 0.18 0.46 — 2,648 2,648 0.11 0.07 1.42 2,674 Annual
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit. 0.22 0.43 1.47 2.31 < 0.005 0.06 0.13 0.19 0.05 0.03 0.08 — 438 438 0.02 0.01 0.23 443

2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Artis Senior Living Project ISMND Detailed Report, 12/26/2023 9 / 49
Y ear TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
2025 1.72 1.45 11.1 18.2 0.03 0.44 1.03 1.47 0.40 0.25 0.65 — 3,732 3,732 0.15 0.10 4.57 3,771 2026 1.81 35.4 11.4 19.9 0.03 0.41 1.22 1.63 0.37 0.29 0.66 — 4,035 4,035 0.17 0.11 4.86 4,076 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
2024 6.73 5.65 53.3 54.2 0.08 2.31 3.77 6.08 2.13 1.59 3.71 — 10,100 10,100 0.43 0.34 0.16 10,214 2025 3.98 3.27 29.5 37.0 0.06 1.18 4.41 5.59 1.08 1.74 2.83 — 8,412 8,412 0.37 0.38 0.23 8,535 2026 1.60 1.34 10.6 17.1 0.03 0.38 1.03 1.42 0.35 0.25 0.60 — 3,655 3,655 0.15 0.10 0.11 3,690 Average
Daily
——————————————————
2024 0.57 0.48 4.60 4.68 0.01 0.20 0.43 0.63 0.18 0.18 0.37 — 920 920 0.04 0.04 0.28 933 2025 1.23 1.03 8.05 12.7 0.02 0.31 0.73 1.05 0.29 0.18 0.46 — 2,648 2,648 0.11 0.07 1.42 2,674 2026 0.58 2.34 3.82 6.27 0.01 0.14 0.37 0.51 0.13 0.09 0.21 — 1,324 1,324 0.06 0.04 0.66 1,337 A n n u a l ——————————————————
2024 0.10 0.09 0.84 0.85 < 0.005 0.04 0.08 0.11 0.03 0.03 0.07 — 152 152 0.01 0.01 0.05 154 2025 0.22 0.19 1.47 2.31 < 0.005 0.06 0.13 0.19 0.05 0.03 0.08 — 438 438 0.02 0.01 0.23 443 2026 0.11 0.43 0.70 1.14 < 0.005 0.03 0.07 0.09 0.02 0.02 0.04 — 219 219 0.01 0.01 0.11 221

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit. 1.78 4.05 2.50 14.1 0.03 0.16 1.65 1.80 0.16 0.42 0.57 153 4,700 4,852 15.5 0.10 7.54 5,277 Artis Senior Living Project ISMND Detailed Report, 12/26/2023 10 / 49
——————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Unmit. 1.24 3.53 2.51 7.90 0.03 0.15 1.65 1.80 0.15 0.42 0.57 153 4,608 4,761 15.5 0.10 1.53 5,181 Average
Daily
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit. 1.43 3.79 1.17 11.4 0.02 0.04 1.62 1.67 0.04 0.41 0.46 153 2,874 3,027 15.5 0.10 4.03 3,447 Annual
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit. 0.26 0.69 0.21 2.08 < 0.005 0.01 0.30 0.30 0.01 0.08 0.08 25.3 476 501 2.56 0.02 0.67 571

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Mobile 1.04 0.95 0.67 7.72 0.02 0.01 1.65 1.66 0.01 0.42 0.43 — 1,834 1,834 0.09 0.07 6.17 1,865 Area 0.71 3.08 1.55 6.31 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.12 — 0.12 0.00 1,910 1,910 0.04 < 0.005 — 1,912 Energy 0.03 0.02 0.28 0.12 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 918 918 0.07 < 0.005 — 921 W a t e r ———————————7 . 1 4 3 7 . 0 4 4 . 1 0 . 7 3 0 . 0 2 —6 7 . 8 W a s t e ———————————1 4 6 0 . 0 0 1 4 6 1 4 . 6 0 . 0 0 —5 1 0 R e f r i g . ————————————————1 . 3 7 1 . 3 7
Total 1.78 4.05 2.50 14.1 0.03 0.16 1.65 1.80 0.16 0.42 0.57 153 4,700 4,852 15.5 0.10 7.54 5,277 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Mobile 1.03 0.94 0.74 7.15 0.02 0.01 1.65 1.66 0.01 0.42 0.43 — 1,758 1,758 0.10 0.08 0.16 1,784 Area 0.17 2.58 1.49 0.64 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.12 — 0.12 0.00 1,895 1,895 0.04 < 0.005 — 1,897 Artis Senior Living Project ISMND Detailed Report, 12/26/2023 11 / 49
Energy 0.03 0.02 0.28 0.12 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 918 918 0.07 < 0.005 — 921 W a t e r ———————————7 . 1 4 3 7 . 0 4 4 . 1 0 . 7 3 0 . 0 2 —6 7 . 8 W a s t e ———————————1 4 6 0 . 0 0 1 4 6 1 4 . 6 0 . 0 0 —5 1 0 R e f r i g . ————————————————1 . 3 7 1 . 3 7
Total 1.24 3.53 2.51 7.90 0.03 0.15 1.65 1.80 0.15 0.42 0.57 153 4,608 4,761 15.5 0.10 1.53 5,181 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Mobile 1.02 0.93 0.74 7.33 0.02 0.01 1.62 1.63 0.01 0.41 0.42 — 1,778 1,778 0.09 0.08 2.66 1,807 Area 0.38 2.84 0.14 3.93 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.00 140 140 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 140 Energy 0.03 0.02 0.28 0.12 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 918 918 0.07 < 0.005 — 921 W a t e r ———————————7 . 1 4 3 7 . 0 4 4 . 1 0 . 7 3 0 . 0 2 —6 7 . 8 W a s t e ———————————1 4 6 0 . 0 0 1 4 6 1 4 . 6 0 . 0 0 —5 1 0 R e f r i g . ————————————————1 . 3 7 1 . 3 7
Total 1.43 3.79 1.17 11.4 0.02 0.04 1.62 1.67 0.04 0.41 0.46 153 2,874 3,027 15.5 0.10 4.03 3,447 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Mobile 0.19 0.17 0.14 1.34 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.30 0.30 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 — 294 294 0.02 0.01 0.44 299 Area 0.07 0.52 0.03 0.72 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 23.2 23.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 23.2 Energy 0.01 < 0.005 0.05 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 152 152 0.01 < 0.005 — 153 W a t e r ———————————1 . 1 8 6 . 1 2 7 . 3 1 0 . 1 2 < 0 . 0 0 5 —1 1 . 2 W a s t e ———————————2 4 . 1 0 . 0 0 2 4 . 1 2 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 —8 4 . 4 R e f r i g . ————————————————0 . 2 3 0 . 2 3
Total 0.26 0.69 0.21 2.08 < 0.005 0.01 0.30 0.30 0.01 0.08 0.08 25.3 476 501 2.56 0.02 0.67 571

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Artis Senior Living Project ISMND Detailed Report, 12/26/2023 12 / 49
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e O n s i t e ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

3.12 2.62 24.9 21.7 0.03 1.06 — 1.06 0.98 — 0.98 — 3,425 3,425 0.14 0.03 — 3,437 Demolitio
n
——————0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 —0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 ———————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.20 0.17 1.64 1.43 < 0.005 0.07 — 0.07 0.06 — 0.06 — 225 225 0.01 < 0.005 — 226 Demolitio
n
——————0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 —0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 ———————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.04 0.03 0.30 0.26 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 37.3 37.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 37.4 Demolitio
n
——————0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 —0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 ———————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — ————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Artis Senior Living Project ISMND Detailed Report, 12/26/2023 13 / 49
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.96 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 201 201 0.01 0.01 0.02 203 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.4 13.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 13.6 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.22 2.22 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.25 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.3. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e O n s i t e ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

2.26 1.90 18.2 18.8 0.03 0.84 — 0.84 0.77 — 0.77 — 2,958 2,958 0.12 0.02 — 2,969 Artis Senior Living Project ISMND Detailed Report, 12/26/2023 14 / 49
———————1.341.34—2.762.76——————Dust
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.27 0.23 2.18 2.25 < 0.005 0.10 — 0.10 0.09 — 0.09 — 353 353 0.01 < 0.005 — 354 Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————0 . 3 3 0 . 3 3 —0 . 1 6 0 . 1 6 ———————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.05 0.04 0.40 0.41 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 58.5 58.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 58.7 Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————0 . 0 6 0 . 0 6 —0 . 0 3 0 . 0 3 ———————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — ————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.96 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 201 201 0.01 0.01 0.02 203 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.12 0.03 2.08 0.77 0.01 0.02 0.42 0.44 0.02 0.12 0.14 — 1,603 1,603 0.09 0.26 0.10 1,682 Artis Senior Living Project ISMND Detailed Report, 12/26/2023 15 / 49
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 24.3 24.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 24.7 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.25 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 — 191 191 0.01 0.03 0.19 201 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.03 4.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.08 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 31.7 31.7 < 0.005 0.01 0.03 33.3

3.5. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e O n s i t e ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

2.07 1.74 16.3 17.9 0.03 0.72 — 0.72 0.66 — 0.66 — 2,959 2,959 0.12 0.02 — 2,970 Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————2 . 7 6 2 . 7 6 —1 . 3 4 1 . 3 4 ———————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 5.79 5.79 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.81 Artis Senior Living Project ISMND Detailed Report, 12/26/2023 16 / 49
Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 —< 0 . 0 0 5 < 0 . 0 0 5 ———————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.96 0.96 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.96 Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————< 0 . 0 0 5 < 0 . 0 0 5 —< 0 . 0 0 5 < 0 . 0 0 5 ——————— Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — ————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.88 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 197 197 0.01 0.01 0.02 199 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.12 0.02 2.01 0.76 0.01 0.02 0.42 0.44 0.02 0.12 0.14 — 1,575 1,575 0.09 0.25 0.09 1,651 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.39 0.39 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.40 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.08 3.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.23 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Artis Senior Living Project ISMND Detailed Report, 12/26/2023 17 / 49
Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.51 0.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.54

3.7. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e O n s i t e ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

1.35 1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 — 0.43 0.40 — 0.40 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

1.35 1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 — 0.43 0.40 — 0.40 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.96 0.80 7.46 9.31 0.02 0.31 — 0.31 0.28 — 0.28 — 1,713 1,713 0.07 0.01 — 1,719 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.18 0.15 1.36 1.70 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.05 — 0.05 — 284 284 0.01 < 0.005 — 285 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — ————————————————
Artis Senior Living Project ISMND Detailed Report, 12/26/2023 18 / 49
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.34 0.31 0.31 5.01 0.00 0.00 0.94 0.94 0.00 0.22 0.22 — 996 996 0.04 0.03 3.64 1,010 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.39 0.19 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 0.10 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 — 339 339 0.01 0.05 0.93 355 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.34 0.31 0.35 4.25 0.00 0.00 0.94 0.94 0.00 0.22 0.22 — 944 944 0.04 0.04 0.09 955 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.40 0.19 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 0.10 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 — 339 339 0.01 0.05 0.02 354 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker 0.24 0.22 0.27 3.19 0.00 0.00 0.66 0.66 0.00 0.15 0.15 — 684 684 0.03 0.02 1.12 693 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.29 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 242 242 0.01 0.03 0.29 253 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 113 113 0.01 < 0.005 0.19 115 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 40.1 40.1 < 0.005 0.01 0.05 41.9 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.9. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e O n s i t e ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Artis Senior Living Project ISMND Detailed Report, 12/26/2023 19 / 49
2,405—0.020.102,3972,397—0.35—0.350.38—0.380.0213.09.851.071.28Off-Road Equipment
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

1.28 1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38 — 0.38 0.35 — 0.35 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.46 0.38 3.51 4.62 0.01 0.13 — 0.13 0.12 — 0.12 — 854 854 0.03 0.01 — 857 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.08 0.07 0.64 0.84 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 141 141 0.01 < 0.005 — 142 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — ————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.30 0.27 0.28 4.65 0.00 0.00 0.94 0.94 0.00 0.22 0.22 — 976 976 0.04 0.03 3.30 990 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.37 0.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 0.10 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 — 333 333 0.01 0.05 0.90 349 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.30 0.26 0.31 3.97 0.00 0.00 0.94 0.94 0.00 0.22 0.22 — 925 925 0.04 0.03 0.09 936 Artis Senior Living Project ISMND Detailed Report, 12/26/2023 20 / 49
Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.38 0.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 0.10 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 — 333 333 0.01 0.05 0.02 348 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker 0.11 0.09 0.12 1.48 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.08 0.08 — 334 334 0.01 0.01 0.51 339 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.14 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 119 119 < 0.005 0.02 0.14 124 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 55.3 55.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 56.1 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 19.7 19.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 20.5 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.11. Paving (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e O n s i t e ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

1.01 0.85 7.81 10.0 0.01 0.39 — 0.39 0.36 — 0.36 — 1,512 1,512 0.06 0.01 — 1,517 P a v i n g —0 . 0 6 ————————————————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Artis Senior Living Project ISMND Detailed Report, 12/26/2023 21 / 49

99.7—<0 . 0 0 5< 0.00599.499.4—0.02—0.020.03—0.03<0 . 0 0 50.660.510.060.07Off-Road Equipment
P a v i n g —< 0 . 0 0 5 ————————————————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.01 0.09 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 16.5 16.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16.5 P a v i n g —< 0 . 0 0 5 ————————————————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — ————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.96 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 201 201 0.01 0.01 0.02 203 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.4 13.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 13.6 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.22 2.22 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.25 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Artis Senior Living Project ISMND Detailed Report, 12/26/2023 22 / 49

3.13. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e O n s i t e ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.15 0.12 0.86 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coatings
—3 3 . 9 ————————————————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.01 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.32 7.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.34 Architect
ural
Coatings
—1 . 8 6 ————————————————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.21 1.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.22 Architect
ural
Coatings
—0 . 3 4 ————————————————
Artis Senior Living Project ISMND Detailed Report, 12/26/2023 23 / 49

0.000.000.000.000.000.00—0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Onsite truck
Offsite — — ————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.93 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 195 195 0.01 0.01 0.66 198 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.3 10.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 10.4 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.70 1.70 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.73 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Artis Senior Living Project ISMND Detailed Report, 12/26/2023 24 / 49
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Congreg
ate
Care
(Assisted
Living)

1.04 0.95 0.67 7.72 0.02 0.01 1.65 1.66 0.01 0.42 0.43 — 1,834 1,834 0.09 0.07 6.17 1,865 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 1.04 0.95 0.67 7.72 0.02 0.01 1.65 1.66 0.01 0.42 0.43 — 1,834 1,834 0.09 0.07 6.17 1,865 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Congreg
ate
Care
(Assisted
Living)

1.03 0.94 0.74 7.15 0.02 0.01 1.65 1.66 0.01 0.42 0.43 — 1,758 1,758 0.10 0.08 0.16 1,784Parking Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 1.03 0.94 0.74 7.15 0.02 0.01 1.65 1.66 0.01 0.42 0.43 — 1,758 1,758 0.10 0.08 0.16 1,784 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Congreg
ate
Care
(Assisted
Living)

0.19 0.17 0.14 1.34 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.30 0.30 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 — 294 294 0.02 0.01 0.44 299 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.19 0.17 0.14 1.34 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.30 0.30 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 — 294 294 0.02 0.01 0.44 299

4.2. Energy
Artis Senior Living Project ISMND Detailed Report, 12/26/2023 25 / 49

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Congreg
ate
Care
(Assisted
Living)
————————————5 3 4 5 3 4 0 . 0 3 < 0 . 0 0 5 —5 3 6Parking Lot
————————————2 8 . 0 2 8 . 0 < 0 . 0 0 5 < 0 . 0 0 5 —2 8 . 1 T o t a l ————————————5 6 2 5 6 2 0 . 0 3 < 0 . 0 0 5 —5 6 4 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Congreg
ate
Care
(Assisted
Living)
————————————5 3 4 5 3 4 0 . 0 3 < 0 . 0 0 5 —5 3 6
Parking
Lot
————————————2 8 . 0 2 8 . 0 < 0 . 0 0 5 < 0 . 0 0 5 —2 8 . 1 T o t a l ————————————5 6 2 5 6 2 0 . 0 3 < 0 . 0 0 5 —5 6 4 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Congreg
ate
Care
(Assisted
Living)
————————————8 8 . 5 8 8 . 5 0 . 0 1 < 0 . 0 0 5 —8 8 . 8 Parking
Lot
————————————4 . 6 4 4 . 6 4 < 0 . 0 0 5 < 0 . 0 0 5 —4 . 6 6 Artis Senior Living Project ISMND Detailed Report, 12/26/2023 26 / 49
T o t a l ————————————9 3 . 1 9 3 . 1 0 . 0 1 < 0 . 0 0 5 —9 3 . 5

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Congreg
ate
Care
(Assisted
Living)

0.03 0.02 0.28 0.12 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 356 356 0.03 < 0.005 — 357Parking Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.03 0.02 0.28 0.12 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 356 356 0.03 < 0.005 — 357 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Congreg
ate
Care
(Assisted
Living)

0.03 0.02 0.28 0.12 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 356 356 0.03 < 0.005 — 357 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.03 0.02 0.28 0.12 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 356 356 0.03 < 0.005 — 357 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Congreg
ate
Care
(Assisted
Living)

0.01 < 0.005 0.05 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 58.9 58.9 0.01 < 0.005 — 59.1 Artis Senior Living Project ISMND Detailed Report, 12/26/2023 27 / 49
Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.01 < 0.005 0.05 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 58.9 58.9 0.01 < 0.005 — 59.1

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Hearths 0.17 0.09 1.49 0.64 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.12 — 0.12 0.00 1,895 1,895 0.04 < 0.005 — 1,897 Consum
er
Products
—2 . 3 1 ————————————————
Architect
ural
Coatings
—0 . 1 9 ————————————————
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

0.53 0.50 0.05 5.67 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 15.2 15.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.2 Total 0.71 3.08 1.55 6.31 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.12 — 0.12 0.00 1,910 1,910 0.04 < 0.005 — 1,912 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Hearths 0.17 0.09 1.49 0.64 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.12 — 0.12 0.00 1,895 1,895 0.04 < 0.005 — 1,897 Consum
er
Products
—2 . 3 1 ————————————————
Artis Senior Living Project ISMND Detailed Report, 12/26/2023 28 / 49
————————————————0.19—Architect
ural
Coatings
Total 0.17 2.58 1.49 0.64 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.12 — 0.12 0.00 1,895 1,895 0.04 < 0.005 — 1,897 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Hearths < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 21.5 21.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 21.5 Consum
er
Products
—0 . 4 2 ————————————————
Architect
ural
Coatings
—0 . 0 3 ————————————————
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

0.07 0.06 0.01 0.71 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.72 1.72 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.73 Total 0.07 0.52 0.03 0.72 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 23.2 23.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 23.2

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Congreg
ate
Care
(Assisted
Living)
———————————7 . 1 4 3 7 . 0 4 4 . 1 0 . 7 3 0 . 0 2 —6 7 . 8 Parking
Lot
———————————0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 —0 . 0 0 Artis Senior Living Project ISMND Detailed Report, 12/26/2023 29 / 49
T o t a l ———————————7 . 1 4 3 7 . 0 4 4 . 1 0 . 7 3 0 . 0 2 —6 7 . 8 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Congreg
ate
Care
(Assisted
Living)
———————————7 . 1 4 3 7 . 0 4 4 . 1 0 . 7 3 0 . 0 2 —6 7 . 8 Parking
Lot
———————————0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 —0 . 0 0 T o t a l ———————————7 . 1 4 3 7 . 0 4 4 . 1 0 . 7 3 0 . 0 2 —6 7 . 8 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Congreg
ate
Care
(Assisted
Living)
———————————1 . 1 8 6 . 1 2 7 . 3 1 0 . 1 2 < 0 . 0 0 5 —1 1 . 2Parking Lot
———————————0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 —0 . 0 0 T o t a l ———————————1 . 1 8 6 . 1 2 7 . 3 1 0 . 1 2 < 0 . 0 0 5 —1 1 . 2

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Artis Senior Living Project ISMND Detailed Report, 12/26/2023 30 / 49
510—0.0014.61460.00146———————————Congreg
ate
Care
(Assisted
Living)
Parking
Lot
———————————0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 —0 . 0 0 T o t a l ———————————1 4 6 0 . 0 0 1 4 6 1 4 . 6 0 . 0 0 —5 1 0 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Congreg
ate
Care
(Assisted
Living)
———————————1 4 6 0 . 0 0 1 4 6 1 4 . 6 0 . 0 0 —5 1 0Parking Lot
———————————0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 —0 . 0 0 T o t a l ———————————1 4 6 0 . 0 0 1 4 6 1 4 . 6 0 . 0 0 —5 1 0 A n n u a l ——————————————————
Congreg
ate
Care
(Assisted
Living)
———————————2 4 . 1 0 . 0 0 2 4 . 1 2 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 —8 4 . 4 Parking
Lot
———————————0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 —0 . 0 0 T o t a l ———————————2 4 . 1 0 . 0 0 2 4 . 1 2 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 —8 4 . 4

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Artis Senior Living Project ISMND Detailed Report, 12/26/2023 31 / 49
CO2eRN2OCH4CO2TNBCO2BCO2PM2.5TPM2.5DPM2.5EPM10TPM10DPM10ESO2CONOxROGTOGLand Use
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Congreg
ate
Care
(Assisted
Living)
————————————————1 . 3 7 1 . 3 7T o t a l ————————————————1 . 3 7 1 . 3 7 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Congreg
ate
Care
(Assisted
Living)
————————————————1 . 3 7 1 . 3 7
T o t a l ————————————————1 . 3 7 1 . 3 7
A n n u a l ——————————————————
Congreg
ate
Care
(Assisted
Living)
————————————————0 . 2 3 0 . 2 3
T o t a l ————————————————0 . 2 3 0 . 2 3

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Artis Senior Living Project ISMND Detailed Report, 12/26/2023 32 / 49
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————
A n n u a l ——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————
A n n u a l ——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
Artis Senior Living Project ISMND Detailed Report, 12/26/2023 33 / 49

4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————
A n n u a l ——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio
n
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————
A n n u a l ——————————————————
Artis Senior Living Project ISMND Detailed Report, 12/26/2023 34 / 49
T o t a l ——————————————————

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————
A n n u a l ——————————————————
T o t a l ——————————————————

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Avoided — — ————————————————
S u b t o t a l ——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
S u b t o t a l ——————————————————
Remove
d
——————————————————
Artis Senior Living Project ISMND Detailed Report, 12/26/2023 35 / 49
S u b t o t a l ——————————————————
———————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Avoided — — ————————————————
S u b t o t a l ——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
S u b t o t a l ——————————————————
Remove
d
——————————————————
S u b t o t a l ——————————————————
———————————————————
A n n u a l ——————————————————
Avoided — — ————————————————
S u b t o t a l ——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
S u b t o t a l ——————————————————
Remove
d
——————————————————
S u b t o t a l ——————————————————
———————————————————

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Artis Senior Living Project ISMND Detailed Report, 12/26/2023 36 / 49
Demolition Demolition 10/1/2024 11/1/2024 5.00 24.0 —
Grading Grading 11/1/2024 1/1/2025 5.00 44.0 —
Building Construction Building Construction 1/1/2025 7/1/2026 5.00 391 — Paving Paving 10/1/2024 11/1/2024 5.00 24.0 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 7/1/2026 7/28/2026 5.00 20.0 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 367 0.40 Demolition Excavators Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Artis Senior Living Project ISMND Detailed Report, 12/26/2023 37 / 49
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Tr ip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition — — — —
Demolition Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 22.7 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 72.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 10.7 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
P a v i n g ————
Paving Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Artis Senior Living Project ISMND Detailed Report, 12/26/2023 38 / 49
Architectural Coating Worker 14.4 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 218,105 72,702 0.00 0.00 1,317

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (Cubic Y ards) Material Exported (Cubic Y ards) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres) Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 — —
Grading — 8,000 44.0 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day) PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water Exposed Area 2 61% 61%
Artis Senior Living Project ISMND Detailed Report, 12/26/2023 39 / 49

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Congregate Care (Assisted Living) — 0%
Parking Lot 0.50 100%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Y ear and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Y ear kWh per Y ear CO2 CH4 N2O
2024 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005
2025 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005
2026 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Y ear VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Y ear Congregate Care
(Assisted Living)
296 296 296 108,040 2,323 2,323 2,323 847,872
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Congregate Care (Assisted Living) —
Artis Senior Living Project ISMND Detailed Report, 12/26/2023 40 / 49
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 90
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 10

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
218104.65 72,702 0.00 0.00 1,317

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 250

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Congregate Care (Assisted
Living)
366,583 532 0.0330 0.0040 1,110,684
Parking Lot 19,232 532 0.0330 0.0040 0.00

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
Artis Senior Living Project ISMND Detailed Report, 12/26/2023 41 / 49

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Congregate Care (Assisted Living) 3,727,380 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Congregate Care (Assisted Living) 270 —
Parking Lot 0.00 —

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Congregate Care
(Assisted Living)
Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Congregate Care
(Assisted Living)
Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.22 0.60 0.00 1.00

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Artis Senior Living Project ISMND Detailed Report, 12/26/2023 42 / 49

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Y ear Horsepower Load Factor

5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Artis Senior Living Project ISMND Detailed Report, 12/26/2023 43 / 49
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 20.8 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 7.85 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 6.20 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles ( mi) by 3.7 mi.

Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events.

Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 2 0 0 N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 0 0 N/A
Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Artis Senior Living Project ISMND Detailed Report, 12/26/2023 44 / 49
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 2 1 1 3
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2
Wildfire 1 1 1 2
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.

Artis Senior Living Project ISMND Detailed Report, 12/26/2023 45 / 49
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 84.6
AQ-PM 67.7
AQ-DPM 64.9
Drinking Water 73.7
Lead Risk Housing 82.5
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 69.0
Traffic 92.3
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 27.8
Groundwater 30.9
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 41.8
Impaired Water Bodies 0.00
Solid Waste 52.9
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 7.85
Cardio-vascular 11.0
Low Birth Weights 23.9
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 13.7
Housing 39.2
Linguistic 71.7
Poverty 37.0
Unemployment 15.8
Artis Senior Living Project ISMND Detailed Report, 12/26/2023 46 / 49

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 81.39355832
Employed 67.22699859
Median HI 79.26344155
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 85.4484794
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 95.7141024
Transportation —
Auto Access 34.2871808
Active commuting 31.10483767
Social —
2-parent households 89.32375209
Voting 33.50442705
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 52.31618119
Park access 81.35506224
Retail density 93.53265751
Supermarket access 46.91389709
Tree canopy 71.61555242
Housing —
Homeownership 56.70473502
Housing habitability 58.14192224
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 83.07455409 Artis Senior Living Project ISMND Detailed Report, 12/26/2023 47 / 49
Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 28.21763121
Uncrowded housing 92.9038881
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 94.73886822
Arthritis 0.0
Asthma ER Admissions 94.4
High Blood Pressure 0.0
Cancer (excluding skin) 0.0
Asthma 0.0
Coronary Heart Disease 0.0
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 0.0
Diagnosed Diabetes 0.0
Life Expectancy at Birth 95.9
Cognitively Disabled 43.0
Physically Disabled 65.4
Heart Attack ER Admissions 85.9
Mental Health Not Good 0.0
Chronic Kidney Disease 0.0
Obesity 0.0
Pedestrian Injuries 68.0
Physical Health Not Good 0.0
Stroke 0.0
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 0.0
Current Smoker 0.0
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 0.0
Climate Change Exposures —
Artis Senior Living Project ISMND Detailed Report, 12/26/2023 48 / 49
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 77.6
Elderly 23.5
English Speaking 37.4
Foreign-born 74.6
Outdoor Workers 93.5
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 71.9
Traffic Density 89.7
Traffic Access 23.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 15.3
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 40.7

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 31.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 81.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

7.4. Health & Equity Measures
Artis Senior Living Project ISMND Detailed Report, 12/26/2023 49 / 49
No Health & Equity Measures selected.

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use Per Project Description
Construction: Construction Phases Per AQ Questionnaire, Architectural Coating days keeps at default Construction: Architectural Coatings SCAQMD Rule 1113
Operations: Vehicle Data P e rt r a f f i cs t u d y
Operations: Hearths No wood stove
Operations: Architectural Coatings SCAQMD Rule 1113
Artis Senior Living Project
Energy Calculations
(kBTU/yr) (Therms) (kWh/ yr) (MWh/ yr)
Congregate Care (Assisted Living) 1,110,684 11,107 366,583 367 Parking Lot 0 0 19,232 19
Totals 1,110,684 11,107 385,815 386
1 kBTU = 0.01 therms
Electricity (MWh) 386 68,484,956 0.0006%
Natural Gas (Therms) 11,107 2,820,285,935 0.0004%
Land Use Natural Gas Use Electricity Use
Percentage Increase
Countywide
Energy Type
Los Angeles
County Annual
Energy
Consumption
(2022)
Project Annual
Energy
Consumption
Artis Senior Living Project
Energy Calculations
Vehicle Type Percent of Vehicle Trips1 Daily Trips2 Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled Average Fuel
Economy (miles per
gallon)3
Total Annual Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)4
Passenger Cars 0.50 148 423,364 22 19,244
Light/Medium Trucks 0.48 141 403,630 17.3 23,331 County On-Road Heavy Trucks/Other 0.02 7 20,879 6.4 3,262 2026
TOTAL 6 1.00 296 847,872 -- 45,837 10,533,727

0.4351%

5. Values may be slightly off due to rounding.

Source: Refer to CalEEMod outputs for assumptions used in this analysis.

Notes:

1. Percent of Vehicle Trip distribution based on trip characteristics within the CalEEMod model.

2. Daily Trips taken from ITE manual.

3. Average fuel economy derived from the Department of Transportation.

4. Total Daily Fuel Consumption calculated by dividing the daily VMT by the average fuel economy (i.e., VMT/Average Fuel Economy).

Artis Senior Living Project
Energy Calculations
Phase Phase Length
(# days) # Worker Trips Worker Trip Length Total VMT Fuel Consumption Factor (Miles/Gallon/Day) Total Fuel Consumption
Demolition 24 15 18.5 6,660 267.44
Grading 44 15 18.5 12,210 490.31
Building Construction 391 72 18.5 520,812 20,913.76
Paving 24 15 18.5 6,660 267.44
Architectural Coating 20 14 18.5 5,328 213.95
22,152.89
Phase Phase Length
(# days) # Vendor Trips Vendor Trip Length Total VMT Fuel Consumption Factor (Miles/Gallon/Day) Total Fuel Consumption
Demolition 24 0 10.2 0 0.00
Grading 44 0 10.2 0 0.00
Building Construction 391 11 10.2 42,674 5,114.37
Paving 24 0 10.2 0 0.00
Architectural Coating 20 0 10.2 0 0.00
5,114.37
Phase Phase Length
(# days) # Hauling Trips Hauling Trip Length Total VMT Fuel Consumption Factor (Miles/Gallon/Day)1 Total Fuel Consumption
Demolition 24 0 20 0 0.00
Grading 44 23 20 19,976 2,394.09
Building Construction 391 0 20 0 0.00
Paving 24 0 20 0 0.00
Architectural Coating 20 0 20 0 0.00
2,394.09
29,661.35
County On-road Gallons 11,054,467
2024 0.2683%

TOTAL OFF-SITE MOBILE GALLONS CONSUMED DURING CONSTRUCTION

WORKER TRIPS

VENDOR TRIPS

HAULING TRIPS

24.90284233

8.343886151

8.343886151
Artis Senior Living Project
Energy Calculations
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Consumption Rate (gallons per hour)
Duration (total
hours/day) # days Total Fuel Consumption
(gallons)
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8 367 0.40 5.872 16 24 2254.85 Demolition Excavators 3 8 36 0.38 0.5472 24 24 315.19
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8 33 0.73 0.9636 8 24 185.01 Grading Graders 1 8 148 0.41 2.4272 8 44 854.37
Grading Excavators 1 8 36 0.38 0.5472 8 44 192.61
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8 84 0.37 1.2432 24 44 1312.82 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 367 0.40 5.872 8 44 2066.94 Building Construction Forklifts 3 8 82 0.20 0.656 24 391 6155.90 Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8 14 0.74 0.4144 8 391 1296.24 Building Construction Cranes 1 7 367 0.29 4.2572 7 391 11651.96 Building Construction Welders 1 8 46 0.45 0.828 8 391 2589.98 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8 84 0.37 1.2432 24 391 11666.19 Paving Pavers 2 8 81 0.42 1.3608 16 24 522.55
Paving Paving Equipment 28 89 0.36 1.2816 16 24 492.13
Paving Rollers 2 8 36 0.38 0.5472 16 24 210.12
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6 37 0.48 0.7104 6 20 85.25 Total: 41,852.13
Notes:

Fuel Consumption Rate = Horsepower x Load Factor x Fuel Consumption Factor Where:

Fuel Consumption Factor for a diesel engine is 0.04 gallons per horsepower per hour (gal/hp/hr) and a gasoline engine is 0.06 gal/hp/hr.

Source: Refer to CalEEMod outputs for assumptions used in this analysis.

Addendum to the Artis Senior Living Project IS/MND April 2024 City Arcadia Attachment B

ATTACHMENT B
Trip Generation Analysis
1 | Page

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

To: Edwin Arreola, City of Arcadia
From: Carla Dietrich, Michael Baker International
CC: Madonna Marcelo, Mich ael Baker International
Date: March 21, 2024
Subject: Addendum to the Artis Senior Assisted Living Project Trip Generation Analysis

Project Background
On August 18, 2020, the City of Arcadia City Council adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Artis Senior Living Project, which was proposed at the southeastern corner of the intersection of Colorado Boulevard and Michillinda Avenue at 1150 West Colorado Boulevard in the City of Arcadia. The Artis Senior Living Project involved the demolition of an approximately 13,000-square-foot building (previousl y occupied by a Coco’s Bake ry and Restaurant) and the development of a new two-story, 44,192-square-foot senior/a ssisted living care facility with 80 rooms and on-site amenities (Approved Project). The Project Applicant, O&I Development, LLC, is now proposing to develop the Project site with a new 107,706-square-foot, three-story building which would have the same use as the Approved Project and constitute the Revised Project. In considering whether to ap prove the Revised Project, the City, as the lead agency pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , is required to consider the environmental consequences of the Revised Project as compared to those of the Approved Project. Therefore, this addend um assesses the trip generation analysis of the Revised Project as compared to the Approved Project using the same analysis process of evaluating the Project trip generation using the Institute of Transportation Engineer’s (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition.

Project Description
The Revised Project proposes the construction of a 107,706 square-foot building with 100 units of varying size including studio, one-bedroom, and two-bedroom units for assisted living and private and shared studios for memory care. The 100 units are proposed to accommodate 114 beds. As with the Approved Project, the Revised Project would support assisted living and memory care servic es, the latter of which would entirely be dedicated to people afflicted with Alzheimer’s disease and related memory disorders. Exhibit A-1 (attached) shows the proposed site plan.

Previous Approved Project Finding
The Approved Project trip generation analysis determined a minimal change in the number of site trips entering and exiting the site at the W. Colorado Boulevard driveway. It was anticipated that these minimal changes in site trips would have had a negligible impact on site driveway and near by intersection operations. It should be noted that the Coco’s Bakery and Restaurant was operational when the Approved Project trip generation analysis was initiated and thus an existing trip credit was applied as part of that analysis.

2 | Page
Revised Project Trip Generation
Applicable Trip Credits
Trip credits may be applied to account for certain conditions including current operational uses located at the proposed site. Table 1 details the type of trip credits which were considered during this study.

Table 1: Trip Credit Summary
Item Project Condition Credit Applied?
Existing Active
Land Use
While the site was occupied by an operational Coco’s Bakery and Restaurant during the Approved Project analysis, the restaurant is no longer operational. A conservative approach was taken and a trip credit was not applied for the Revised Project trip generation analysis.

No
Internal Trip
Reduction
Singular land use proposed which is not consistent with internal trip reductions. No
Pass-by Trip
Reduction Land use not consistent with pass-by trips. No

Project Trips
Trip generation analysis was conducted for the weekday daily, AM Peak Hour, and PM Peak Hour time periods. The ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition published in 2017, was the source of the project trip generation rates, as was the case for the Approved Project analysis. Table 2 summarizes the trip generation rates for the Assisted Living use (Land Use Code 254). It should be noted that the planned Project includes amenities for residents including a beauty salon, a fitness facility, and a restaurant. These uses are ancillary to the care facility and will be available for use by the residents rather than for commercial purposes or outside users. Ancill ary uses are accounted for in the Land Use Code 254 trip generation rates.

Table 2: Trip Generation Rates
Land Use ITE
Code
Daily Trips AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips
Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out
Assisted Living 254 2.6 / bed 50% 50% 0.19 / bed 63% 37% 0.26 / bed 38% 62% Source: Institute of Transportation Engineer’s Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition.

The project trips estimated for the proposed assisted living facility Revised Project are shown in Table 3. As shown, the estimated new trips for an assisted living facility with 114 beds is 296 daily trips, 22 AM peak hour trips and 30 PM peak hour trips.

Table 3: Estimated Number of Project Trips (Revised Project) Land Use ITE
Code Intensity
Daily Trips AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips
Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out
Assisted Living 254 114 beds 296 148 148 22 14 8 30 11 19 3| Page
Trip Distribution/Assignment
The Revised Project facility will have two access points (see Exhibit 1). One driveway will pr ovide full access along W.

Colorado Boulevard and the second driveway will provide right-in/right-out access along Michillinda Avenue. While the Approved Project only had one site driveway which was lo cated on W. Colorado Boulevard, the driveway locations for the Revised Project are consistent with the two existing Coco’s Bakery and Restaurant driveways. Exhibit 2 graphically shows the anticipated distribution patterns for the propos ed Assisted Living facil ity with two driveways and Exhibit 3 shows the anticipated site trips for the Revised Project at each of the site driveways.

Exhibit 1: Revised Project Site Access
Exhibit 2: Revised Project Trip Distribution
Michillinda Ave
Driveway #2 –
Right-In/Right-Out
Driveway #1 –
Full Access
Legend
X% (X%) AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
Entering Distribution Percentages
X% (X%) AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
Exiting Distribution Percentages
25% (25%) Michillinda Ave10% (10%)
60% (60%)
4| Page
Exhibit 3: Revised Project Site Trip Assignment
Table 3 summarizes the total site trips at each of the site driveways. Here are the key findings:
x Revised Project – It is anticipated that the Revised Project will add no more than 16 site trips to each of the two site driveways during each of the peak hours.
x Comparison of the Revised Project to the Approved Project – A comparison of site trips between the Revised Project to the Approved Project indicates that the Revised Project will add 17 or fewer site trips to each of the site driveways during each of the peak hours. It should be noted that the Approved Project site trips were adjusted by applying a trip credit for the Coco’s Bakery and Restaurant trips. Since the restaurant closed between the time of the original evaluation of the Approved Project and this evaluation of the Revised Project, the Coco’s Bakery and Restaurant trip credit was no longer applied to provide a conservative estimate. If the trip credit had been accounted for in this analysis of the Revised Pr oject, the additional site tr ips added under the Revised Project would be even fewer.

Table 3: Estimated Number of Project Trips
Site Driveway Intersection
Total Site Trips
Revised Project Approved Project1 Comparison
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
Driveway #1 – W. Colorado Blvd 13 16 1 -1 +12 +17
Driveway #2 – Michillinda Ave 10 16 Did Not Exist +10 +16 Total 23 32 1 -1 +22 +33
Note: 1) Approved Project site trips include trip credit from previous Coco’s Bakery and Restaurant use (Exhibit 4 from Artis Senior A ssisted Living Facility Trip Generation Analysis technical memorandum dated December 17, 2019). 5 (11)
4 (3) Michillinda Ave
Legend
X (X) AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
Entering Site Trips
X (X) AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
Exiting Site Trips
1( 2 )

5 | Page
Additional Trip Generation Analysis
As noted above, the analysis utilized trip rates from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition published in 2017. This was the source of the project trip generation rates for the Approved Project analysis. An updated Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition) was published after the Approved Project analysis was completed. While the use of the 10 th Edition is appropriate for the comparison to the Approved Project sinc e it was the previously approved method, an additional comparison was conducted using the 11 th Edition. Table 4 provides the trip rates and Table 5 provides the estimated trips for both editions of the manual. As shown, the daily, AM Peak Hour, and PM Peak Hour rates included 11th Edition of the manual are the same or lower than the 10th Edition rates. Therefore, the difference in the estimated Project trips using both editions of the manual are negligible.

Table 4: Comparison of Trip Generation Manual Rates
Land Use ITE
Code
Daily Trips AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips
Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out
10th
Edition Assisted Living 254 2.6 / bed 50% 50% 0.19 / bed 63% 37% 0.26 / bed 38% 62% 11th
Edition Assisted Living 254 2.6 / bed 50% 50% 0.18 / bed 60% 40% 0.24 / bed 39% 61%

Table 5: Comparison of Trip Generation Manual Estimated Trips Land Use ITE
Code Intensity
Daily Trips AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips
Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out
10th
Edition
Assisted
Living 254 114 beds 296 148 148 22 14 8 30 11 19 11th
Edition
Assisted
Living 254 114 beds 296 148 148 21 12 9 27 11 16
Difference 0 0 0 -1 -2 +1 -3 0 -3

Findings
It is estimated that the Revised Project will add no more than 16 new peak hour site trips to each of the site driveways during each of the peak hours. A comparison between the Approved Project and the Revised Project again shows a minimal increase in traffic due to the Revised Project (no more than 17 peak hour trips at each of the site driveways).

These additional trips are equivalent to an average of no more than 1 trip every 3½ minutes. It is anticipated that these minimal changes in site trips would have a negligible impact on the area intersections. Additionally, if the Coco’s Bakery and Restaurant trip credit had been taken in this analysis of the Revised Project, the additional site trips added under the Revised Project would be even fewer.

The trip comparison utilized the 10 th Edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual to be consistent with the Approved Project. An additional comparison was conducted using the 11 th Edition of the Trip Generation Manual which was published after the Approved Project analysis was conducted. The daily, AM Peak Hour, and PM Peak Hour rates included

6 | Page
11th Edition of the manual for the Assisted Livi ng use are the same or lower than the 10 th Edition rates. Therefore, the difference in the estimated Project trips using both editions of the manual are negligible.

Additionally, after the Approved Project trip gene ration technical memorandum, the City-adopted the City of Arcadia Transportation Study Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled and Level of Service Assessment (August 2020). The guidance in that document states that a Traffic Study with Level of Service analysis shall be required for a proposed project when either the AM or PM peak hour trip generation for the proposed development is expected to exceed 100 vehicle trips and for projects that will add 51 or more trips during eith er the AM or PM peak hour to any intersection. While these guidelines were not adopted at the time of the original analysis, it is interesting to note that the Revised Project generates only a small fraction of the current trip thresholds requiring a Level of Service Traffic Study.

Also, after the Project was analyzed, th e CEQA transportation metric changed fro m Level of Service to Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). While VMT is not required in this analysis, it should be noted that the City of Arcadia Transportation Study Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Trav eled and Level of Service Assessment (August 2020) identifies Assisted Living Facilities as one of the types of land uses under the VMT Proj ect Type Screening criteria. Land uses of this type can be presumed to have a less-than-significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary based on those guidelines.

7 | Page
Attachments
Exhibit A-1: Revised Project Site Plan

Source: b.hills architecture.

California Environmental Quality Act

INITIAL STUDY
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
Draft Initial Study Page i April 2020
Table of Contents
SECTION A. Environmental Checklist Form .......................................................................... 1 SECTION B. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected .................................................... 20 SECTION C. Determination................................................................................................... 21 SECTION D. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ............................................................. 22 I. Aesthetics ....................................................................................................................................... 22 II. Agriculture and Forestry Resources ........................................................................................... 25 III. Air Quality ...................................................................................................................................... 28 IV. Biological Resources ..................................................................................................................... 34 V. Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................................ 40 VI. Energy ............................................................................................................................................. 42 VII. Geology and Soils.......................................................................................................................... 45 VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................................................ 51 IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials .............................................................................................. 56 X. Hydrology and Water Quality ..................................................................................................... 61 XI. Land Use and Planning ................................................................................................................ 67 XII. Mineral Resources ......................................................................................................................... 69 XIII. Noise ............................................................................................................................................... 70 XIV. Population and Housing .............................................................................................................. 77 XV. Public Services ............................................................................................................................... 78 XVI. Recreation ....................................................................................................................................... 80 XVII. Transportation/Traffic ................................................................................................................. 81 XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................. 85 XIX. Utilities and Service Systems ....................................................................................................... 89 XX. Wildfire ........................................................................................................................................... 94 XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance ........................................................................................... 95 SECTION E. List of Mitigation Measures ............................................................................. 97 SECTION F. References ...................................................................................................... 103

Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page ii April 2020
List of Tables
Table III-1 Short-Term Construction Emissions ................................................................................. 31 Table III-2 Long-Term Operational Air Emissions ............................................................................ 32 Table III-3 Localized Significance of Construction Emissions.......................................................... 33 Table VI-1 Project and Countywide Energy Consumption ............................................................... 43 Table VIII-1 Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................. 5 2 Table VIII-2 Project Consistency with the 2017 CARB Scoping Plan ................................................ 54 Table VIII-3 Project Consistency with the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS ........................................................ 55 Table XIII-1 Noise Measurements ............................................................................................... ............. 71 Table XIII-2 Maximum Noise Levels Generated by Construction Equipment ................................. 71 Table XIII-3 Maximum Noise Levels Generated by Parking Lots....................................................... 74 Table XIII-4 Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment .................................................. 76 Table XVII-1 Estimated Number of Project Trips ................................................................................ .. 83 Table XIX-1 Water Consumption and Wastewater Generation Estimatesa ....................................... 91 Table XIX-2 Solid Waste Generation Estimates .................................................................................. ... 93 List of Figures
Figure A-1 Regional Location Map .............................................................................................. ............... 6 Figure A-2 Project Location Map ............................................................................................... ................. 7 Figure A-3 Project Site Overlay Zones ......................................................................................... .............. 8 Figure A-4 North Building Elevations .......................................................................................... .............. 9 Figure A-5 South Building Elevations .......................................................................................... ............ 10 Figure A-6 Eastern And Southern Parking And Landscaping Areas ................................................... 11 Figure A-7 Western Parking And Landscaping Areas ............................................................................ 1 2 Figure A-8 Existing Project Site Entry And Exit Points ........................................................................ 13 Figure A-9 Proposed Site Plan ................................................................................................. .................. 14 Figure A-10 Proposed Elevations North And South ............................................................................... 15 Figure A-11 Proposed Elevations East And West ................................................................................. ... 16 Figure A-12 Conceptual Project Rendering ...................................................................................... ......... 17 Figure A-13 Proposed Landscape Plan ........................................................................................... ............ 18 Figure A-14 Aerial View Of The Project Site And Surroundings ........................................................... 19

Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page iii April 2020
Appendices
Appendix A Protected Tree Report
Appendix B Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas/Energy Worksheets Appendix C Cultural Resources Identification Memorandum Appendix D Noise Spreadsheets and Modeling Outputs
Appendix E Project Trip Generation Analysis

Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page iv April 2020
7KLVSDJHLQWHQWLRQDOO\OHIWEODQN

Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 1 April 2020
SECTION A. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM

1. Project Title: Artis Senior Living Project

2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Arcadia
240 W. Huntington Drive
Arcadia, CA 91007

3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Vanessa Quiroz, Associate Planner/(626) 574-5422

4. Project Location: As shown in Figure A-1, Regional Location Map, the City of Arcadia is located in the central
San Gabriel Valley area in the eastern portion of
Los Angeles County. As shown in Figure A-2,
Project Location Map, the Project Site is located
at the southeastern corner of the intersection of
Colorado Boulevard and Michillinda Avenue at
1150 West Colorado Boulevard, Arcadia, CA
91007.

The Project Site comprises Los Angeles County
Assessor’s Parcel Number 5776-001-012.

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Artis Senior Living of Arcadia, LLC 1651 Old Meadow Road, Suite 100
McLean, VA 22102

6. General Plan Designation: Commercial

7. Zoning: General Commercial (C-G) with an Architectural Design Overlay and an Automobile Parking Overlay

8. Description of Project:

Existing Conditions
The proposed Project Site is designated in the City’s General Plan as Commercial with a corresponding zoning of C-G, General Commercial. The C-G Zone is intended to provide areas for the development of retail, offices, restaurants, and service uses. The Project Site is included within two municipal overlay zones, the Architectural Design Overlay Zone and the Automobile Parking Overlay Zone. As shown in Figure A-3, Project Site Overlay Zones , these overlay zones are limited to the Project Site, with the Architectural Design Overlay Zone covering the central and northwestern portion of the Project Site and the Automobile Parking Overlay Zone covering the southern and eastern portions of the Project Site. The Architectural Design Overlay Zone states that various building design characteristics (such as building exterior materials, roof pitch, window size, landscaping, and automobile parking area) shall be subject to Planning Commission review and approval. Further, the Architectural Design Overlay Zone states that only one free-standing sign shall be permitted and located within 100 feet of the northern and western property lines, the maximum building height shall Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 2 April 2020
not reach 30 feet above ground level, and no structure erected or permitted shall exceed 19,500 square feet of ground floor area.1,2 The Automobile Parking Overlay Zone restricts the overlay area to ground level parking uses
The Project Site consists of 2.79 acres of developed land in the northwestern portion of the City of Arcadia. The Project Site is located on the southeastern corner of the Colorado Boulevard and Michillinda Avenue intersection, immediately south of Interstate 210 (I-210/ Foothill Freeway).

The Project Site contains an existing Coco’s Bakery and Restaurant, which was constructed in 1976. The existing Coco’s, which comprises 13,088 square feet in total floor area, is a rectangular, one-story building located in the center of the Project Site. The building is surrounded on all sides by a surface parking lot, with two driveway locations, one at the northeastern corner of the Project Site along Colorado Boulevard and another at the southwestern corner of the Project Site along Michillinda Avenue. Mature eucalyptus trees flank the western and eastern sides of the Coco’s building. Additionally, there are decorative shrubs and turf along the northern, eastern, and western façades of the building, with one mature fern pine near the northeastern corner of the building. Currently, there is a mix of trees along the perimeter of the Project Site, serving as a landscape buffer between the Project Site and neighboring streets to the north and west and the residential neighborhoods to the east and south. The parking lot contains pole-mounted security lights, concrete bollards with chains that divide the parking lot on the south side of the lot, and landscape islands with decorative shrubs. Architectural lighting is also mounted along the edge of the roof of the northern façade and on the four corners of the roof of the Coco’s building and is directed inwardly. This roof-mounted lighting illuminates the Coco’s sign mounted above the building entrance on the north elevation and creates visual interest by illuminating the gently pitched roof line. Photos of the Project Site’s existing conditions are shown in Figures A-4 through A-8.

The Colorado Boulevard and Michillinda Avenue frontages are both improved with a sidewalk, curb, gutter, and three streetlights each, with a sidewalk parkway comprising a strip of turf grass. Each frontage is characterized by decorative ground cover; mature trees; a short, white-painted cinderblock wall; and decorative shrubs located between the sidewalk and the property line. A block and wood sign for Coco’s (and The Oak Tree Room inside Coco’s) is located at the northwestern corner of the Project Site.

Project Characteristics
To accommodate the Proposed Project, the Coco’s building would be demolished, and associated landscaping and surface parking lot would be removed. However, the majority of the trees along the perimeter of the Project Site would be retained and incorporated into the Proposed Project’s landscaping plan. As shown in Figure A-9, Proposed Site Plan , the Proposed Project would develop a W-shaped senior living facility, which would support memory care and assisted living services that would entirely be dedicated to people afflicted with Alzheimer’s disease and related memory disorders. The facility would comprise a new two-story 44,192-square-foot building with 80 senior housing units; each unit, which would

1 City of Arcadia Resolution No. 4440, signed and approved July 2, 1974. 2 City of Arcadia Ordinance No. 1510, signed and approved July 16, 1974.

Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 3 April 2020
range in size generally between 216 square feet and 302 square feet, would primarily consist of a bed and a private bathroom with a shower.

The first floor of the proposed building would contain 40 senior housing units, a lobby, offices, resident dining rooms, storage, and several large and small activities rooms and common spaces within 23,767 square feet of floor area, while the second floor of the proposed building would contain 40 units of senior housing, as well as dining rooms and activities room and common space, within 20,425 square feet of floor area. The Proposed Project would also include decorative landscaping, private walking paths, and an outdoor plaza on the west and south sides of the Project Site. The proposed building would extend to 37.5 feet in height.

As shown in Figures A-10 and A-11 , the proposed structure would feature a traditional/Craftsman-style design with varied massing and materials with articulation on each of the building façades to increase visual interest and avoid flat, street-facing surfaces. The moderately pitched roof would be made of black walnut-colored asphalt shingles and would contain recessed, flat centers, which would screen mechanical equipment, such as heating and air conditioning equipment and exhaust fans, from view from the street. The elevations would feature windows with exterior shutters alongside brick and alternating vertical and horizontal cement fiber board siding. The design would include decorative features, such as trellises on the north, east, and west elevations, as well as columns and decorative railing at the front and rear entrances. An 8-foot-high wooden fence, with a decorative wooden topper, would enclose the southern portion of the Project Site, which would include a gazebo, lawn, outdoor plaza, and walking paths described above. This fence would connect to the northwestern and northeastern corners of the building and extend to the southern property line. There is one gate with a Knox Box that connects the walkways within the fenced enclosure to the parking area on the east side of the Project Site. Two gated pathways with Knox Boxes would connect the enclosed walking paths to Michillinda Avenue on the west side of the Project Site. The majority of the building would extend to approximately 30 feet in height, with the front entrance, located in the center of the building, extending to 37.5 feet in height. The building would be topped with a small, decorative cupola, which would extend to approximately 40 feet, 10 inches in height. A conceptual rendering of the Proposed Project is displayed in Figure A-12.

The Proposed Project would include multiple new sources of light, including pole-mounted LED security lighting in parking areas and the passenger drop-off area; path lighting on internal walkways; accent lighting over building doorways; and a lighted sign located on the northwest corner of the Project Site.

Vehicle parking would include 55 regular parking stalls and 4 parking stalls that comply with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Vehicular access to the proposed building would be from a single ingress/egress point on Colorado Boulevard, located at an existing ingress/egress point for the Project Site. A circular drive in front of the proposed building’s entrance would accommodate passenger loading and unloading. A separate loading dock for materials and food deliveries would be located near the Project Site’s driveway at the northeastern corner of the proposed building. Directly north of the loading space would be the trash enclosure and an emergency generator for the senior care facility.

The exterior finishes and materials of the enclosures would match the senior care facility. The Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 4 April 2020
enclosure to the trash area and emergency generator would stand between 8 and 12 feet in height.

The majority of trees along the perimeter of the Project Site would be preserved in place to continue to form a vegetative screen between the Project Site and the residential uses to the east and south. The proposed building would be surrounded by landscaping, including drought-tolerant shrubs and ground cover, flower gardens, decorative trees, a lawn area/outdoor plaza with a gazebo, and a meandering concrete walkway with connections through locked gates to the existing sidewalks on Michillinda Avenue and Colorado Boulevard.

The existing curb, gutter, and sidewalks along the Project Site’s Colorado Boulevard and Michillinda Avenue frontages would be replaced as part of the Proposed Project. The public right-of-way along the Project Site’s Colorado Boulevard frontage would be widened to 12 feet in width, which would require a four-foot dedication from the Project Site, as shown in Figure A-9. Additional decorative trees would be planted in the parking area to provide shade and additional screening from adjacent uses. A detailed landscape plan is available as

Figure A-13, Proposed Landscape Plan.

The Proposed Project would require the following City approvals:
x Adoption of the IS/MND
x Zone Change: To revoke the existing Architectural Design (D) Overlay Zone and Automobile Parking (P) Overlay Zone from the Project Site; x Architectural Design Review Approval;
x Conditional Use Permit to allow for the development of the Proposed Project in a C- G Zone;
x Tree Encroachment Permit; and
x Minor Administrative Modification for the request to exceed the maximum permitted fence height of 6 feet.

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:

The Project Site is located in a fully urbanized part of the City of Arcadia, where the built environment consists of a mixture of single-family residential and commercial uses to the east in the City of Pasadena, and I-210 to the north, across the street from the Project Site.

Colorado Avenue is a four-lane, east-west running roadway with a center turn lane, classified as a Secondary Travel Corridor by the Arcadia General Plan Circulation and Infrastructure Element. Michillinda Avenue is a four-lane, north-south running roadway that forms the western boundary of the City of Arcadia. Land uses west of Michillinda Avenue are located in East Pasadena, a neighborhood in unincorporated Los Angeles County.

Figure A-14, Aerial View of the Project Site and Surroundings, provides a view of the local land use pattern in the vicinity of the Project Site. These surrounding land uses include one-level, detached, single-family homes to the east and south, which were generally constructed between the 1930s and 1970s; a gasoline station with a convenience store and a single-family home across Michillinda Avenue to the west; an approximately 40-foot-high Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 5 April 2020
commercial building to the northwest; and mature trees and I-210 across Colorado Boulevard to the north.

10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required:
x California Department of Social Services (DSS)
x Division of the State Architect

11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.? 3 Yes. The City sent notification letters to the Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe and the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians—Kizh Nation on January 10, 2020. On January 23, 2020, Andrew Salas, of the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation submitted a formal request to consult with the City. The tribal consultation process commenced on April 1, 2020 via a conference call attended by Andrew Salas and Matt Teutimez of the Gabrileño Band of Mission Indians, Lisa Flores and Vanessa Quiroz of the City of Arcadia, and Madonna Marcelo and John Bellas of Michael Baker International (the City’s environmental consultant). Please refer to Section XVIII, Tribal Cultural Resources, of this Initial Study for a discussion of the results of the consultation.

3 NOTE: Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process. (See Public Resources Code section 21080.3.2.) Information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per Public Resources Code section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that Public Resources Code section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.

FIGURE A-1
Regional Location Map
G:\Projects\Margo\Arciada\Figure1.mxd (10/22/2019)

Map Detail
Los Angeles
County
Legend
Project Site
03 MILES
^
Project Site
^
Source: ESRI streetmap
FIGURE A-2
Project Location Map
%&g(
W Orange Grove Ave
Michillinda Ave
Foothill Blvd
G:\Projects\Margo\Arciada\Figure2.mxd (10/23/2019)

08 0 0
Feet
Project Site
Source: ESRI World Imagery Service
Rosemead Blvd
Colorado Blvd

FIGURE A-9
Proposed Site Plan
Not to Scale
Source: Gateway Engineering, Inc., March 2020

Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 20 April 2020
SECTION B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
܆
Aesthetics ܆ Agriculture and Forestry Resources ܆ Air Quality ܆ Biological Resources ܆ Cultural Resources ܆ Energy
܆ Geology/Soils ܆ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ܆ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ܆ Hydrology/Water Quality ܆ Land Use/Planning ܆ Mineral Resources ܆ Noise ܆ Population/Housing ܆ Public Services
܆ Recreation ܆ Transportation/Traffic ܆ Tribal Cultural Resources ܆ Utilities/Service Systems ܆ Wildfire ܆ Mandatory Findings of Significance

For the evaluation of potential impacts, the questions in the Initial Study Checklist are stated and an answer is provided according to the analysis undertaken as part of the Initial Study. The analysis considers the long-term, direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the project. To each question, there are four possible responses:
No Impact . The project would not have any measurable environmental impact on the environment.
Less Than Significant Impact . The project would have the potential for impacting the environment, although this impact would be below established thresholds that are considered to be significant.
Less Than Significant Impact With Measures Incorporated. The project would have the potential to generate impacts which may be considered a significant effect on the environment, although measures or changes to the development’s physical or operational characteristics can reduce these impacts to levels that are less than significant. Potentially Significant Impact . The project would have impacts which are considered significant, and additional analysis is required to identify measures that could reduce these impacts to less than significant levels.

Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 22 April 2020
SECTION D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
I. Aesthetics

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

Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those
that are experienced from publicly accessible
vantage point.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning
and other regulations governing scenic quality?
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
Discussion
The Proposed Project is not classified as a “transit-oriented infill project” as set forth in Section 21099 of the Public Resources Code (PRC), and, thus, the provisions of that section do not apply to this Project.
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less Than Significant Impact. A scenic vista is defined as a publicly accessible, prominent vantage point that provides expansive views of highly valued landscapes or prominent visual elements composed of man-made or natural features. Michillinda Avenue and North Altura Road, which both provide views of the San Gabriel Mountains for northbound travelers, could be considered public vantage points that provide a view of a highly valued landscape (i.e., the San Gabriel Mountains); however, the mountain views are distant, not expansive, and are extensively obstructed by existing development, utilities, and landscaping. Further, because the majority of the City is relatively flat, including the area surrounding the Project Site, the City of Arcadia General Plan does not identify any prominent vantage points from which the public can view an expansive scenic vista within or beyond the City.
4,5
As discussed in the Project Description of this Initial Study, the Project Site is located in a highly urbanized area, dominated by features of a built environment. The surrounding development includes a mixture of building sizes, styles, and forms, and includes single-family residential, low- and mid-rise commercial, and freeway infrastructure. Many of the main arterial roadways in the City of Arcadia that

4 City of Arcadia, Arcadia General Plan Land Use and Community Design Element, November 2010. 5 City of Arcadia, Arcadia General Plan Parks, Recreation, and Community Resources Element, November 2010.

Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 23 April 2020
are oriented north and south provide views of the San Gabriel Mountains in the distance. As such, motorists traveling northbound on Michillinda Avenue (along the western boundary of the Project Site) and North Altura Road (one block east of the Project Site) have distant views of the San Gabriel Mountains, which begin approximately 1.9 miles north of the Project Site. Views of the mountains are partially obstructed by mature trees and existing development along both of these streets, I-210, and the overpass over Michillinda Avenue, as well as utility poles, traffic signals, and business signs on either side of Michillinda Avenue. As a result of these existing impediments, views of the San Gabriel Mountains are only available straight north and are obstructed to the northeast and northwest. In addition, because the proposed senior housing building would be set back approximately 106 feet from the Project Site’s eastern boundary and set back approximately 52 feet from Michillinda Avenue, the proposed building would not substantially impact the existing, limited mountain views available to motorists. Further, the existing restaurant building is approximately 20 feet in height and is surrounded by mature eucalyptus trees that extend to approximately 60 feet high. The majority of the Proposed Project would extend to approximately 30 feet in height, with the front entrance, located in the center of the building, extending to 37.5 feet in height (see Figures A-10 and A-11, which illustrate the Proposed Project’s building elevations and indicate building heights). The building would be topped with a small, decorative cupola, which would extend to approximately 40 feet, 10 inches in height. The existing eucalyptus trees on the Project Site are visible from North Altura Road, looking west over the existing single-family homes. The Proposed Project may also be visible from North Altura Road looking west over the existing single-family homes; however, the Proposed Project would not obstruct any existing views of the San Gabriel Mountains to the north from North Altura Road. Therefore, effects of the Proposed Project on scenic vistas would be less than significant. b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Less Than Significant Impact. The closest officially designated State scenic highway to the Project Site is part of the Angeles Crest State Scenic Highway, State Route 2 (SR-2), from near La Cañada- Flintridge north to the San Bernardino County line. This State scenic highway is approximately 8.5 miles northwest of the Project Site. The Arroyo Seco Historic Parkway (SR-110), between mileposts

25.7 and 31.9 in Los Angeles, is approximately 5 miles west of the Project Site. The distance between the Project Site and these officially designated scenic highways indicates that the Proposed Project would not be visible from a State scenic highway. Finally, I-210 north of SR-134 is designated as an eligible scenic highway; however, since the Project Site is approximately 5 miles west of this eligible scenic highway, the Proposed Project would not be visible from this viewshed. As such, the Proposed Project would not adversely affect the viewshed from a State scenic highway. There are a number of scenic resources on the Project Site. Although there are no rock outcroppings or historic buildings on the Project Site, the Project Site’s mature trees could be considered scenic resources because the City’s General Plan states that “Arcadia’s trees are a significant aesthetic and ecological resource” and are “one of the City’s real treasures,” distinguishing Arcadia from other cities in the vicinity.
6 Specifically, mature trees of various species are located around the perimeter of the Project Site, nearly all of which are protected by the City of Arcadia, as is described in further detail in Section IV, Biological Resources, of this Initial Study. As stated in the Project Description of this Initial Study, these protected trees provide a visual barrier between the Proposed Project and

6 City of Arcadia, Arcadia General Plan Land Use and Community Design Element, November 2010, page 2-21.

Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 24 April 2020
surrounding uses and maintaining the existing visual character of the Project area.7 Therefore, because of the Project Site’s distance from the nearest officially designated scenic highway and the lack of impacts to scenic resources on the Project Site, the Proposed Project would have a less-than- significant impact on scenic resources, such as trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings within a State scenic highway.
c) Would the project, in non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would be located in a fully urbanized area, where there is a variety of nonresidential and residential land uses and extensive urban infrastructure improvements (see Figure A-14, Aerial View of Project Site and Surroundings ). For purposes of determining impact significance for projects within urbanized areas, a project is evaluated for whether it would conflict with applicable zoning or other regulations governing “scenic quality.” The term “scenic quality” is not specifically defined in the threshold language of Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. No applicable federal or State regulations pertain to aesthetic impact; however, the Proposed Project would need to comply with Arcadia Municipal Code regulations governing scenic quality for areas zoned General Commercial.

The Project is consistent with the underlying General Commercial (C-G) zone because the development of a residential care facility is allowed with an approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP) from the City.
8 However, the Project would require a zone change to remove an existing Architectural Design (D) Overlay Zone and an Automobile Parking (P) Overlay Zone from the Project Site.

While the Proposed Project would conflict with the existing overlay zones covering the Project Site, the Proposed Project would be consistent with underlying City zoning upon approval of a CUP.

Further, the Arcadia Development Code does not contain any specific zoning regulations that govern scenic quality other than the protected tree ordinances described in Section IV, Biological Resources, of this Initial Study. As stated above, all protected trees on the Project Site would be preserved in place, providing visual barriers between the Proposed Project and surrounding uses and maintaining the existing visual character of the Project vicinity, as presented in Figure A-13, Proposed Landscape Plan. Per the Protected Tree Report, available as Appendix A and further discussed in Section IV, Biological Resources, of this Initial Study, no mitigation measures to offset tree removals would be required as part of the Proposed Project. 9 Therefore, the Proposed Project would be consistent with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality, and impacts would be less than significant.

7 Arbor Care, Inc., Protected Tree Report: Tree Survey, Encroachment, Protection and Mitigation 1150 West Colorado Boulevard, Arcadia, CA 91106, revised December 2019. 8 City of Arcadia, Arcadia Municipal Code Section 9102.03.020. 9 Arbor Care, Inc., Protected Tree Report: Tree Survey, Encroachment, Protection and Mitigation 1150 West Colorado Boulevard, Arcadia, CA 91106, revised December 2019.

Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 25 April 2020
d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project Site is currently developed with an existing Coco’s building, which is surrounded by a surface parking lot and scattered landscaped areas. Existing sources of light on the Project Site include building security lights on the restaurant building and pole-mounted parking lot lights. The area surrounding the Project Site is highly urbanized and, therefore, is already impacted by nighttime lighting from streetlights along Colorado Boulevard and Michillinda Avenue, as well as traffic signals at the intersection of Colorado Boulevard and Michillinda Avenue, vehicle headlights, and existing parking lot and building security lights at the commercial and gasoline station uses across Michillinda Avenue from the Project Site. The residential neighborhoods south and east of the Project Site do not contribute substantial nighttime lighting to the Project vicinity, apart from residential security and landscape lighting, and overhead streetlights located along North Altura Road and Altura Terrace.

The Proposed Project would contain multiple new sources of nighttime lighting, such as security lighting on internal walkways, overhead LED lights in the parking areas, and lights at building entrances, as well as accent lights along walking paths adjacent to landscaped areas and vehicle headlights from those entering and exiting the Project Site. The Proposed Project would be required to demonstrate compliance with Section 9103.01.120(D) of the Arcadia Development Code as part of the City’s design review process, which limits potential light and glare impacts by requiring that lights be directed downward and shielded/recessed to avoid spillage to adjacent properties and prohibits flashing or roof-mounted lights that are directed outward. This Arcadia Development Code section also prohibits light fixtures that are inappropriate for the scale, intensity, and height of the use they are serving. Further, the Project would be allowed one sign, the lighting of which would have to comply with City of Arcadia sign regulations. 10 Additionally, the Project would not utilize glossy or reflective construction materials that would generate significant amounts of glare off-site. Therefore, the Project would not generate excessive light or glare, and by complying with lighting regulations in the Arcadia Development Code, would result in a less-than-significant impact on day or nighttime views in the Project area.

II. Agriculture and Forestry Resources

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES:

In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.

Would the project:

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

Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 26 April 2020

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
܆ ܆ ܆ ܈
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
܆ ܆ ܆ ܈
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by Government
Code section 51104(g))?
܆ ܆ ܆ ܈
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
܆ ܆ ܆ ܈
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result
in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use
or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
܆ ܆ ܆ ܈
Discussion
a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
No Impact. As stated in the Project Description of this Initial Study, the Project Site is located in a fully urbanized part of the City of Arcadia, where the built environment consists of a mixture of single- family residences, commercial buildings, and major highway infrastructure. The Project Site is currently developed with a Coco’s restaurant, which is surrounded by a surface parking lot and ornamental landscaping. No agricultural uses or operations occur on-site or in the vicinity of the Project Site. Additionally, neither the Project Site nor the area surrounding it are mapped as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide or Local Importance pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Department of Conservation. 11 Therefore, the
Project would not convert farmland to a non-agricultural use, and no impact would occur. b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
No Impact. The Project Site is zoned as C-G (General Commercial) by the City and designated for Commercial in the City’s General Plan. Agricultural uses are not permitted on properties zoned C-G.

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

Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 27 April 2020
Further, neither the Project Site nor the surrounding area is subject to a Williamson Act contract. 12 Therefore, the Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural uses or a Williamson Act contract, and no impact would occur.
c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
No Impact. The Project Site is zoned as C-G (General Commercial) by the City and designated for Commercial in the City’s General Plan. Accordingly, the Project Site does not include any forestland or timberland and is almost entirely covered by man-made, impervious surfaces (i.e., building and surface parking lot). Therefore, the Project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forestland, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production, and no impact would occur.
d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact. The Project Site is located in a fully urbanized area and does not include any forestland or timberland. Therefore, the Project would not result in the loss or conversion of forestland to non- forest use, and no impact would occur.
e) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact. As stated in the response to Checklist Question II.c, above, the Project Site is fully urbanized and almost entirely covered by impervious surfaces. While the Proposed Project would alter the Project Site, resulting in a greater amount of pervious areas due to the increase in landscaped areas, the Project would not result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or forestland to non- forest use, and no impact would occur.

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

Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 28 April 2020
III. Air Quality

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
AIR QUALITY:

Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard?
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
Discussion
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Less Than Significant Impact . The City of Arcadia is located within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin), which is bounded by the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east and by the Pacific Ocean to the south and west. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has jurisdiction in the Basin, which has a history of recorded air quality violations and is an area where both State and federal ambient air quality standards are exceeded. 13 Areas that meet ambient air quality standards are classified as attainment areas, while areas that do not meet these standards are classified as nonattainment areas. The air quality in the Los Angeles County portion of the Basin does not meet the ambient air quality standards for ozone (O 3), coarse particulate matter (PM10), fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and lead and is therefore classified as a nonattainment area for these pollutants.14 The SCAQMD is required to reduce emissions of air pollutants for which the Basin is in federal nonattainment (i.e., O3 and PM2.5).

In order to reduce emissions, the SCAQMD adopted the 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), which establishes a program of rules and regulations directed at reducing air pollutant emissions and achieving State and federal air quality standards. 15 The 2016 AQMP is a regional and multiagency effort including the SCAQMD, the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). In addition to the AQMP, the SCAQMD regulates construction activities through Rule 403, which requires that excessive fugitive dust emissions be controlled by regular watering or other dust prevention measures, thus greatly reducing PM
10 and PM2.5 concentrations.

13 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan, March 2017. 14 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan, March 2017. 15 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan, March 2017.

Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 29 April 2020
The 2016 AQMP pollutant control strategies are based on the latest scientific and technical information and planning assumptions, including the 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), updated emission inventory methodologies for various source categories, and SCAG’s latest growth forecasts.16 SCAG’s latest growth forecasts were defined in consultation with local governments and with reference to local general plans. Therefore, the SCAQMD considers projects that are consistent with the 2016 AQMP to also have less-than- significant cumulative impacts.17
Criteria for determining consistency with the 2016 AQMP are defined by the following indicators:

Criterion 1:
x The Proposed Project will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay the attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP.

Since this criterion pertains to pollutant concentrations, rather than to total regional emissions, an analysis of the Project’s pollutant emissions relative to localized pollutant concentrations is used as the basis for evaluating project consistency. As discussed in the response to Checklist Question III.c, below, localized emissions of CO, NO
X, PM10, and PM2.5 generated by the Project would be less than significant. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations. Because reactive organic gases (ROGs) are not a criteria pollutant, there is no ambient standard or localized threshold for ROGs. Due to the role ROGs play in O3 formation, it is classified as a precursor pollutant and only a regional emissions threshold ha s been established. Further, as discussed in the response to Checklist Question III.b, below, the Proposed Project would result in emissions below the SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not have the potential to cause or affect a violation of the ambient air quality standards. Finally, the Proposed Project would result in less-than- significant impacts with regard to localized emissions during Project construction and operation. As such, the Proposed Project would not delay the timely at tainment of air quality standards or 2016 AQMP emissions reductions and, therefore, meets the first criterion for consistency with the 2016 AQMP.

Criterion 2:
x The Proposed Project will be consistent with the population, housing, and employment growth projections utilized in the preparation of the AQMP and will implement all feasible air quality mitigation measures.

A project is consistent with the 2016 AQMP in part if it is consistent with the population, housing, and employment assumptions that were used in the development of the 2016 AQMP. In the case of the 2016 AQMP, the basis for the projections of air pollu tant emissions include the Arcadia General Plan and SCAG’s RTP/SCS. The RTP/SCS also provides so cioeconomic forecast projections of regional population growth.

The Project proposes to construct a senior living facility and associated surface parking lot. The existing General Plan land use designation for the Project Site is Commercial, with a corresponding zoning of C- G, General Commercial. Further, the Project Site is within two municipal overlay zones, the Architectural

16 Southern California Association of Governments, 2016–2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, April 2016.
17 South Coast Air Quality Management District, SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds, March 2015.

Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 30 April 2020
Design overlay zone and the Automobile Parking overlay zone. While the Proposed Project would conflict with the existing overlay zones covering the Project Site, the Proposed Project would be consistent with the underlying City zoning upon approval of a CUP, as further discussed in response to Checklist Question XI.b, below. Therefore, the Proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan. The population, housing, and employment forecasts, which are adopted by SCAG’s Regional Council, are based on the local plans and policies applicable to the City. As the SCAQMD has incorporated these same projections into the 2016 AQMP, it can be concluded that the Proposed Project would be consistent with the projections.

The Proposed Project would not require mitigation and would result in less-than-significant air quality impacts, as described in responses to Checklist Questions III.b through III.d, below. Further, compliance with all emissions reduction regulations established by the SCAQMD, such as Rule 403 controlling fugitive dust, would be required. As such, the Proposed Project meets the second AQMP consistency criterion.

In conclusion, the Proposed Project would not result in a long-term impact on the region’s ability to meet State and federal air quality standards. As discussed above, the Proposed Project’s long-term influence would also be consistent with the SCAQMD’s and SCAG’s goals and policies and is, therefore, considered consistent with the 2016 AQMP. As such, impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project Site is located in the Basin, which is considered a nonattainment area for certain criteria pollutants. The Project would involve demolition, grading, and other construction activities, and would result in long-term operations at the Project Site; therefore, it would contribute to regional and localized pollutant emissions during construction (short-term) and Project occupancy (long-term). Further discussion of construction-related and operation-related emissions are provided below.

Construction
The Project involves construction activities associ ated with demolition, grading, paving, building construction, and architectural coating phases. It is anticipated that the Project would be constructed over approximately 19 months. Variables factored into estimating the total construction emissions include the level of activity, length of construction period, number of pieces and types of equipment in use, site characteristics, weather conditions, number of construction personnel, and the amount of materials to be transported on- or offsite. The analysis of daily construction emissions has been prepared utilizing the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2016.3.2. 18 Refer to Appendix B, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas/Energy worksheets, for the CalEEMod outputs and results. Table III-1 presents the anticipated daily short-term construction emissions associated with the Project.

18 South Coast Air Quality Management District, California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2016.3.2.

Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 31 April 2020
Table III-1
Short-Term Construction Emissions
Emissions Source
Pollutant (pounds/day)a,b
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Year 1 4.38 49.34 32.32 0.07 5.53 3.26
Year 2 3.50 17.82 20.01 0.04 1.72 1.02
Year 3 3.48 1.35 2.37 0.00 0.23 0.11
Maximum Daily
Emissions 4.38 49.34 32.32 0.07 5.53 3.26
SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Is Threshold
Exceeded? No No No No No No
Notes: ROG = reactive organic gases; NOx = nitrogen oxide; CO = carbon monoxide; SO2 = sulfur dioxide; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter a Emissions were calculated using CalEEMod, version 2016.3.2. b Modeling assumptions include compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 which requires properly maintaining mobile and other construction equipment; replacing ground cover in disturbed areas quickly; watering exposed surfaces three times daily; covering stockpiles with tarps; watering all haul roads twice daily; and limiting speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour.

Source: Refer to Appendix B for detailed model input/output data.

Construction activities, such as land clearing and ground disturbance, are a source of fugitive dust emissions that may have a substantial, temporary impact on local air quality. Fugitive dust emissions vary substantially from day to day, depending on the le vel of activity, specific operations, and weather conditions, and would be short term, ceasing upon Project completion. As stated above, SCAQMD Rule 403 requires that excessive fugitive dust emissions be controlled by regular watering or other dust prevention measures. Adherence to SCAQMD Rule 403 would greatly reduce PM 10 and PM 2.5 concentrations. As shown in Table III-1, total PM10 and PM2.5 emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds during construction. Other construction-related exhaust emissions would result from the transport of machinery and supplies to and from the Project Site and emissions produced by equipment used on-site. As presented in Table III-1, construction equipment and worker vehicle exhaust emissions (SO2, CO, and NOx) would be below the established SCAQMD significance thresholds.19 In addition to gaseous and particulate emissions, the application of asphalt and surface coatings creates ROG emissions, which are O 3 precursors. As required, all architectural coatings for the proposed structure would comply with SCAQMD Rule 1113, Architectural Coating, which provides specifications on painting practices and regulates the ROG content of paint.

As shown in Table III-1 , Project-related total daily construction emissions of particulate matter, equipment and vehicle exhaust, and ROG emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds. As such, air quality impacts would be less than significant.

Operation
Emissions during Project operation would be predominantly associated with motor vehicle use (mobile source emissions). To a lesser extent, area sources, such as the use of landscape maintenance equipment, and architectural coatings, as well as energy sources, such as non-hearth natural gas and

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

Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 32 April 2020
electricity, would also contribute to overall emissions. The total daily operational emissions in winter and summer are displayed in Table III-2.

Table III-2
Long-Term Operational Air Emissions
Emissions Source
Pollutant (pounds/day)a,b
ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Existing Coco’s Restaurant Emissions
Area Source Emissions 0.33 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy Emissions 0.09 0.81 0.68 0.00 0.06 0.06
Mobile Emissions 0.87 3.68 8.35 0.02 1.79 0.50
Total Daily Emissions2 1.29 4.49 9.04 0.02 1.85 0.56
Proposed Artis Senior Living Facility Emissions
Area Source Emissions 1.30 1.27 7.13 0.01 0.13 0.13
Energy Emissions 0.03 0.22 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02
Mobile Emissions3 0.39 1.95 5.26 0.02 1.53 0.42
Total Daily Emissions2 1.72 3.44 12.49 0.03 1.68 0.57

Total Net Daily Emissions
(Proposed – Existing)

0.43 -1.05 3.45 0.01 -0.17 0.01
SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Is Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Notes: ROG = reactive organic gases; NOx = nitrogen oxide; CO = carbon monoxide; SO2 = sulfur dioxide; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter a Emissions were calculated using CalEEMod, version 2016.3.2. b The numbers may be slightly off due to rounding.

Source: Refer to Appendix B for detailed model input/output data.

As shown in Table III-2 , the Project would generate a substantial reduction in mobile source emissions. This is because the Project would result in a net reduction of approximately 374 daily vehicle trips as compared with existing conditions (Coco’s Restaurant).20 This net reduction in vehicle trips is discussed further in Section XVII, Transportation/Traffic, of this Initial Study. Additionally, area source emissions, such as emissions generated from consumer products, architectural coatings, and internal combustion landscaping equipment, would result in a modest increase over existing conditions. As shown in Table III-2, the total daily emissions from mobile, area source, and energy emissions would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for ROG, NO X, CO, SOX, PM10, or PM2.5. Thus, operational air quality impacts would be less than significant. c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact. Sensitive receptors are defined as facilities or land uses that include members of the population that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants. Examples of these sensitive receptors are residences, schools, hospitals, and daycare centers. CARB has identified the following groups of individuals as the most likely to be affected by air pollution: the elderly over 65, children under 14, athletes, and persons with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases, such as asthma, emphysema, and bronchitis. 21 In order to identify impacts to sensitive receptors, the SCAQMD recommends addressing localized significance thresholds (LSTs) for construction and

20 Michael Baker International, Artis Senior Assisted Living Facility Trip Generation Analysis, December 17, 2019. 21 South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, November 1993.

Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 33 April 2020
operations impacts (area sources only). 22 The closest sensitive receptors are residences adjoining the Project Site to the east and south. These sensitive receptors may be potentially affected by air pollutant emissions generated during on-site construction activities Table III-3 presents the localized construction-related emissions for NO X, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 in comparison to the appropriate LST designated by SCAQMD. The localized emissions presented in Table III-3 are less than the emissions displayed in Table III-2 because localized emissions include only on-site emissions (i.e., from construction equipment and fugitive dust) and do not include off- site emissions (i.e., from hauling activities). As shown in Table III-3 , the Project’s localized construction emissions would not exceed the LST with adherence to SCAQMD rules and requirements. Therefore, localized significance impacts from construction would be less than significant.

Table III-3
Localized Significance of Construction Emissions
Sourcea
Pollutant (pounds/day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Year 1b 46.40 30.88 5.20 3.16
Year 2c 15.62 16.36 0.81 0.76
Year 3d 1.30 1.81 0.07 0.07
Maximum Daily
Emissions 46.40 30.88 5.20 3.16
SCAQMD Localized
Significance Thresholde 128 953 7 5
Thresholds Exceeded? No No No No
Notes: NOx = nitrogen oxide; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter
a Modeling assumptions include compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 which requires properly maintaining mobile and other construction equipment; replacing ground cover in disturbed areas quickly; watering exposed surfaces three times daily; covering stockpiles with tarps; watering all haul roads twice daily; and limiting speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. b Year 1 grading phase emissions present the worst-case scenario for NO X, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. c Year 2 building construction phase emissions present the worst-case scenario for NO X, CO, PM10, and PM2.5.
d Year 3 architectural coating phase emissions present the worst-case scenario for NO X, CO, PM10, and PM2.5.
e The LST was determined using Appendix C of the SCAQMD Final Localized Significant Threshold Methodology guidance document for pollutants NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. The LST was based on the anticipated daily acreage disturbance for construction (the thresholds for 2 acres were used), the distance to sensitive receptors (25 meters), and the source receptor area (SRA 9).

Source: Refer to Appendix B for detailed model input/output data.

Regarding operational emissions, SCAQMD states that LSTs would apply to the operational phase of a Proposed Project if the Project includes stationary sources or attracts mobile sources that may spend extended periods queuing and idling at the site (e.g., warehouse or transfer facilities). 23 Because the Proposed Project does not include such uses, no long-term LST analysis is needed and operational LST impacts would be less than significant.

22 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, July 2008. 23 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, July 2008.

Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 34 April 2020
Therefore, because the Project would not exceed short-term or long-term LSTs, the Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and air quality impacts would be less than significant.
d) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less Than Significant Impact. According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook , land uses associated with odor complaints typically include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. 24 The Proposed Project does not include any uses identified by the SCAQMD as being associated with odors.

Construction activities associated with the Project may generate other emissions and detectable odors from heavy-duty equipment exhaust and architectural coatings. However, construction-related emissions and odors would be short term in nature and cease upon Project completion. In addition, the Project would be required to comply with the California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Sections 2449(d)(3) and 2485, which minimizes the idling time of construction equipment either by shutting it off when not in use or by reducing idling time to no more than five minutes. This would further reduce the detectable odors from heavy-duty equipment exhaust. The Project would also be required to comply with the SCAQMD Regulation XI, Rule 1113 – Architectural Coatings, which would minimize odor impacts from ROG emissions during architectural coating. Any odor impacts to existing adjacent land uses would be short term and minimal. As such, the Project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people, and impacts would be less than significant.

IV. Biological Resources

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES:

Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
܆ ܆ ܆ ܈

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

Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 35 April 2020

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
܆ ܆ ܆ ܈
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
܆ ܈ ܆ ܆
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
܆ ܈ ܆ ܆
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
܆ ܆ ܆ ܈
Discussion
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project Site is located in a fully urbanized area where the built environment consists of a mixture of single-family residential and commercial buildings and major highway infrastructure. The Project Site is currently developed with a restaurant building, which is surrounded by surface parking and landscaping. As stated in the Project Description of this Initial Study, mature eucalyptus trees flank the western and eastern sides of the restaurant building.

Additionally, there are decorative shrubs and turf along the northern, eastern, and western façades of the building, with one mature fern pine near the northeastern corner of the building. There is a mix of existing trees along the perimeter of the Project Site, serving as landscape buffers between the Project Site and neighboring streets to the north and west and the residential neighborhoods to the east and south. In total, there are 72 trees located on the Project Site. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the only threatened or endangered species that have potential of occurring in this part of Arcadia are the California condor, the coastal California gnatcatcher, and the Braunton’s milk-vetch flowering plant.
25 While there are 72 trees on the Project Site, the Site does not contain any native habitat that would support the California condor or the coastal California gnatcatcher. The Project Site’s manicured landscaping does not support native plant species, such as the Braunton’s milk-vetch. Due to the disturbed nature of the Project Site, the Project Site would not support special- status species listed by the USFWS, or species listed on the California Department of Fish and

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

Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 36 April 2020
Wildlife’s (CDFW) Special Plant and Animal Lists. 26 Further, the Arcadia General Plan does not identify any sensitive or special-status species, apart from protected trees, which are discussed in the response to Checklist Question IV.e of this Initial Study. Therefore, the Project would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modification, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS. As such, impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. As previously stated, the Project Site is located in an urbanized area and is currently developed as a restaurant with associated parking and landscaping. No riparian or other sensitive natural community exists on the Project Site or in the immediate surrounding area. 27,28 Further, the
Project Site is not located in or adjacent to a Biological Resource Area or Significant Ecological Area as defined by the County of Los Angeles. 29 Additionally, there are no other sensitive natural communities or critical habitat identified by the CDFW or USFWS located on or adjacent to the Project Site.30,31,32 Therefore, the Proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community, and no impact would occur. c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act defines wetlands as “those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.” The Project Site is located in an urbanized area and is mostly covered by impervious surfaces except for some ornamental landscaping in front of the existing restaurant building and along the site frontages. There are no water bodies or federally protected wetlands on the Project Site or in the immediate vicinity.
33,34 Therefore, the Project would not have an adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands, and no impact would occur.

26 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. 27 City of Arcadia, Arcadia General Plan, Land Use and Community Design Element, November 2010. 28 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), NEPAssist, National Land Cover Database 2016 Project Site and Area land cover, map generated December 10, 2019.
29 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.
30 CDFW, Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS), https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/bios/, accessed November 8, 2019.
31 CDFW, CDFW Lands, https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/lands/, accessed November 8, 2019. 32 USFWS, Environmental Conservation Online System: Information for Planning and Consultation, map generated November 22, 2019.
33 USEPA, NEPAssist, , accessed November 8, 2019.
34 USFWS, National Wetlands Inventory, , accessed November 22, 2019.

Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 37 April 2020
d) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated . There are no waters or streams present on the Project Site. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not impact or interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish. Wildlife corridors are typically made up of undeveloped wildlife habitat and open space linkages between larger patches of wildlife habitat. Habitat linkages may also include more tenuous linkages like narrow vegetated pathways or islands of habitat that act as stepping stones between larger habitat areas for some species. The Project Site has been highly disturbed and is surrounded by developed, urban land uses; however, there are 72 existing trees on the Project Site, which could provide habitat to animals capable of flight (i.e., birds). 35 The Coco’s building, trees, and ornamental landscaping may provide suitable roosting and nesting habitat for bird species. Migratory nongame native bird species are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (50 CFR Section 10.13). Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibit take of all birds and their active nests including raptors and other migratory nongame birds (as listed under the federal MBTA). The Proposed Project would result in the removal of unprotected trees, the existing Coco’s building, and other landscaping, which could be used as habitat for nesting birds. While migratory bird species are considered highly mobile and would naturally avoid areas with loud construction noise, removal of potential nesting habitat would result in the potential for minor impacts. As such, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would be implemented, which would reduce impacts on migratory wildlife species to a less-than-significant level with mitigation incorporated.

35 Arbor Care, Inc., Protected Tree Report: Tree Survey, Encroachment, Protection and Mitigation 1150 West Colorado Boulevard, Arcadia, CA 91106, revised December 2019. 36 City of Arcadia, Code of Ordinances, Article IX, Chapter 7, Tree Preservation, and Chapter 8, Comprehensive Tree Management Program.

Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 38 April 2020
“unprotected” regardless of their size, including fruit trees, Brazilian pepper trees, palm trees, eucalyptus trees, and Italian cypress trees. Of the 72 trees located on the Project Site, 12 are considered protected under the TPO with all but two of these protected trees considered to be in good health.

There are four additional protected trees that are off-site but have canopies that encroach onto the Project Site. In total, there are 16 protected trees located on the Project Site or that have canopies that extend onto the Project Site. As discussed in the Protected Tree Report, included as Appendix A of this Initial Study, these protected trees include species, such as fern pines, carrotwoods, Japanese pear, southern magnolias, deodar cedar, coast redwood, and Canary Island pines, and are primarily located along the perimeter of the Project Site. In particular, Tree No. 49 (see Appendix A), a protected deodar cedar located on the Project Site’s Colorado Boulevard frontage, is in fair condition but is showing branch die-back.

The Proposed Project would remove a total of 18 unprotected trees, which include a mix of Victorian box trees, lemon-scented gum trees, a fern pine, and an evergreen pear tree. Of the 18 unprotected trees to be removed, 13 trees are located in the center of the Project Site, around the existing restaurant building; two trees are flanking the existing driveway onto Colorado Boulevard; two trees are located in a planter in the southeastern corner of the parking lot; and one dead tree stump is located on the Project Site’s Colorado Boulevard frontage. No healthy, protected trees would be removed as part of Project Site modifications. Of the 16 protected trees that are on or adjacent to the Project Site, all 12 of the on-site protected trees would experience some light grading within their immediate area, less than 6 inches deep within the dripline of the tree. The Protected Tree Report estimates that the Proposed Project would remove or sever less than 20 percent of the total root mass of each of these protected trees. Project-related construction activities would not encroach upon the four off-site protected trees. Accordingly, the Protected Tree Report determined that the Project would not adversely affect the long-term viability of the protected trees on or adjacent to the Project Site. As such, no protected trees would be removed or irrevocably damaged as part of Project-related grading and construction.

While some minor damage to the protected tree root systems are anticipated as part of the Proposed Project, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2 is required to prevent substantial damage to on- and off-site protected trees, via soil compaction or grading encroachment into protected tree root systems. The goal of Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would be to enclose the largest possible amount of space underneath the tree so that the heavy equipment required for demolition and construction can be routed away from root zones. Further, the TPO requires an applicant to demonstrate that a proposed project’s landscape plan is consistent with the TPO. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2 to meet the requirements of the TPO, the Proposed Project would not conflict with the City’s TPO, and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

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 Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 39 April 2020
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.

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.

7. Additional construction best practices described in the Protected Tree Report shall be implemented.
f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
No Impact. There are no adopted, approved, or proposed habitat conservation plans, natural community conservation plans, or other approved local, regional, or State conservation plans that cover habitats located in the City of Arcadia.
37 Therefore, the Proposed Project would not conflict
with such plans, and no impact would occur.

37 City of Arcadia, General Plan Update Draft Program EIR, Section 4.4 Biological Resources, June 2010.

Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 40 April 2020
V. Cultural Resources

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CULTURAL RESOURCES:

Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to
§ 15064.5?
܆ ܆ ܆ ܈
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
to § 15064.5?
܆ ܈ ܆ ܆
c) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
Discussion
The analysis in this section is based on the “Cultural Resources Identification Memorandum for the Artis Senior Living Project” prepared by Michael Baker International in January 2020, included as Appendix C of this Initial Study. The memo report summarized the methods and results of a South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) records search, literature review, and historical map review to determine whether the Project would result in significant impacts to cultural resources, including historical and archaeological resources.
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
No Impact. No historical resources (built environment) were identified on the Project Site. The current restaurant building, built in 1976, does not meet the age requirement for evaluation for eligibility for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) and, therefore, is not a historical resource as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a). Further, there are no cultural resources listed or eligible for listing in the California Register within the immediate vicinity of the Project Site (i.e., within 1.5 blocks of the Project Site). Because physical alterations associated with the Proposed Project would not extend beyond the Project Site, there would be no impact to on-site or off-site historical resources as a result of the Project’s implementation. Therefore, the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, and no impact to historical resources would occur.
b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated . The Project Site is fully paved and
landscaped with no exposed soils. No archaeological resources were identified on the Project Site or within a quarter-mile of the Project Site. The Project Site was first developed with a hotel and restaurant known as Eaton’s Santa Anita Hotel and Restaurant between 1940 and 1975 when it was demolished for the current 1976-built restaurant. No other historic literature or maps indicate occupation or development of the Project Site prior to circa 1940. Furthermore, neither the current building nor the previous Eaton’s restaurant building was identified as significant in the records search Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 41 April 2020
or literature review (see Appendix C of this Initial Study). Accordingly, the site sensitivity for subsurface archaeological resource is considered low because the Project Site has been developed and redeveloped. However, the potential exists for unanticipated discovery of archaeological resources during Project-related ground disturbance activities. Therefore, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 is required to ensure that impacts to archaeological resources pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation Measure
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. c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project would not likely disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries. Research conducted as part of the preparation of the “Cultural Resources Identification Memo Report for the Artis Senior Living Project” found no indications of any past human burial activities on or near the Project Site. However, there is the potential to discover buried human remains during Project-related earth-moving activities. According to the California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, there must be no further excavation or disturbance of a site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the Los Angeles County coroner has determined the manner and cause of any death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation or to his or her authorized representative. Project personnel/construction workers are prohibited to collect or move any human remains and associated materials. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours of this identification. The NAHC will immediately identify a Native American most likely descendant to inspect the site and provide recommendations within 48 hours for the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave goods.

Accordingly, impacts related to the disturbance of human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries, would be less than significant with the Project’s compliance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5.

Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 42 April 2020
VI. Energy

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

Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
܆ ܆ ܆ ܈
Discussion
a) Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Less Than Significant Impact.

This analysis focuses on three sources of energy that are relevant to the Proposed Project: electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuel for vehicle trips associated with Project construction and new development. The estimated construction fuel consumption is based on the Project’s construction equipment list, timing/phasing, and hours of duration for construction equipment, as well as vendor, hauling, and construction worker trips. The analysis of operational electricity/natural gas usage is based on the CalEEMod version 2016.3.2 modeling results for the Project, which quantifies energy use for the proposed occupancy. The Project’s estimated electricity/natural gas consumption is based primarily on CalEEMod’s default settings for Los Angeles County and consumption factors provided by Southern California Edison (SCE) and the Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) (the electricity and natural gas providers, respectively, for the City of Arcadia and the Project Site). The results of the CalEEMod modeling are included in Appendix B , Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas/Energy Worksheets. The amount of operational fuel consumption was estimated using the CARB Emissions Factor 2017 (EMFAC2017) computer program, which provides projections for typical daily fuel (i.e., diesel and gasoline) usage in Los Angeles County, and the Project’s annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT) outputs from CalEEMod.

Construction
Project construction would consume energy in two general forms: (1) the fuel energy consumed by construction vehicles and equipment; and (2) bound energy in construction materials, such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes, and manufactured or processed materials, such as lumber and glass.

Fossil fuels for construction vehicles and other energy-consuming equipment would be used during site clearing, grading, and construction. Fuel energy consumed during construction would be temporary and would not represent a significant demand on energy resources. In addition, some incidental energy conservation would occur during construction through compliance with State requirements that heavy-duty diesel equipment not in use for more than five minutes be turned off.

Project construction equipment would also be required to comply with the latest USEPA and CARB Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 43 April 2020
engine emissions standards. These emissions standards require highly efficient combustion systems that maximize fuel efficiency and reduce unnecessary fuel consumption. Due to increasing transportation costs and fuel prices, contractors and owners have a strong financial incentive to avoid wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy during construction.

Substantial reductions in energy inputs for construction materials can be achieved by selecting building materials composed of recycled materials that require substantially less energy to produce than non- recycled materials. The Project-related incremental increase in the use of energy bound in construction materials, such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes and manufactured or processed materials (e.g., lumber and gas), would not substantially increase demand for energy compared to overall local and regional demand for construction materials. It is reasonable to assume that production of building materials, such as concrete, steel, etc., would employ all reasonable energy conservation practices in the interest in minimizing the cost of doing business. As indicated in Table VI-1, the Project’s fuel consumption from construction would be approximately 36,934 gallons, which would increase fuel use in the County by 0.0069 percent. As such, construction would have a nominal effect on local and regional energy supplies. It is noted that construction fuel use is temporary and would cease upon completion of construction activities. There are no unusual Project characteristics that would necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less energy efficient than at comparable construction sites in the region or State. Therefore, construction fuel consumption would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than other similar development projects of this nature. As such, impacts related to energy conservation would be less than significant.

Table VI-1
Project and Countywide Energy Consumption
Energy Type
Project Annual
Energy
Consumptiona
Los Angeles County
Annual Energy
Consumptionb
Percentage
Increase
Countywideb
Net Electricity Consumptionc -257 MWh 68,486,000 MWh -0.0004% Net Natural Gas Consumptiond -21,351 therms 2,921,000,000 therms -0.0007% Fuel Consumption
x Construction Fuel Consumptione 36,934 gallons 533,800,838 gallons 0.0069% x Net Operational Automotive Fuel
Consumptione,f -8,182 gallons 3,975,480,911 gallons -0.0002% Notes:
a As modeled in CalEEMod version 2016.3.2.
b The project net reduction in electricity and natural gas consumption are compared to the total consumption in Los Angeles County in 2018. The project’s automotive fuel consumption is compared with the projected countywide fuel consumption in 2020.

Los Angeles County electricity consumption data source: California Energy Commission, Electricity Consumption by County, http://www.ecdms. energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx, accessed December 30, 2019.

Los Angeles County natural gas consumption data source: California Energy Commission, Gas Consumption by County, http://www.ecdms.energy. ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx, accessed December 30, 2019. c Net electricity consumption is calculated by subtracting the existing (i.e., Coco’s Restaurant) electricity consumption quanti ty from the Project’s total electricity consumption quantity. Refer to energy calculation sheets in Appendix B. d Net natural gas consumption is calculated by subtracting the existing (i.e., Coco’s Restaurant) natural gas consumption quanti ty from the Project’s total natural gas consumption quantity. Refer to energy calculation sheets in Appendix B. e Project fuel consumption calculated based on CalEEMod results. Countywide fuel consumption is from the CARB EMFAC2017 model.
f Net operational automotive fuel consumption is calculated by subtracting the existing (i.e., Coco’s Restaurant) operational automotive fuel consumption quantity from the Project’s total operational automotive fuel consumption quantity. Refer to energy calculation sheets in Appendix B.

Source: Refer to Appendix B for assumptions used in this analysis.

Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 44 April 2020
Operation
The Project’s estimated energy consumption is summarized in Table VI-1 , which shows that the Project’s electricity usage would constitute an approximate 0.0004-percent reduction from Los Angeles County’s typical annual electricity consumption and an approximate 0.0007-percent reduction from Los Angeles County’s typical annual natural gas consumption. The Project’s construction fuel consumption would increase Los Angeles County’s consumption by 0.0069 percent. However, the Project would generate a net decrease of approximately 374 daily trips when compared to the existing use (i.e., Coco’s Restaurant). As a result, the Project’s operational vehicle consumption would decrease Los Angeles County’s fuel consumption by 0.0002 percent.

Building Energy Demand
The Project would consume energy for interior and exterior lighting; heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems; refrigeration; electronics systems; appliances; and security systems. The Project would be required to comply with Title 24 standards, 38 which provide minimum efficiency
standards related to various building features, including appliances, water and space heating and cooling equipment, building insulation and roofing, and lighting. Implementation of Title 24 standards significantly reduces energy usage. Furthermore, the electricity provider, SCE, is subject to California’s Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS), which requires investor-owned utilities, electric service providers, and community choice aggregators to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total procurement by 2020 and to 50 percent of total procurement by 2030.

As indicated in Table VI-1, operational energy consumption would represent an approximate 0.0004- percent reduction in electricity consumption and a 0.0007-percent reduction in natural gas consumption from current countywide usage. Therefore, the Project would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of building energy, and impacts related to energy conservation would be less than significant.

Transportation Energy Demand
Pursuant to the Federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration (NTSA) is responsible for establishing additional vehicle standards and for revising existing standards. Compliance with federal fuel economy standards is not determined for each individual vehicle model. Rather, compliance is determined based on each manufacturer’s average fuel economy for the portion of their vehicles produced for sale in the U.S. Table VI-1 provides an estimate of the daily fuel consumed by vehicles traveling to and from the Project Site. As indicated in Table VI-1, Project operations are estimated to reduce existing vehicle consumption by approximately 8,182 gallons of fuel per year, which would decrease the Los Angeles County’s automotive fuel consumption by 0.0002 percent. The Project would not result in any unusual characteristics that would result in excessive operational fuel consumption associated with vehicular travel. Fuel consumption associated with Project-related vehicle trips would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary in comparison to other similar developments in the region. As such, impacts related to energy conservation would be less than significant.

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

Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 45 April 2020
b) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
No Impact. The City adopted the 2019 Energy Action Plan Update (EAP), which updates the City’s 2012 Energy Action Plan . The City is part of the San Gabriel Valley Energy Wise Partnership (SGVEWP), which is a collaboration between SCE, SoCalGas, the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments, and 29 cities in the San Gabriel Valley. Through the SGVEWP, member cities are able to participate in the SCE Energy Leader Model, which recognizes cities for increasing their energy efficiency in municipal facilities and communities, and participating in demand-response programs and long-term strategic planning. Implementation of the EAP has allowed Arcadia to reach the second highest level of energy efficiency, Gold, under the Energy Leader Model.

The 2019 EAP builds on the community goals and policies in the 2012 EAP and adds additional goals and policies for City-owned properties. The 2019 EAP outlines three City energy conservation targets:
reduce municipal electricity usage by 780,662 kilowatt hours by 2023; achieve Platinum level status in SCE’s Energy Leader Program; and complete three or more municipal energy-efficiency projects by 2023. As these goals are municipal targets, aimed at reducing electricity usage at City-owned and City- controlled facilities, the Proposed Project’s energy reduction features would not contribute to or obstruct the attainment of these goals. However, the Project’s overall energy-efficiency measures— e.g., installing energy-efficient appliances, heaters, and HVAC systems; using water-efficient landscaping (which would reduce the electricity used for water transport and treatment); and incorporation of building code-mandated energy-efficient designs—would generally support the City’s energy reduction goals. The Project’s energy consumption would be typical of senior living development projects in Southern California and would not result in an increased energy demand beyond the capacity of SCE or SoCalGas. As such, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct any plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and, as such, no impact would occur.

VII. Geology and Soils

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
GEOLOGY AND SOILS:

Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 46 April 2020

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
iv) Landslides? ܆ ܆ ܆ ܈
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?

܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
܆ ܆ ܆ ܈
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
܆ ܈ ܆ ܆
Discussion
a.i) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

Less Than Significant Impact. According to the City of Arcadia General Plan Safety Element, the Raymond Hill Fault Zone and the Sierra Madre Fault Zone are the only active or potentially active earthquake faults that pass through the City of Arcadia. 39,40 In addition, two deep blind thrust faults
are located beneath Arcadia, i.e., the relatively shallow Elysian Park Fault and the relatively deep Puente Hills Fault. These are considered blind thrust faults due to their depth and because the fault movement consists of upward or thrusting action. The Safety Element states that there is also the Eaton Wash groundwater barrier; however, this fault shows no surface geological evidence of existence and the nature of this buried fault is unknown.41 The Raymond Fault traverses a large portion of the City and has a potential to cause a 5-6-foot offset if severe ground shaking occurs. The Sierra Madre Fault crosses the northern portion of the City and could result in large ground rupture movements (possibly 10 feet or more in the event of a 7.2 magnitude earthquake).42

39 City of Arcadia, General Plan Safety Element, Figure S-1, Regional Faults, November 2010. 40 California Department of Conservation, Fault Activity Map of California, 2010. 41 City of Arcadia, General Plan Safety Element, November 2010. 42 City of Arcadia, General Plan Safety Element, November 2010.

Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 47 April 2020
The Project Site is located north of the Raymond Fault and south of the Sierra Madre Fault. An “inferred or possible groundwater barrier” fault runs directly west and south of the Project Site. As displayed in Figure S-2 of the Safety Element, the Project Site is not located within the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone for either the Sierra Madre Fault or the Raymond Fault; however, the Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone for the Raymond Fault is located just one-half mile southeast of the Project Site.43 Further, the Project Site is not located within a Fault Hazard Management Zone, which would require geologic investigations to be performed if conventional structures that are designed for human occupancy are proposed within the zone.

While the Proposed Project is near these fault zones, the Proposed Project is subject to review by the City of Arcadia Building Services Division to ensure compliance with aspects of the California Building Standards Code pertaining to seismic safety (California Code of Regulations, Title 24), which the City adopted into the City’s Code of Ordinances in 2010. 44 Because the Project Site is located
outside of Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault and Hazard Management Zones identified above and because the Project is required to adhere to building regulations dictating seismic safety, the Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault. Therefore, potential impacts related to rupture of a known earthquake fault would be less than significant. a.ii) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact. As with most of Southern California, the Project Site is in an area that is subject to strong ground shaking due to earthquakes on local and regional faults. As stated above, the Raymond Fault and the Sierra Madre Fault are the only faults to traverse the City and are located south and north of the Project Site, respectively. The 2019 California Building Code provides procedures for earthquake-resistant structural design that include considerations for on-site soil conditions, occupancy, and the configuration of the structure including the structural system and height. With adherence to the seismic design parameters as outlined in the California Building Code, the Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking. Therefore, potential impacts related to seismic ground shaking would be less than significant. a.iii) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Less Than Significant Impact. Liquefaction is the loss of strength in generally cohesionless (granular), saturated soils when the pressure of groundwater held within a soil or rock, in gaps between particles (referred to as “pore-water pressure”) induced in the soil by a seismic event, becomes equal to or exceeds the overburden pressure. Lateral spread or flow refers to landslides that commonly form on gentle slopes and that have rapid fluid-like flow movement, like wa ter. In general, lateral spreading is a result of liquefaction.

The primary factors that influence the potential for liquefaction include groundwater table elevation; the relative density of the soil; and the intensity and duration of ground shaking. The depth within which the

43 City of Arcadia, General Plan Safety Element, Figure S-2, Alquist-Priolo and Fault Rupture Hazard Zones, November 2010.
44 City of Arcadia, Code of Ordinances, Article VIII, Chapter 1, Building Code.

Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 48 April 2020
occurrence of liquefaction may impact surface improvements is generally identified as the upper 50 feet below the existing ground surface.

According to the Safety Element, the Project Site is located within a liquefaction zone due to the relatively shallow groundwater depth of approximately 40 feet. 45 However, the 2019 California Building Code provides requirements for earthquake-resistant structural design that include considerations for on-site soil conditions, occupancy, and the configuration of the structure including the structural system and height.

Other mitigation guidance provided by the California Geological Survey (CGS) includes removal and/or densification of liquefiable soils to eliminate liquefaction hazards.46 With adherence to the seismic design parameters as outlined in the California Building Code, incorporated into the Arcadia Municipal Code by reference, and CGS guidance, the Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, such as liquefaction. Therefore, potential impacts related to seismic-related ground failure would be less than significant.
a.iv) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides? No Impact. The Project Site is located in a fully urbanize d area and is surrounded by single-family residential buildings, a gas station, highway infrastructure (I-210), and a medium-rise commercial building.

The Project Site’s topography is relatively flat, with a slight slope to the southeast (a difference in elevation of approximately 10 feet between the northwestern corner and the southeastern corner of the Project Site).

Further, the Project Site is not located within an earthquake-induced landslide hazard area, as identified by the Safety Element. Accordingly, the Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides. Therefore, no impact related to landslides would occur.
b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact. Because of the extensive ground alterations that have occurred on-site since the Project Site was originally developed, it is unlikely that any native topsoil is remaining in the near surface. There would, thus, be no impact involving loss of topsoil.

During construction of the Proposed Project, the uncovered soils on-site may become exposed to wind or rainstorms and, thus, subject to erosion. The Proposed Project must comply with SCAQMD Rule 403, Fugitive Dust, to reduce the amount of particulate matter in the ambient air due to man-made fugitive dust sources by requiring actions to prevent, reduce, or mitigate fugitive dust emissions. This rule requires that construction activities include a variety of best available control measures, including measures that would prevent wind-induced erosion of uncovered soils, such as to apply chemical stabilizers to areas that would remain inactive for 10 days or longer, replant disturbed areas as soon as practical, and suspend grading when wind speeds exceed 25 miles per hour. Storm-related erosion of uncovered soils during construction activities would be prevented by complying with the County of Los Angeles’ National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit requirements. These requirements are further discussed in Section X.a, Hydrology and Water Quality, below. In general, the NPDES permit requires construction activities to incorporate best management practices (BMPs) to prevent erosion and prevent loose soils from washing off-site. In general, BMPs for the Proposed Project would include the use of

45 City of Arcadia, General Plan Safety Element, Figure S-3, Liquefaction and Landslide Hazards, November 2010. 46 California Geological Survey, Special Publication 117A: Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, 2008.

Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 49 April 2020
berms or drainage ditches to divert water around the site and preventing sediment from migrating off the site by using temporary swales, silt fences, or gravel rolls. Additionally, because the Proposed Site is greater than 1 acre, the City requires the preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, which would establish erosion and sedimentation controls, such as methods to minimize the footprint of the disturbed area, controls to prevent tracking off-site, spill prevention, non-stormwater controls (i.e., vehicle washing), and methods to protect native vegetation and trees. Therefore, the potential for soil erosion during any construction activity would be reduced to less than significant through Project compliance with these existing regulations.

Finally, the Proposed Project would result in almost the entire site covered in either impervious surfaces, such as the building, surrounding parking areas, outdoor structures (i.e., outdoor gathering spaces, refuse and generator enclosures, and storage shed), and c oncrete walkways, or managed landscaped areas.

Because almost the entire site would be covered by either impervious surfaces or managed gardens/turf areas, there would be very little potential for wind- or storm-induced erosion during the long-term operation of the Project. Accordingly, the Project would not result in soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.

Therefore, potential impacts related to soil erosion or the loss of topsoil would be less than significant. c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Less Than Significant Impact. As stated above, the Project Site’s topography is relatively flat, with a slight slope to the southeast. Further, the Project Site is not located within an earthquake-induced landslide hazard area, as identified by the Safety Element. Therefore, there would be no risk resulting from on- or off-site landslide. Further, while the project is located in a liquefaction area, the Project would be required to comply with seismic design parameters as outlined in the California Building Code, incorporated into the Arcadia Municipal Code by reference. Further, compliance with CGS guidance described above for addressing liquefaction hazards would reduce potential liquefaction impacts to site improvements to a less-than-significant level.

Other hazards include subsidence, which is the compaction of the ground when large amounts of groundwater or oil have been withdrawn from fine-grained sediments or when underlying limestone deposits dissolve, as well as collapsible soils, which undergo a volume reduction when the pore spaces become saturated with water, with the weight of overlying structures causing settlement. Both of these hazards can result in building settlement and damage to foundations and walls. Subsidence may cause differential settlement of the overlying structure and substantially more damage than if the structure were to settle evenly throughout. Large-scale subsidence due to fluid withdrawal (water or oil) has not been reported in or near the City.
47 Therefore, it is unlikely that the Project Site is located on soils that are vulnerable to subsidence or collapse. Nevertheless, the Project would be required to comply with seismic safety design regulations required by the California Building Code or those described by the CGS guidance, such as extending piles or caissons to non-collapsible soils, or utilizing various methods of soil compaction prior to construction. These building regulations would provide appropriate building design criteria needed to protect structural integrity of structures against such geologic hazards. Accordingly, with compliance with required design criteria, the Project would not result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. Therefore, potential impacts related to unstable soils would be less than significant.

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

Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 50 April 2020
d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Less Than Significant Impact. Expansive soils are generally associated with soils, alluvium, and bedrock formations that contain clay minerals susceptible to expansion under wetting conditions and contraction under drying conditions. Depending upon the type and amount of clay present in a geologic deposit, volume changes (shrink and swell) can cause severe damage to slabs, foundations, and concrete flatwork. 48 Hanford, Vista Amargosa, and Tujunga-Soboba soils that underlie the City do not have high shrink-swell potential and thus are not considered expansive. However, due to the granular (sandy) nature of the alluvium in the flatter areas of the City, expansive clays would most likely be present in older alluvial, bedrock formation soils in the hillside areas, and in sag-pond areas (e.g., the Los Angeles Arboretum and Santa Anita Racetrack areas) caused by past impoundments along the northern side of the Raymond Fault.

While the Project Site is located in an area with potential to contain expansive soils, the Project would be required to adhere to seismic safety design regulations required by the California Building Code, such as those described above. Further, the City’s Building regulations provide appropriate building design criteria needed to protect structural integrity of structures against soil expansion. Accordingly, with compliance with required design criteria, the Project would not result in direct or indirect risks to life or property due to expansive soils. Therefore, potential impacts related to expansive soils would be less than significant. e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
No Impact. All wastewater generated by the Proposed Project would be discharged via a lateral connection to an existing sanitary sewer infrastructure in Michillinda Avenue and Colorado Boulevard.

There would be no on-site wastewater disposal system. Therefore, no impact related to unstable soils due to the use of septic tanks would occur.
f) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Paleontological resources, as defined by the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, are the physical remains or other physical evidence of plants and animals preserved in soils and sedimentary rock formations.

The Project Site has been extensively disturbed in the past and is currently covered with a restaurant structure and other improvements (such as outdoor parking areas). However, there would be some potential for encountering vertebrate paleontological resources during grading activities for the Proposed Project. To avoid the potential destruction of undiscovered paleontological resources, Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would be imposed to ensure proper identification and treatment of paleontological resources that may be discovered during grading. Therefore, with mitigation incorporated, potentially significant impacts would be reduced to less than significant.

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

Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 51 April 2020
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.

VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS:

Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly
or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on
the environment?
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions
of greenhouse gases?
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
Discussion
a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact. California is a substantial contributor of greenhouse gases (GHGs), emitting over 440 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year.49 Methane (CH4) is also an important GHG that potentially contributes to global climate change. GHGs are global in their effect, which is to increase Earth’s ability to absorb heat in the atmosphere. As primary GHGs have a long lifetime in the atmosphere, accumulate over time, and are generally well-mixed, their impact on the atmosphere is mostly independent of the point of emission.

The City of Arcadia has not adopted a numerical significance threshold for assessing impacts related to GHG emissions. Similarly, SCAQMD, CARB, or any other State or regional agency has not yet adopted a numerical significance threshold for assessing GHG emissions that is applicable to the Project. Notwithstanding, for informational purposes, the following analysis calculates the amount of GHG emissions that would be attributable to the Project using recommended air quality models, as described below. The primary purpose of quantifying the Project’s GHG emissions is to satisfy CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(a), which calls for a good-faith effort to describe and calculate emissions.

The estimated emissions inventory is also used to determine if there would be a reduction in the Project’s incremental contribution of GHG emissions as a result of compliance with regulations and requirements adopted to implement plans for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions.

49 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.

Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 52 April 2020
However, the significance of the Project’s GHG emissions impacts is not based on the amount of GHG emissions resulting from the Project.

Direct, Project-related GHG emissions include emissions from construction activities, area sources, and mobile sources, while indirect, Project-related GHG emissions include emissions from electricity consumption, water demand, and solid waste generation. Operational GHG estimations are based on energy emissions from natural gas usage and automobile emissions. Table VIII-1 presents the estimated CO 2, N2O, and CH 4 emissions of the Proposed Project. In accordance with SCAQMD guidance, projected GHGs from construction have been quantified and amortized over 30 years (representing the life of the Project), which are added to the annual average operation emissions.50 As shown in Table VIII-1, the Project would result in a GHG emissions reduction of approximately 209.75 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MT CO 2e) per year when compared to the existing Coco’s Restaurant. This overall reduction in GHG emissions can be attributed to the decrease in total daily vehicle trips associated with the development as compared with existing conditions. 51 This reduction in total daily vehicle trips is further discussed in Section XVII, Transportation/Traffic, of this Initial Study.

Table VIII-1
Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Source
CO2 CH4 N2O Total
Metric
Tons of
CO2ec
Metric
Tons/yeara
Metric
Tons/yeara
Metric
Tons of
CO2eb
Metric
Tons/year1
Metric
Tons of
CO2eb
Construction Emissions
x Total Construction Emissionsc
(amortized over 30 years) 21.48 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 21.58 Operational Emissions
Existing Coco’s Restaurant Emissions
x Area 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
x Mobile Source 395.80 0.02 0.62 0.00 0.00 396.43
x Energy 302.82 0.01 0.28 0.00 1.37 304.48
x Solid Waste 2.43 0.14 3.59 0.00 0.00 6.02
x Water Demand 12.77 0.10 2.61 0.00 0.77 16.15
Total Existing Operational Emissionsc 713.83 0.28 7.10 0.01 2.14 723.08 Proposed Artis Senior Living Facility Emissions
x Area 18.64 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.10 18.77
x Mobile Source 309.49 0.02 0.41 0.00 0.00 309.91
x Energy 129.10 0.01 0.14 0.00 0.54 129.78
x Solid Waste 3.75 0.22 5.54 0.00 0.00 9.28
x Water Demand 26.33 0.14 3.43 0.00 1.04 30.81
Total Project Operational Emissionsc 487.31 0.38 9.56 0.01 1.68 498.55

Total Project Net Operational
Emissions3 -226.52 0.10 2.46 0.00 -0.46 -224.53
Total Project Emissions
Total Project Emissions
(Construction + Net Operational) -205.04 0.10 2.56 0.00 -0.46 -202.95 Total Project-Related Emissionsc -202.95 MTCO2e
Notes: CO2 = carbon dioxide; CH4 = methane; N2O = nitrous oxide

50 South Coast Air Quality Management District, California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2016.3.2. 51 Michael Baker International, Artis Senior Assisted Living Facility Trip Generation Analysis, dated December 17, 2019.

Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 53 April 2020
a Emissions calculated using the CalEEMod version 2016.3.2. b Carbon dioxide equivalent values calculated using the EPA Website, Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator , https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator, accessed January 22, 2020. c Totals may be slightly off due to rounding.

Refer to Appendix B for detailed model input/output data.

Because the Proposed Project would result in a net reduction in overall Project-related emissions, the Project would not generate GHG emissions that would have a significant impact on the environment.

Rather, the Project would represent a reduction in GHG emissions as compared to existing conditions.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less Than Significant Impact. As described above, there is no applicable adopted or accepted numerical threshold of significance for GHG emissions. Therefore, a methodology for evaluating the Project’s impacts related to GHG emissions focuses on its consistency with Statewide, regional, and local plans adopted for the purpose of reducing and/or mitigating GHG emissions. This evaluation of consistency with such plans is the sole basis for determining the significance of the Project’s GHG- related impacts on the environment.
2017 CARB Scoping Plan
The goal to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (Executive Order S-3-05) was codified by the California legislature as the 2006 Global Warming Solutions Act (Assembly Bill [AB] 32). 52 In
2008, CARB approved a Scoping Plan as required by AB 32, which was updated in 2017.53 This update focuses on implementation of a 40 percent reduction in GHGs by 2030 compared to 1990 levels. To achieve this, the 2017 Scoping Plan draws on a decade of successful programs that addresses the major sources of climate-changing gases in every sector of the economy, such as clean cars and trucks, renewable energy, reduction of pollutants such as hydrofluorocarbon refrigerants and methane, and cleaner fuels. Achieving the 2030 target under the updated Scoping Plan will also spur the transformation of the California economy and fix its course securely on achieving an 80 percent reduction in GHG emissions by 2050, consistent with the global consensus of the scale of reductions needed to stabilize atmospheric GHG concentrations at 450 ppm carbon dioxide equivalent, and reduce the likelihood of catastrophic climate change.

Table VII-2 evaluates applicable reduction actions/strategies by emissions source category to determine how the Project would be consistent with or exceed reduction actions/strategies outlined in the 2017 Scoping Plan.

52 California Air Resources board, California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, November 2017. 53 The Climate Change Scoping Plan was approved by CARB on December 11, 2008.

Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 54 April 2020
Table VIII-2
Project Consistency with the 2017 CARB Scoping Plan
Actions and Strategies Project Consistency Analysis
SB 350 Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction
Achieve a 50 percent RPS by 2030, with a doubling of energy efficiency savings by 2030.

Consistent. The Project would not be an electrical
provider or delay the goals of Senate Bill (SB) 350.

Furthermore, the Project would utilize electricity from Southern California Edison (SCE), which would be
required to comply with SB 350. As the Project would
use the electricity from SCE, the Project would be in
compliance with SB 350.

Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS)
Increase stringency of carbon fuel standards; reduce the carbon intensity of fuels by 18 percent by 2030, which is up from 10 percent in 2020.

Consistent. Motor vehicles driven by the Proposed
Project’s employees, residents, and visitors would be
required to use LCFS-compliant fuels; thus, the Project would be in compliance with this goal.

Mobile Source Strategy (Cleaner Technology and Fuels Scenario) Maintain existing GHG standards of light- and heavy-duty vehicles while adding an addition 4.2 million zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) on the road. Increase the number of ZEV buses, delivery trucks, or other trucks.

Consistent. The Project would be required to comply
with the CALGreen Residential Mandatory Measure

4.106.4 Electric vehicle (EV) charging for new construction. As such, the Project would support the use of ZEV vehicles and would not conflict with the goals of the Mobile
Source Strategy.

Short-Lived Climate Pollutant (SLCP) Reduction Strategy Reduce the GHG emissions of methane and
hydrofluorocarbons by 40 percent below the 2013 levels by 2030. Furthermore, reduce the emissions of black carbon by 50 percent below the 2013 levels by the year 2030.

Consistent. The Project does not involve sources that
would emit large amounts of methane (refer to Table
VIII-1). Furthermore, the Project would comply with all CARB and SCAQMD hydrofluorocarbon regulations.

As such, the Project would not conflict with the SLCP
reduction strategy.

SB 375 Sustainable Communities Strategies
Increase the stringency of the 2035 GHG emission s per
capita reduction target for MPOs.

Consistent. As shown in Table VIII -3, the Project
would be consistent with the SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS and
would not conflict with the goals of SB 375.

Source: California Air Resources Board, California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, November 2017.

SCAG 2016-2040 RTP/SCS
The 2016-2040 RTP/SCS is expected to help California reach its GHG reduction goals, with reductions in per capita transportation emissions of 9 percent by 2020 and 13 percent by 2035. 54 Furthermore, although there are no per capita GHG emission reduction targets for passenger vehicles set by CARB for 2040, the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS GHG emission reduction trajectory shows that more aggressive GHG emission reductions are projected for 2040.55 At the regional level, the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS is an applicable plan adopted for the purpose of reducing GHGs. In order to assess the Project’s consistency with the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS, Table VIII-3 evaluates the Project’s land use assumptions for consistency with those included in the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS. Generally, Projects are considered consistent with the provisions and general policies of applicable City and regional land use plans and regulations, such as SCAG’s 2016-2040 RTP/SCS, if they are compatible with the general intent of the plans and would not

54 California Air Resources Board, Regional Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets Pursuant to SB 375, Resolution 10-31.
55 Southern California Association of Governments, 2016–2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, p. 153, April 2016.

Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 55 April 2020
preclude the attainment of their primary goals. Table VIII-3 demonstrates the Project’s consistency with applicable actions and strategies set forth in the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS.

Table VIII-3
Project Consistency with the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS
Actions and Strategies Responsible
Party(ies) Project Consistency Analysis
Land Use Actions and Strategies
Encourage the use of range -limited battery
electric and other alternative fueled vehicles
through policies and programs, such as
neighborhood-oriented development,
complete streets, and electric (and other
alternative fuel) vehicle supply equipment in
public parking lots.

Local
Jurisdictions,
Councils of
Government,
SCAG,
County
Transportation
Commission
(CTCs)
Consistent. The Project would not impair the City or
SCAG’s ability to encourage the use of alternatively-
fueled vehicles through various policies and programs.

Specifically, the Project would be required to comply
with the CALGreen Residential Mandatory Measure

4.106.4 Electric vehicle (EV) charging for new construction.

Collaborate with the region’s public health
professionals to enhance how SCAG
addresses public health issues in its regional
planning, programming, and project
development activities.

SCAG,
State,
Local
Jurisdictions
Consistent. The Project would not impair the ability
of the City, SCAG, or State to collaborate with the
region’s public health professionals regarding the
integration of public health issues in regional planning.

Support projects, programs, and policies that
support active and healthy community
environments that encourage safe walking,
bicycling, and physical activity by children,
including but not limited to development of
complete streets, school siting policies, joint
use agreements, and bicycle and pedestrian
safety education.

Local
Jurisdictions,
SCAG
Consistent. The Project would include opportunities
for healthy, physical activities for its patrons, including walking paths, landscaped open space areas, and an
outdoor plaza.

Support projects, programs, policies , and
regulations that encourage the development
of complete communities, which includes a
diversity of housing choices and educational
opportunities, jobs for a variety of skills and
education, recreation and culture, and a full
range of shopping, entertainment, and
services all within a relatively short distance.

Local
Jurisdictions,
SCAG
Consistent. As the Project proposes the development
of a senior living facility, the Project would provide
increased housing choices and job opportunities.

Transportation Network Actions and Strategies
Explore and implement innovative strategies
and projects that enhance mobility and air
quality, including those that increase the
walkability of communities and accessibility
to transit via non-auto modes, including
walking, bicycling, and neighborhood electric
vehicles or other alternative fueled vehicles.

SCAG,
CTCs,
Local
Jurisdictions
Consistent. Per CALGreen, the Project would be
required to provide electric vehicle (EV) charging
spaces. Therefore, the Project would serve to reduce
vehicle trips that generate GHG emissions, thereby
contributing to a reduction in GHG emissions.

Collaborate with local jurisdictions to provide
a network of local community circulators that
serve new transit-oriented development
(TOD), high-quality transit areas (HQTAs),
and neighborhood commercial centers. Thus,
providing an incentive for residents and
employees to make trips on transit.

SCAG,
CTCs,
Local
Jurisdictions
Consistent. The Project would not impair the ability
of SCAG, CTCs, or the City to provide such a network
of local community circulators that serve new TOD,
HQTAs, and neighborhood commercial centers.

Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 56 April 2020
Table VIII-3 (Continued)
Project Consistency with the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS
Actions and Strategies Responsible
Party(ies) Project Consistency Analysis
Develop first-mile/last-mile strategies on a
local level to provide an incentive for
making trips by transit, bicycling, walking,
or neighborhood EV or other ZEV
options.

CTCs,
Local
Jurisdictions
Consistent. The Project would not impair the CTCs
or the City’s ability to develop first-mile/last-mile
strategies. In support of this action/strategy, the
Project would provide EV parking on-site.

Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Actions and Strategies Encourage the development of
telecommuting programs by employers
through review and revision of policies that
may discourage alternative work options.

Local
Jurisdictions,
CTCs
Consistent. The project would not impair the CTCs or
City’s ability to encourage the development of
telecommuting programs by employers.

Emphasize active transportation and
alternative fueled vehicle projects as part of
complying with the Complete Streets Act
(AB 1358).

State,
SCAG,
Local
Jurisdictions
Consistent. The Project would not impair the CTCs
or City’s ability to develop infrastructure plans and
education programs to promote active transportation
options and other alternative fueled vehicles.

Transportation System Management (TSM) Actions and Strategies Work with relevant state and local
transportation authorities to increase the
efficiency of the existing transportation
system.

SCAG,
Local
Jurisdictions,
State
Consistent. The Project would not impair the ability
of the State, SCAG, or City to work with relevant
transportation authorities to increase the efficiency of the existing transportation system.

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

In summary, the plan consistency analyses provided above demonstrates that the Project complies with the plans, policies, regulations, and GHG reduction actions/strategies outlined in the 2017 CARB Scoping Plan and SCAG 2016-2040 RTP/SCS. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing emissions of GHGs. Furthermore, because the Project would result in a net reduction of GHG emissions and the Project is consistent with the aforementioned plans, policies, and regulations, the Project’s incremental increase in GHG emissions as described above would not result in a significant impact on the environment. Therefore, Project-specific impacts with regard to consistency with climate change programs and policies would be less than significant.

IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS:

Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 57 April 2020

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
܆ ܆ ܆ ܈
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
܆ ܆ ܆ ܈
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety hazard or
excessive noise for people residing or working in the
project area?
܆ ܆ ܆ ܈
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
܆ ܆ ܆ ܈
Discussion
a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less Than Significant Impact. Materials are generally considered hazardous if they are poisonous (toxicity), can be ignited by open flame (ignitability), corrode other materials (corrosivity), or react violently, explode, or generate vapors when mixed with water (reactivity). The term “hazardous material” is defined in California Health and Safety Code as any material that, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment (Section 25501(n)(1)). The code additionally states that a hazardous material becomes a hazardous waste once it is abandoned, discarded, or recycled.

The transportation, use, and disposal of hazardous materials, as well as the potential release of hazardous materials to the environment, are closely regulated through State and federal laws. Such laws include those incorporated into the California Health and Safety Code, such as the California Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory law and the California Hazardous Waste Control law, as well as other regulations governing hazardous waste promulgated by State and federal agencies, such as the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), California Division of Occupational Safety and Health, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the USEPA.

Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 58 April 2020
The Proposed Project would include a memory care facility, along with associated surface parking and landscaping areas. Maintenance of the facility and grounds by employees and contractors would likely involve the routine transport, use, and disposal of minor quantities of typical household hazardous materials, such as cleaning products, solvents, adhesives, refrigerants, paints, other chemical materials used in building maintenance, small amounts of oil and fuels from internal combustion engines, pesticides and herbicides, sharp or used needles, and electronic waste. This level of hazardous materials use would be typical for institutional uses and has not been identified as a significant threat to the environment. Regulations, such as those mentioned above, strictly regulate the use, transportation, and disposal of hazardous waste; they include training for employees in how to properly handle and dispose of hazardous materials, as well as filing floor plans with the Los Angeles County Fire Department showing locations of hazardous material storage.

Given the age of the existing restaurant building on-site (constructed in the 1970s), there is potential for the building to contain asbestos-containing materials (ACM) and/or lead-based paint (LBP). If ACM or LBP is found during the demolition phase of construction, the applicant would be required to comply with 40 CFR Part 61, Cal OSHA rule 1529, and South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1403 when it comes to identification, removal, handling, and disposal of ACM. The applicant must also comply with requirements detailed in 24 CFR Part 35, Cal OSHA rule 1532.1, and 40 CFR Part 745 regarding evaluation, testing, and reducing lead-based paint hazards. Compliance with these regulations would ensure that Project-related contamination would be effectively disposed of during the demolition phase and would, therefore, have no effect on the health and safety of area residents.

Based on the type of land use proposed, the relatively minor anticipated level of use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials, and the requirement to comply with various State and federal laws regulating hazardous materials, the Project would not result in a significant impact involving the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Therefore, potential impacts related to hazardous materials would be less than significant.
b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact. Locations known to contain toxic substances and contamination are identified using data from DTSC. The Project Site is not identified as a clean-up site or located within one-half mile of a clean-up site listed in the DTSC EnviroStor database. 56 However, the GeoTracker
database, maintained by the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), identified five clean-up sites within one-half mile of the Project Site. These clean-up sites are located at 3706 Foothill Boulevard (two clean-up sites at this address), 3698 Colorado Boulevard, 4000 Foothill Boulevard, and 3880 Colorado Boulevard and are all leaking underground storage tank (LUST) clean-up sites.

According to the SWRCB, each of these clean-up sites was addressing soil contamination associated with leaking gasoline tanks. Each site has been cleaned up (as of 2008), and each of the individual cases closed. Because Project-related ground disturbance would be limited to the Project Site, which is not listed on hazardous waste disposal or clean-up databases maintained by the State, the Project

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

Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 59 April 2020
would not result in reasonably foreseeable upset of existing contamination located at the clean-up sites in the Project vicinity.

Construction activities may also include refueling and minor maintenance of construction equipment on-site, which could lead to minor fuel and oil spills; however, as described in the response to Checklist Question X.a, below, a variety of routine construction control measures would be incorporated, including spill prevention/containment, sedimentation and erosion controls, and irrigation controls, to prevent conditions that would release hazardous materials into the environment during Project construction.

Additionally, as stated above, operation of the proposed institutional facility would not result in substantial use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials. Further, any such use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials would be strictly regulated by State and federal laws. As such, there would not be a significant hazard to the public involving the accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment during Project operation.

Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in any reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment, and impacts would be less than significant.
c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
No Impact. The nearest school to the Project Site is Hugo Reid Primary School, which is located approximately one-half mile south of the Project Site (located at 1153 de Anza Place). 57 Therefore,
there are no existing or proposed schools within one-quarter mile of the Project Site, and no impact would occur.
d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No Impact. The Project Site is not included on the Cortese list, which is the list of sites compiled by DTSC under Government Code Section 65962.5. As such, the Project Site is not included on DTSC’s list of hazardous waste facilities subject to corrective action pursuant to Section 25187.5 of the Health and Safety Code; land designated as hazardous waste property or border zone property pursuant to Article 11; information received regarding waste disposals on public land; all sites listed pursuant to Section 25356 of the Health and Safety Code; or all sites included in the Abandoned Site Assessment program.
58,59 As such, the Proposed Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment, and no impact would occur.

57 City of Arcadia, General Plan Parks, Recreation, and Community Resources Element , Figure PR-4: AUSD School Locations, November 2010.
58 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. 59 California DTSC, EnviroStor Hazardous Waste and Substance Site List, 2019.

Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 60 April 2020
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The nearest airport to the Project Site is the San Gabriel Airport (also known as El Monte Airport), which is approximately 4.5 miles southeast. Therefore, the Project Site is not within 2 miles of a public airport and would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project area, and no impact would occur. f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project Site is currently occupied by a restaurant building, which is currently receiving police, fire, and paramedic services provided by the City of Arcadia. Access to the Project Site is currently available on Michillinda Avenue and Colorado Boulevard. The Proposed Project would have one ingress and egress point onto Colorado Boulevard, with available right-turn and left-turn egress options. Project inhabitants would have access to major thoroughfares such as Michillinda Avenue, I-210, and Foothill Boulevard (identified as a Principal Travel Corridor by the City’s General Plan) during an emergency evacuation. Further, the Proposed Project would be consistent with the General Plan land use and zoning designations. Therefore, development of the Project Site as proposed would not impair implementation of an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan. As such, potential impacts related to emergency response or evacuation would be less than significant.
g) Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? No Impact. The Project Site is not located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, as identified by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 60,61 Very High Fire Hazard
Severity Zones in the City of Arcadia are concentrated on the northeast 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. The Project Site does not include and is not surrounded by wildland areas, such as low-density hillside areas with large quantities of uncultivated, combustible plants. Therefore, the Project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. As such, no impact related to wildland fire would occur.

60 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA Arcadia, September 2011.
61 City of Arcadia , General Plan Safety Element, Figure S-6: Fire Hazard Zones, November 2010.

Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 61 April 2020
X. Hydrology and Water Quality

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY:

Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or ground water quality?
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river or through the
addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would:
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off-site?
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site?
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
iii) create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
iv) impede or redirect flood flows? ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation?
܆ ܆ ܆ ܈
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
Discussion
a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? Less Than Significant Impact. The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB) prepares and maintains a basin plan which identifies narrative and numerical water quality objectives to protect all beneficial uses of the waters of that region. The basin plan strives to achieve the identified water quality objectives through implementation of Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) and by employing three strategies for addressing water quality issues: control of point source pollutants, control of nonpoint source pollutants, and remediation of existing Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 62 April 2020
contamination. The project site is located in the Los Angeles region and is, therefore, covered under the Basin Plan for the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties (Basin Plan).

Point sources of pollutants are well-defined locations at which pollutants flow into water bodies (discharges from wastewater treatment plants and industrial sources, for example). These sources are controlled through regulatory systems including permitting under California’s WDRs and the NPDES program; permits are issued by the appropriate RWQCB and may set discharge limitations or other discharge provisions. According to the Basin Plan, nonpoint sources of pollutants are typically derived from project site runoff caused by rain or irrigation and have been classified by the USEPA into one of the following categories: agriculture, urban runoff, construction, hydromodification, resource extraction, silviculture, and land disposal.

The Project could have both short- and long-term impacts on water quality. Short-term impacts would occur during the construction phase of the Project, when the pollutants of greatest concern are sediment, which may run off the Project site due to site grading or other site preparation activities, and hydrocarbon or fossil fuel remnants from the construction equipment. In addition, on-site watering activities to reduce airborne dust could contribute to pollutant loading in surface runoff.

However, construction runoff is regulated by the NPDES Construction General Permit, which requires identification of a variety of water quality control BMPs to be specified on construction plans and implemented throughout construction. Measures are required to keep stormwater out of construction zones; conduct regular site maintenance and “good housekeeping practices” to prevent, minimize, and dispose of solid and liquid wastes; capture and control any site runoff so that water pollutants don’t enter storm drains; and have response procedures in place in the event of accidental spills of water contaminants. This permit applies to all construction which disturbs an area of at least 1 acre and is administered by the relevant RWQCB. As stated in response to Checklist Question VII.b of this Initial Study, the City would require the preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan for the Proposed Project, which would establish erosion and sedimentation controls, such as methods to minimize the footprint of the disturbed area, controls to prevent tracking off-site, spill prevention, non-stormwater controls (i.e., vehicle washing), and methods to protect native vegetation and trees.

Further, the City would require a NPDES Construction General Permit for discharge of stormwater associated with Project construction activities. Through these existing, mandatory regulatory compliance measures, potential water quality impacts during construction would be avoided or reduced to less than significant levels and would avoid conflicts with water quality standards established by the LARWQCB.

Long-term impacts would result from operation of the completed Project. Such impacts could result from stormwater runoff of impervious surfaces on the Project site. The Project is considered a Planning Priority Project as it is a development equal to or greater than 1 acre in size that adds more than 10,000 square feet of impervious surface area. As such, the Project would require a Low Impact Development Plan (LID Plan), which would be reviewed and approved through the City’s plan check process, to comply with the following requirements:
62 Retain stormwater runoff on-site for the Stormwater Quality Design Volume (SWQDv) defined as the runoff from:

62 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.

Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 63 April 2020
o The 85th percentile 24-hour runoff event as determined from the Los Angeles County 85th percentile precipitation isohyetal map; or
o The volume of runoff produced from a 0.75 inch, 24-hour rain event, whichever is greater.
Minimize hydromodification impacts to natural drainage systems. When, as determined by the City, 100 percent on-site retention of the SWQDv is technically infeasible, the infeasibility shall be demonstrated in the submitted LID plan.

If partial or complete on-site retention is technically infeasible, the Project Site may biofiltrate 1.5 times the portion of the remaining SWQDv that is not reliably retained on-site.

BMPs required by the City’s LID ordinance include ensuring sidewalks fronting the Project Site are clear of dirt or litter; cleaning parking lots with 25 or more spaces as frequently and thoroughly as practicable; diverting surface and roof flows to landscaped areas before discharge; and treating any portion of the SWQDv that cannot be retained or biofiltered on-site in order to reduce pollutant loading. Therefore, with conformance to the City’s LID requirements and incorporation of required construction and post-construction BMPs, the Project would not result in the violation of any water quality standards or WDRs, and impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City is a retail water supplier that serves the majority of its residents. In 2016, the City prepared the most recent Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) in cooperation with other water-serving agencies in the surrounding region. The City is a subagency of the Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District (Upper District), a wholesale water agency.

The UWMP states that the City currently derives its water supply from groundwater wells that produce water from two groundwater basins: the Main San Gabriel Basin (the City’s main groundwater source) and the Raymond Basin. In the 2014-2015 fiscal year, the City pumped a total of 12,010 acre-feet from the Main Basin and 3,316 acre-feet from the Raymond Basin. 63 Further, the City can purchase
imported water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD); however, the City does not typically use this alternative (the last time water was imported was in the 2009-2010 fiscal year) because the City’s groundwater supplies are sufficient to meet water demands. 64 The City owns and operates seven active groundwater wells in the Main Basin, with a collective capacity of 15,200 gallons per minute (gpm). Additionally, there are seven groundwater wells in the Raymond Basin, with a collective capacity of 4,300 gpm. 65 The UWMP concluded that based on current management practices, including reduced pumping in the Raymond Basin, the City would be able to rely on the Main Basin, the Raymond Basin, and imported water for adequate supply for 20 years (as of publication of the UWMP in 2016), under single-year and multiple-year drought scenarios.

There are no groundwater wells on the Project Site and none are proposed. Further, the Proposed Project would not involve a General Plan amendment or zone change. The City’s UWMP has

63 City of Arcadia, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, prepared by Stetson Engineers, Inc., Page 6-1, June 2016. 64 City of Arcadia, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, prepared by Stetson Engineers, Inc., June 2016. 65 City of Arcadia, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, prepared by Stetson Engineers, Inc., June 2016.

Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 64 April 2020
accounted for future water consumption of existing and planned land uses, such as the Proposed Project.

Operation of the Proposed Project would not interfere with groundwater recharge. The Project Site is located in an urbanized area and is currently developed with a restaurant building and a surface parking lot. The Proposed Project would replace these existing improvements with an approximately 44,000-square-foot assisted living and memory care facility surrounded by surface parking, drive aisles, outdoor walking paths and community areas, and managed landscaping. As such, the Proposed Project would reduce, but not substantially change, the amount of impervious surface area on-site to affect groundwater levels beneath the Project Site. If groundwater levels were to be affected, the effect would be minimal and likely beneficial given the Project’s reduction in overall impervious surfaces as compared with existing conditions. Therefore, the Project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. Impacts to groundwater would be less than significant.
c.i) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project Site is fully developed and landscaped and does not contain any natural drainage courses. There is also no historical evidence of localized ponding or flooding on the Project Site. Because the Project Site is currently fully developed, the Proposed Project would not result in a substantial alteration of the existing drainage pattern, as the Proposed Project would continue to discharge excess stormwater into the City’s storm sewer system.

Construction and operation of the Proposed Project could result in some erosion or siltation on- or off-site. As stated in the response to Checklist Question VII.b of this Initial Study, erosion of uncovered soils during construction activities would be prevented by complying with the NPDES Construction General Permit requirements, which require construction activities to incorporate BMPs to prevent erosion off-site. Additionally, because the Proposed Site is greater than 1 acre, the City requires the preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, which would establish erosion and sedimentation controls. Otherwise, the operation of the Proposed Project would result in almost the entire site covered in either impervious surfaces, such as the building, surrounding parking areas, outdoor structures (i.e., outdoor gathering spaces, refuse and generator enclosures, and storage shed), and concrete walkways, as well as managed landscaped areas. Because almost the entire site would be covered by either impervious surfaces or managed gardens/turf areas, there would be very little potential for erosion during long-term operation of the Project.

Therefore, the Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the Project Site or area in a manner that would result in erosion or siltation, on- or off-site, and impacts related to erosion and siltation would be less than significant.

Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 65 April 2020
c.ii) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? Less Than Significant Impact. As stated in response to Checklist Question X.c.i, the existing, relatively flat Project Site is fully developed with a restaurant building and an impervious, surface parking lot. Therefore, the Proposed Project, which would include a slight reduction in impervious surfaces due to the increase in landscaped areas, would not result in a substantial alteration of the existing drainage pattern of the Project Site. Because the Project Site is not located within a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Hazard Zone (the Project Site is located in a Zone X, Area of Minimal Flood Hazard), there is no evidence that the site or the immediately surrounding area is subject to flooding.
66 Therefore, potential impacts of the Proposed Project on local drainage and flooding would be less than significant.
c.iii) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
Less Than Significant Impact. See the responses to Thresholds X.c.i and X.c.ii, above. The existing, relatively flat Project Site is fully developed with a restaurant building and an impervious, surface parking lot. Therefore, the Proposed Project, which would include a slight reduction in impervious surfaces, would not result in a substantial alteration of the existing drainage pattern of the Project Site.

As the Proposed Project would increase the total amount of pervious landscape areas on the Project Site, it would not contribute additional runoff as compared with existing conditions. Further, the Project would be required to develop a LID Plan, which would retain stormwater runoff on-site for the SWQDv defined as the runoff from the 85
th percentile 24-hour runoff event. Further, the SWPPP
discussed above would prevent discharge of sediment or other water pollution commonly generated by Project construction. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner which would create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. As such, potential impacts of the Proposed Project on stormwater drainage systems would be less than significant. c.iv) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would impede or redirect flood flows? Less Than Significant Impact. As stated above, the Project Site is located within a Zone X, Area of Minimal Flood Hazard, according to the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map for the area. Further, because the project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the Project Site, the Project would not alter the site or area in a manner which would impede or redirect flood flows, and impacts would be less than significant.

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

Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 66 April 2020
d) Would the project in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
No Impact. A seiche is the sudden oscillation of water that occurs in an enclosed, landlocked body of water due to wind, earthquake, or other factors. There are no reservoirs or other bodies of water near the Project Site that could result in seiche impacts to the Project; therefore, the Project would not place structures in areas subject to inundation by seiche.

A tsunami is an unusually large wave or set of waves that is triggered in most cases by a seaquake or an underwater volcanic eruption. The Project Site is located more than 25 miles away from the Pacific Ocean. Given this distance, the Project would not place structures in areas subject to inundation by tsunami.

Finally, as stated above, the Project Site is located within a Zone X, Area of Minimal Flood Hazard, according to the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map for the area. However, the Project Site is located within a designated inundation area for the Morris S. Jones Reservoir. As stated in the General Plan Safety Element, the dams above Arcadia are regulated and monitored for structural safety by the California Department of Water Resources, in accordance with Division 3 of the California State Water Code. Such regulation reduces the chance of catastrophic failure and inundation of downstream areas, such as the Project Site.
67 Water quality controls on-site, such as maintenance of landscape areas, and proper storage of any hazardous materials would prevent the release of pollutants in the unlikely event that the Project Site would be inundated by catastrophic dam failure. Therefore, the Project Site is not located within a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zone and would have no impact as it relates to the release of pollutants due to flood-, tsunami-, or seiche-related inundation. e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. As stated above, the City of Arcadia’s 2015 UWMP states that the Main Basin groundwater supply is the City’s main source of water, accounting for approximately 78 percent of the City’s water supply. The Main Basin Watermaster, an organization created in the 1970s to resolve water demand issues that arose in the San Gabriel Basin, is tasked with general management of the groundwater basin, including addressing volatile organic compound (VOC) contamination that was discovered in the 1970s and 1980s. The Watermaster’s Five Year Water Quality and Supply Plan is an annually updated document that projects both water supply and water quality. In the 2019 plan update (2019 Supply Plan), the Watermaster reports that total groundwater production for the Main Basin in fiscal year 2018-2019 was 189,100 acre-feet, which is lower than the 10-year average of 203,000 acre-feet. 68 While groundwater production has experienced a general long-term increase, corresponding to a population increase in the Main Basin’s service area, a gradual decrease in production since the late 2000s is likely resulting from increased water conservation practices by consumers. The 2019 Supply Plan shows that 2018-2019 fiscal year groundwater production in the City of Arcadia was approximately 10,774 acre-feet and projects groundwater demands to fluctuate between 9,565 and 10,953 acre-feet between the 2019-2020 and the 2023-2024 fiscal years. 69 Further, the groundwater elevations at all seven of the Main Basin groundwater wells in the City of Arcadia are projected to increase between 2018 and 2024, indicating a projected increase in water supplies.70 Lastly,

67 City of Arcadia, General Plan Safety Element, November 2010. 68 Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster, Five-Year Water Quality and Supply Plan, Figure 10, November 2019. 69 Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster , Five-Year Water Quality and Supply Plan, Appendix A, November 2019. 70 Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster, Five-Year Water Quality and Supply Plan, Appendix B, November 2019.

Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 67 April 2020
the 2019 Supply Plan details how the Watermaster coordinates with local and regional agencies to monitor groundwater quality and potential groundwater well contamination points.

Because the Proposed Project would not result in a substantial increase in potable water demand, and because it would not involve the use, disposal, or storage of hazardous chemicals that could impact water quality, the Proposed Project would not interfere with the Main Basin Watermaster’s 2019 Supply Plan, and impacts would be less than significant.

XI. Land Use and Planning

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
LAND USE AND PLANNING:

Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? ܆ ܆ ܆ ܈
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
Discussion
a) Would the project physically divide an established community? No Impact. As shown in Figure A-13, Aerial View of the Project Site and Surroundings, of this Initial Study, the Project Site is located within a fully urbanized area where the built environment consists of single-family residential uses to the east and south, commercial uses to the west, and I-210 to the north. The physical arrangement of the surrounding private lots, streets, and utility infrastructure has been established for many years. The Proposed Project would use an existing public street (Colorado Boulevard) for access to the senior living facility and would connect to existing utilities in adjacent streets. The Proposed Project would not result in the construction of a linear feature, such as railroad tracks, a flood control channel, or a major roadway, or the removal of a means of access that would result in a physical division of an established community. No physical alterations to any land use or the physical structure of this part of the City of Arcadia are proposed outside of the Project Site. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not physically divide an established community and there would be no impact.
b) Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Less Than Significant Impact. As stated in the Project Description of this Initial Study, the existing General Plan land use designation for the Project Site is Commercial, with a corresponding zoning of C-G, General Commercial. A residential care facility is allowed within the C-G, General Commercial with an approved CUP.
71 The Project Site is also included within two existing overlay zones, the Architectural Design Overlay Zone and the Automobile Parking Overlay Zone. The Architectural Design Overlay Zone states that various building design characteristics (such as building exterior materials, roof pitch, window size, landscaping, and automobile parking area) shall be subject to

71 City of Arcadia, Development Code Section 9102.03.020.

Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 68 April 2020
Planning Commission review and approval. Further, the Architectural Design Overlay Zone states that only one free-standing sign shall be permitted and located within 100 feet of the northern and western property lines, the maximum building height shall not reach 30 feet above ground level, and no structure erected or permitted shall exceed 19,500 square feet of ground floor area. 72,73 The Automobile Parking overlay zone states that the overlay area shall be limited to ground level parking only.

As part of the Project, the Applicant has requested a zone change to remove these two overlay zones.

Regardless, the Project would not represent a substantial change in urban form over existing conditions. More specifically, the eastern portion of the Project Site, which is currently included within the Automobile Parking Overlay Zone, would remain as surface parking under the Proposed Project conditions. The southern portion of the Project Site, which is also included within the Automobile Parking Overlay Zone, would include developed open space with no above-ground structures except a small storage shed in the southeastern corner of the Project Site and an eight-foot-high decorative fence around the perimeter of the open space area. Further, the majority of the proposed memory care facility located on the northeastern portion of the Project Site would be limited to 30 feet in height, consistent with the existing Architectural Design Overlay Zone, with only the north-central portion of the facility extending to 37.5 feet in height (with an additional 2.5-foot-high decorative cupola). With the removal of these two overlay zones, development on the Project Site would be regulated by the development standards of the underlying General Commercial (C-G) zone, such as regulations regarding building height and setback distance from residential land uses. These development standards include, but are not limited to, a 40-foot building height maximum and a 20- foot building setback when abutting residential uses. Based on the Project details included in the Project Description, the Project would be consistent with the development standards and regulation of the underlying General Commercial (C-G) zone upon approval of a CUP. Further, the Arcadia General Plan Parks, Recreation, and Community Resources Element does not identify any land use restrictions for the Project Site that would require conservation of the Project Site for purposes of protecting wildlife habitat or other natural resources. There are no policies in the Safety Element that establish land use restrictions for the Project Site pertaining to avoidance of environmental hazards on or near the Project Site. The Project Site is not within an area where special land use policies or zoning standards have been created for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects, nor is it within a local coastal program. As such, the Project would not conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation established for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, and impacts related to land use and planning would be less than significant.

72 City of Arcadia Resolution No. 4440, signed and approved July 2, 1974. 73 City of Arcadia Ordinance No. 1510, signed and approved July 16, 1974.

Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 69 April 2020
XII. Mineral Resources

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
MINERAL RESOURCES:

Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and
the residents of the state?
܆ ܆ ܆ ܈
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-
important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan or other land
use plan?
܆ ܆ ܆ ܈
Discussion
a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact. The Project Site is located within a fully urbanized area and is currently developed with a restaurant building and a surface parking lot. The City’s General Plan EIR Mineral Resources Section states that there are no oil, gas, or geothermal resources within the City of Arcadia.74 The only oil well in the City of Arcadia is owned by the Vosburgh Oil Corporation and is plugged and abandoned. 75 Because this well is abandoned and located approximately 2.5 miles southeast of the Project Site, the Project Site is not located within any known oil, gas, or geothermal resource areas, and the Project Site is already developed with a non-extraction use, the Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of regional or Statewide value. Therefore, no impact to mineral resources would occur.
b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact. As stated above, the Project Site is located in a fully urbanized area and is currently developed with a restaurant building and a surface parking lot. The City’s General Plan EIR Mineral Resources section states that the Project Site is located within a Mineral Resource Zone-3 (MRZ-3) area, which is composed of the northwestern and southern portions of the City where the available data which would be used to determine the significance of mineral deposits are unavailable. 76 Other areas of the City, including areas along the Sierra Madre Wash, Santa Anita Wash, and the San Gabriel River, are designated as MRZ-2 because significant mineral deposits may be present and development in such areas should be controlled. The City’s General Plan EIR identifies four sites within the City that are located within MRZ-2 zones and remain undeveloped at the time of the General Plan update in 2010. These are the Los Angeles County flood control wash and infiltration basin, the former Rodeffer sand and gravel excavation site, the Peck Road Spreading Basins/Water Conservation Park, and the Livingston-Graham sand and gravel excavation site. The Project Site is not located within or adjacent to these MRZ-2 locations. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in the loss of

74 City of Arcadia, General Plan Update Draft Program EIR, Section 4.10 Mineral Resources, July 2010. 75 California Department of Conservation, Department of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources, Well Finder online mapping application, map generated December 3, 2019.
76 City of Arcadia, General Plan Update Draft Program EIR, Exhibit 4.10-1, July 2010.

Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 70 April 2020
availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan. As such, no impact to mineral resources would occur.

XIII. Noise

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

Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
܆ ܈ ܆ ܆
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
܆ ܆ ܆ ܈
Discussion
a) Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The Project vicinity consists of residential and commercial uses. The primary sources of stationary noise in the Project vicinity are urban activities (e.g., mechanical equipment, HVAC units, and parking areas). The noise associated with these sources may represent a single-event noise occurrence, or short-term or long- term/continuous noise. The majority of existing noise in the Project vicinity is generated by vehicular sources along I-210 and Colorado Boulevard. According to the Arcadia General Plan, traffic noise levels along I-210 and Colorado Boulevard range from 60 to 85 dBA CNEL. Additionally, aircraft overflights and trains are a source of noise in the City of Arcadia.

To quantify existing ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity, three noise measurements were taken on December 11, 2019 (see Table XIII-1). The noise measurement sites were representative of typical existing noise exposure within and immediately adjacent to the Project Site. Ten-minute measurements were taken between 10:00 a.m. and 11:30 a.m. Short-term (L eq) measurements are considered
representative of the noise levels throughout the day.

Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 71 April 2020
Table XIII-1
Noise Measurements
Site
No. Location Leq
(dBA)
Lmin
(dBA)
Lmax
(dBA)
Peak
(dBA) Time
1 In front of 1159 Altura Terrace, Arcadia, CA
91007 73.5 93.3 47.8 100.3 10:09 a.m.
2 Northeast corner of Catalpa Road and North
Altura Road 55.5 67.7 51.3 87.2 10:26 a.m.
3 Corner of 21 South Michillinda Avenue, adjacent
to Michillinda Avenue 66.8 79.9 58.8 99.4 10:57 a.m.

Notes: dBA = A-weighted decibels; Leq = Equivalent Sound Level; Lmin = Minimum Sound Level; Lmax = Maximum Sound Level Source: Michael Baker International, December 11, 2019, available as Appendix D of this Initial Study.

Construction
Construction of the Proposed Project would occur over approximately 19 months and would include demolition, grading, paving, building construction, and architectural coating. Ground-borne noise and other types of construction-related noise impacts would typically occur during the grading phase. This phase of construction has the potential to create the highest levels of noise. Typical noise levels generated by construction equipment are shown in Table XIII-2. It should be noted that the noise levels identified in Table XIII-2 are maximum sound levels (L max), which are the highest individual sounds occurring at an individual time period. Operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve one or two minutes of full power operation followed by three to four minutes at lower power settings. Other primary sources of acoustical disturbance would be due to random incidents, which would last less than one minute (such as dropping large pieces of equipment or the hydraulic movement of machinery lifts).

Table XIII-2
Maximum Noise Levels Generated by Construction Equipment Type of Equipment Acoustical Use Factor1 Lmax at 10 Feet (dBA) Lmax at 50 Feet (dBA) Concrete Saw 20 104 90
Crane 16 93 81
Concrete Mixer Truck 40 93 79
Backhoe 40 92 78
Dozer 40 96 82
Excavator 40 95 81
Forklift 40 92 78
Paver 50 91 77
Roller 20 94 80
Tractor 40 98 84
Water Truck 40 94 80
Grader 40 99 85
General Industrial Equipment 50 99 85
Notes: dBA = A-weighted decibels; Lmax = Maximum Sound Level

1. Acoustical Use Factor (percent): Estimates the fraction of time each piece of construction equipment is operating at full po wer (i.e., its loudest condition) during a construction operation.

Source: Federal Highway Administration, Roadway Construction Noise Model (FHWA-HEP-05-054), January 2006.

Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 72 April 2020
Pursuant to Arcadia Municipal Code Article IV, Chapter 2, Disorderly Conduct, Nuisances, Etc. , construction activities may only occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturday. Construction activities are prohibited on Sundays and holidays. These permitted hours of construction are included in the Arcadia Municipal Code in recognition that construction activities undertaken during daytime hours are a typical part of living in an urban environment and do not cause a significant disruption. The potential for construction-related noise to affect nearby residential receptors would depend on the location and proximity of construction activities to these receptors. Construction would occur throughout the Project Site and would not be concentrated or confined in the area directly adjacent to sensitive receptors. Therefore, construction noise would be acoustically dispersed throughout the Project Site and not concentrated in one area near adjacent sensitive uses. It should be noted that the noise levels depicted in Table XIII-2 are maximum noise levels, which would occur sporadically when construction equipment is operated in proximity to sensitive receptors.

The closest existing sensitive receptors are residents adjoining (i.e., approximately 10 feet) the Project Site to the east and south. As indicated in Table XIII-2, typical construction noise levels would range from approximately 91 to 104 dBA at this distance. 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. Consequently, Mitigation Measure NOI-1 is recommended to reduce short-term construction noise impacts through noise reduction methods. Mitigation Measure NOI-1 requires all construction equipment to be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers, stationary construction equipment to be located such that emitted noise is directed away from the nearest noise sensitive receptors, and equipment staging is in areas farthest away from sensitive receptors. Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would ensure that construction noise impacts at nearby sensitive receptors do not interfere with normal residential activities.

Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 , noise impact from construction activities would be considered less than significant.

Operation
Mobile Noise
The existing Coco’s Restaurant generates approximately 582 trips per day, and the Proposed Project would generate approximately 208 trips per day. 77 Therefore, the Proposed Project would generate a net decrease of approximately 374 daily trips when compared to the existing use. As such, the Project’s trip generation would reduce existing traffic volumes and, in turn, reduce traffic noise levels along local roadways. Therefore, Project-related traffic noise would be less than significant.

In addition to the mobile sources of noise identified above, the Project vicinity may also be impacted by noise generated by emergency ambulance visits to the Project Site. While there may be a perception that the proposed use would result in a greater number of ambulance visits to the area than the existing commercial use, it is not possible and highly speculative to predict medical emergencies that require visits from emergency vehicles. Ambulances traveling to and from the Project Site would likely use high-volume transit corridors, such as Colorado Boulevard and Michillinda Avenue, to access the Project Site, rather than passing through the residential neighborhoods to the east and south. Further, the decision to use a siren and lights is made by the vehicle driver and is dependent upon traffic

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

Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 73 April 2020
conditions and the welfare of the patient. As such, emergency response vehicles may not engage the siren in every instance and would likely turn off the siren upon arriving at the facility. Thus, because an ambulance siren may not be engaged in every emergency response situation, and because a siren would likely be turned off upon arrival, noise impacts resulting from ambulance visits to the Project Site are anticipated to be infrequent and short-lived in nature. Additionally, the proposed memory care facility would employ medical staff who would be able to address non-life-threatening medical emergencies, such as minor injuries and falls, thus reducing the number of visits from rapid-response emergency vehicles. Regular trips by Project residents to health care facilities would be accommodated through family members or other non-emergency medical transport services, none of which would be equipped with sirens. Finally, Arcadia Municipal Code Section 4610.1(I) exempts emergency vehicles from the restrictions placed on sound amplifying equipment. Therefore, Project-related ambulance noise associated with the Project would be less than significant.

Stationary Noise
Stationary noise sources associated with the Proposed Project would include mechanical equipment, slow-moving trucks, and parking activities. These noise sources are typically intermittent and short in duration and would be comparable to existing sources of noise experienced in the Project vicinity.

Mechanical Equipment
Typically, mechanical equipment can result in noise levels of approximately 55 dBA at 50 feet from the source. Mechanical equipment (e.g., HVAC units and emergency generators) for the Project would be located in fully enclosed spaces throughout the proposed senior living facility. Therefore, the Project would not place mechanical equipment near sensitive receptors (i.e., existing residences adjoining the Project Site to the east and south). As such, noise from mechanical equipment would not be perceptible at the closest sensitive receptors. Impacts from mechanical equipment would be less than significant.

Slow-Moving Trucks
The Proposed Project may involve occasional deliveries and trash/recycling pickups from slow- moving trucks. Typically, a medium two-axle delivery truck can generate a maximum noise level of 75 dBA at a distance of 50 feet.
78 This maximum noise level is assumed to be generated by a truck that is operated by an experienced “reasonable” driver with typically applied accelerations. Noise associated with deliveries and trash/recycling pickups would be consistent with the existing noise environment, as these activities already occur at the commercial uses in the surrounding area. Additionally, slow- moving truck noise would be intermittent, short in duration, and would not generate excessive noise levels over an extended period of time. Therefore, impacts resulting from truck delivery activities would be less than significant.

Parking Areas
Traffic associated with senior living facility parking areas is typically not of sufficient volume to exceed community noise standards, which are based on a time-averaged scale such as the Day-Night Sound Level (L dn) scale. However, the instantaneous maximum sound levels generated by a car door slamming, engine starting up, and car pass-bys may be an annoyance to adjacent noise-sensitive receptors. Estimates of the maximum noise levels associated with some parking activities are presented

78 Measurements taken by Michael Baker International in 2006.

Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 74 April 2020
in Table XIII-3. The Project proposes a surface parking lot with approximately 55 regular parking stalls and 4 parking stalls that comply with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements.

Table XIII-3
Maximum Noise Levels Generated by Parking Lots
Noise Source Maximum Noise Levels
at 10 Feet from Source
Maximum Noise Levels
at 50 Feet from Source
Car door slamming 75.0 dBA Leq 61 dBA Leq
Car starting 74.0 dBA Leq 60 dBA Leq
Car idling 67.0 dBA Leq 53 dBA Leq
Notes: dBA = A-weighted Decibels; Leq = Equivalent Sound Level Source: Kariel, H. G., “Noise in Rural Recreational Environments,” Canadian Acoustics 19(5), 3-10, 1991.

It should be noted that parking lot noise generates instantaneous noise levels compared to noise standards in the L dn scale, which are averaged over time. As a result, actual noise levels over time resulting from parking lot activities would be far lower. The adjoining residences to the east and south would be located approximately 10 feet from the proposed surface parking lot. As such, parking lot noise levels would be approximately 67 to 75 dBA at these sensitive receptors. However, parking lot activities and associated noise levels are intermittent and sporadic, and an existing parking lot is located within the same distance to the nearest adjoining residences as the proposed surface parking lot.

Therefore, as the Project would not introduce a new source of noise in the Project vicinity, and parking lot noise would be infrequent, noise impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure
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:
x 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.
x 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 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.

Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 75 April 2020
x During construction, stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers. x 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.
x Construction haul routes shall be designed to avoid noise-sensitive uses (e.g., residences and convalescent homes) to the extent feasible. b) Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Less Than Significant Impact. Project construction can generate varying degrees of ground-borne vibration, depending on the construction procedure and construction equipment used. Operation of construction equipment generates vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in amplitude with distance from the source. The effect on buildings located in the vicinity of the construction site often varies depending on soil type, ground strata, and construction characteristics of the receiver building(s). The results from vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibration at moderate levels, to slight damage at the highest levels. Groundborne vibrations from construction activities rarely reach levels that damage structures.

Construction vibration impacts include human annoyance and building damage. Human annoyance occurs when construction vibration rises significantly above the threshold of human perception for extended periods of time. Building damage can be cosmetic or structural. Ordinary buildings that are not particularly fragile would not experience any cosmetic damage (e.g., plaster cracks) at distances beyond 30 feet. This distance can vary substantially depending on the soil composition and underground geological layer between vibration source and receiver. In addition, not all buildings respond similarly to vibration generated by construction equipment. For example, buildings that are constructed with typical timber frames and masonry show that a vibration level of up to 0.2 inch-per- second peak particle velocity (PPV) is considered safe and would not result in any construction vibration damage.79 The City currently does not have a significance threshold to assess construction vibration impacts. 80 Therefore, this analysis uses the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) architectural damage criterion for continuous vibrations at non-engineered timber and masonry buildings of 0.2 inch-per-second PPV and human annoyance criterion of 0.2 inch-per-second PPV in accordance with California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) guidance. 81 The FTA has

79 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018. 80 City of Arcadia Municipal Code Article IX, Division 3, Section 9103.13, Performance Standards, exempts vibration generated from construction activities.
81 California Department of Transportation, Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, Table 20, September 2013.

Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 76 April 2020
published standard vibration velocities for construction equipment operations. The vibration levels produced by construction equipment is illustrated in Table XIII-4.

Table XIII-4
Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment
Equipment
Approximate peak particle
velocity at 28 feet
(inches/second)a
Approximate peak particle
velocity at 40 feet
(inches/second)a
Vibratory roller 0.177 0.104
Large bulldozer 0.075 0.044
Loaded trucks 0.064 0.038
Jackhammer 0.030 0.017
Small bulldozer 0.003 0.001
Notes:
a Calculated using the following formula:

PPV equip = PPVref x (25/D)1.5
where: PPV (equip) = the peak particle velocity in in/sec of the equipment adjusted for the distance PPV (ref) = the reference vibration level in in/sec from Table 7-4 of the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual
D = the distance from the equipment to the receiver
Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018.

Ground-borne vibration decreases rapidly with distance. The nearest structures are located approximately 28 feet to the south and 40 feet to the east of the proposed construction activities. As indicated in Table XIII-4, vibration velocities from typical heavy construction equipment used during Project construction would range from 0.003 (a small bulldozer) to 0.177 (vibratory roller) inch-per- second PPV at the nearest structure (i.e., 28 feet) from the source of activity, which would not exceed FTA’s 0.2 inch-per-second PPV threshold. Further, construction vibration would not cause excessive human annoyance as the highest ground-borne vibration nearest sensitive receptors (i.e., 0.177 inch- per-second PPV) would not exceed the 0.2 inch-per-second PPV human annoyance criteria.

Therefore, the proposed construction activities associated with the Project would not expose sensitive receptors to excessive ground-borne vibration levels. As such, vibration impacts associated with construction would be less than significant.
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact
. The nearest airport to the Project Site is the San Gabriel Airport (also known as El Monte Airport), which is approximately 4.5 miles to the southeast. According to the County of Los Angeles’ Airports and Airport Influence Areas Map , the Project Site is not located within the El Monte Airport Influence Area.82 Additionally, the Project Site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or related facilities. Therefore, Project implementation would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels associated with aircraft, and no impacts would occur.

82 County of Los Angeles, Airports and Airport Influence Areas Map, http://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/upl/project/ALUC_Airports_Aug2018_rev3.pdf, accessed December 26, 2019.

Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 77 April 2020
XIV. Population and Housing

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
POPULATION AND HOUSING:

Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in
an area, either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
܆ ܆ ܆ ܈
Discussion
a) Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Less Than Significant. The Proposed Project would construct an 80-bed senior-living, memory care facility; however, it would not include construction of growth-inducing infrastructure, such as roadway or utility extensions to areas not already provided with such services. The Project is anticipated to generate approximately 80 residents and approximately 40 employees. 83,84 Because the Project is consistent with the underlying zoning and General Plan designation for the parcel, the population growth associated with the Project would have been anticipated and planned for in the City of Arcadia General Plan. Further, the SCAG 2016-2040 RTP/SCS provides population and employment growth estimates for municipalities within its jurisdiction, including the City of Arcadia. The 2016-2040 RTP/SCS estimates that population in Arcadia will increase from 56,700 in 2012 to 65,900 by 2040, and employment would increase from 28,900 in 2012 to 34,400 in 2040. 85 Using these growth forecasts, the Proposed Project would account for approximately 0.9 percent of forecasted population growth between 2012 and 2040 and 0.7 percent of forecasted employment growth between 2012 and 2040 in the City of Arcadia. As such, the Proposed Project would not result in substantial unplanned population growth in the area, either directly or indirectly and impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. The Project Site currently contains a restaurant building and surface parking lots and does not currently contain any housing units. Thus, there are no current on-site residents or housing

83 Employees were calculated using the Southern California Association of Government’s Employment Density Report, which provided an average employee density of 14.24 employees per acre for Special Care Facilities in Los Angeles County. As the Project Site is 2.79 acres in size, the estimated number of employees serving the project would be 40.
84 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. 85 Southern California Association of Governments, Appendix, Demographics and Growth Forecast, Table 11, April 2016.

Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 78 April 2020
units on the Project Site that would be displaced as part of the Proposed Project. Therefore, there would be no impact.

XV. Public Services

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
PUBLIC SERVICES:
a) 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 any of the public
services:
܆ ܆ ܆ ܆
i) Fire protection? ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
ii) Police protection? ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
iii) Schools? ܆ ܆ ܆ ܈
iv) Parks? ܆ ܆ ܆ ܈
v) Other public facilities? ܆ ܆ ܆ ܈
Discussion
a.i) 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 fire protection?
Less Than Significant Impact. The development of 80 assisted living and memory care residential units, along with landscaping, outdoor living areas, drive aisles, and a surface parking lot, would incrementally increase the demand for fire protection and emergency medical services.

In compliance with Standard Condition 4.13-1 in the City’s General Plan EIR, new development in the City must comply with the California Fire Code and Arcadia Fire Department regulations pertaining to building construction, fire flows and pressures, hydrant placement, and other requirements that would reduce the creation of fire hazards and would facilitate emergency response.

Further, building plans and structures are reviewed by the Arcadia Fire Department for compliance with applicable safety and emergency access standards. This review would determine if fire flow (1,000 gallons per minute for two hours for residential construction), access, and fire hydrant placement would be sufficient or if expanded facilities are required. Upon review of the Project’s Site plan, the Arcadia Fire Department determined that site circulation and emergency access would be sufficient to accommodate a fire engine.

Artis Senior Housing Project
Draft Initial Study Page 79 April 2020
Therefore, with compliance with California Fire Code and Arcadia Fire Department regulations governing hydrant placement, fire flows, and building construction, and with the Arcadia Fire Department’s review and approval of the Project Site’s access and circulation plans, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact on service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for fire protection and emergency medical services.
a.ii) 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 police protection?
Less Than Significant Impact. The development of 80 assisted living and memory care residential units, along with landscaping, outdoor living areas, drive aisles, and a surface parking lot, would incrementally increase the demand for police protection (such as Project Site security and responding to minor crimes). Law enforcement is provided by the Arcadia Police Department, with the nearest police station located approximately 1.7 miles southeast of the Project Site, at 250 West Huntington Drive. The Arcadia Police Department is equipped with an 18-bed, pre-arraignment jail, an evidence lab, a computer forensics lab, and other investigative equipment. 86 The Police Department is staffed
by 68 sworn officers and 33 non-sworn support staff for an officer to population ratio of 1.36 sworn officers per 1,000 persons.
87 As discussed in Section XIV, Population and Housing, above, the Proposed Project is anticipated to generate approximately 80 residents and approximately 40 employees. The Proposed Project would also include on-site security resources, such as security guards and orderlies, to patrol the grounds, monitor locked entry and exit points to the property, and protect residents. Therefore, the Proposed Project is anticipated to have limited need for police services, other than to address infrequent minor crimes or vandalism issues on the property. Further, the Proposed Project would be required to comply with Policy S-5.11 of the Arcadia General Plan, which states that new development projects would be required “to pay their fair share of costs associated with any necessary increases in public safety equipment, facilities, and staffing to provide life safety protection.”88 Therefore, because the Proposed Project would include security personnel to address Project-specific security concerns, and because any other Project-related police service demands would be mitigated by the required fair share fees paid by the Project applicant, impacts would be less than significant. a.iii) 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 schools?
No Impact. The Project Site is located within the Arcadia Unified School District; however, the Project would include demolition of an existing restaurant building and construction of 80 memory care residential units. Because the 80 units would be inhabited by seniors affected by memory loss,

Arcadia City CouncilAugust 20, 2024

Arcadia City Council
August 20, 2024